HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA201200009 Legacy Document 2012-12-19 (24)Albemarle County Planning Commission
July 17, 2012
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 17,
2012, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401
McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Thomas Loach, Richard Randolph, Don Franco, Calvin Morris
and Russell (Mac) Lafferty. Commission members absent were Ed Smith and Bruce
Dotson. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia
was present.
Staff present was Sarah Baldwin, Senior Planner; Christopher Perez, Senior Planner;
Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Mark Graham, Director of Community Development;
and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a
quorum.
The Planning Commission took a ten minute break at 7:20 p.m. and the meeting
reconvened at 7:30 p.m.
ZTA- 2012 -00006 Ministerial Review Process
Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 32, Site Plans, 35.1, Fees, and 35.2, Calculation of fees
in special circumstances, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This
ordinance would add and delete definitions (3.1), repeal existing site plan regulations
(32.1 through 32.7.10.2) and add new site plan regulations in Sec. 32 pertaining to
general provisions (32.1 et seq.), applicability (32.2 et seq.), administration (32.3 et
seq.), procedures for submittal, review and action on site plans (32.4 et seq.), the form
and content of initial site plans (32.5 et seq.), the form and content of final site plans
(32.6 et seq.), minimum standards for improvements (32.7 et seq.), and the completion
of on -site improvements and surety (32.8 et seq.). This ordinance also would amend
Sec. 35.1 to add a $500 fee for preapplication plans but which would also be applied
toward the initial site plan fee, add a $240 fee for resubmitting a final site plan within 15
days after it has been disapproved for being incomplete, change references to fees for
"preliminary" site plans to "initial" site plans, change cross - references to revised section
numbers to which fees pertain. This ordinance also would amend Sec. 35.2 to change
references to "preliminary" site plans to "initial" site plans. The proposed fees are
authorized by Virginia Code §§ 15.2- 2241(9) and 15.2- 2286(A)(6). A copy of the full text
of the ordinance, and documentation pertaining to the proposed fees, are on file in the
office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community
Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Bill
Fritz)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS
SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12
Mr. Fritz presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the request for ZTA-
2012-06 Ministerial Review Process. Staff has done a lot of work on this. A lot of the
slides the Commission have seen previously. It is a demonstration that this has been a
process that has been ongoing and staff has been fine tuning the proposal.
Clarifying the Goals
• Shorten Approval Times and Cost of Development Review
• Avoid Unnecessary and Burdensome Regulations
• Maintain Opportunities for Public Info / Input
• Maintain Community Quality
Guiding Concepts (principles)
• Predictable for applicants and citizens
• Maintains opportunity for public input
• Maintains quality development
• Reduces approval time
At the five work sessions and the two roundtables they kept coming back to the guiding
concepts /principles.
Key Elements in Proposed Ordinance
• Preapplication submittal with review in 10 days to determine main issues and
required waivers
• Allow the issuance of grading permits with the approval of the initial (preliminary)
site plan
• Establish clearer submittal requirements for the final site plan
• Allows for significant reduction in level of detail required for minor site plan
amendments.
• Provides for a purely administrative review process.
• Incorporates the Architectural Review Board review earlier in the process.
• Establish that any comment not responded to within 6 months deems the project
withdrawn
• Improves organization which makes interpretation and administration easier for
both applicants and staff.
• Uses language similar to that contained in the Subdivision Ordinance.
• Updates language to match current state code language and court decisions.
• Minor changes to fees.
These items were taken directly from the staff report. There are some things that were
not done significantly. One of the things was a reduction in plan content. It was one of
the things they wanted to try to do. They did include a text amendment that will allow
for rather significant reductions in the level of detail that needs to be included on minor
site plan amendments so they can focus the review into the specific area where the
change is occurring. Staff believes that will make it easier for the applicant, staff, and
the public who is interested in the change. However, they felt if they were reducing the
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 2
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS
SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12
plan content for other plans, the initial plan and the final plan, that there could be a loss
in the quality of the product.
During the work sessions and roundtable discussions many comments were received.
At the Roundtable many of the comments were directed at issues not impacted by the
proposed ordinance amendment, specifically, the quality of the tracking system on the
web, staff training, attendance of senior staff in preapplication meetings, digital submittal
of applications, length of review for Water Protection Ordinance applications, fees for
Erosion and Sediment Control plan review and the Architectural Review Board. Staff
took those comments and will work on those separate from the zoning text amendment.
Some of the comments regarding the Architectural Review Board were relevant to the
proposed ordinance amendments and staff will discuss those comments. However,
many of the comments regarding the Architectural Review Board were directed at the
design standards and decision making process of that body and are beyond the scope
of this ordinance amendment.
Roundtable Comments
• Public Involvement
• Grading Permits Prior to Final Plan Approval
• Recommendations verses Requirements
• Architectural Review Board
Public Involvement
Maintains public notification of the Site Review Committee Meeting and maintains the
public's ability to provide comment on site plans
One of the things they are going to do as part of the implementation of this zoning text
amendment is that staff is going to develop new notices that go out to the public. Key
elements of the notice will include what the project is, where plans may be viewed, who
to contact at the County, when decisions will be made, how to provide comments and
that the project will be reviewed to insure compliance with the ordinance and if the
project meets the minimum regulations that the project will be approved. The notice also
will state that recommendations for changes to the plan may be made and will be
presented to the applicant. If those changes can be required they may be included as
required revisions to the plan. If they cannot be required they will be presented as
recommendations to the applicant who may or may not include the changes in the plan
Grading Permits Prior to Final Approval
After the approval of the initial plan a grading permit may be issued.
The ordinance does not need to be amended because County Code § 17- 204(E).
However, because the absence of express language in the site plan regulations was a
concern raised by some at the most recent roundtable, staff has added Section 32.4.2.8
to expressly provide that, except within the entrance corridor overlay district, a grading
permit may be issued upon approval of the initial site plan. During the most recent
roundtable, concern was expressed about the types of conditions that may be imposed
in conjunction with the approval of the initial site plan prior to the issuance of a
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 3
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS
SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12
grading permit, especially conditions requested by the Architectural Review Board for
those developments within the entrance corridor overlay district. One concern was that
a condition may be made that a grading permit may not be issued until a Certificate of
Appropriateness is issued. This type of condition could occur. Staff would point out that
the current entrance corridor regulations in County Code � 18- 30.6.4 provides that a
grading permit may not be issued until a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued and the
final site plan is approved. The new processes would permit the issuance of grading
permits earlier than may currently occur. At worst, the limits on obtaining a grading
permit under the new process would be that the permit cannot be issued until the
final site plan is signed which is the current standard for issuance. The proposed
language of the ordinance opens the opportunity for grading permits to be issued
earlier. There is no way they could be issued later than they currently are.
Mr. Lafferty asked if he read that they need ARB approval to get a grading permit.
Mr. Fritz replied that it is not that they need ARB approval to get a grading permit. What
they need is approval of the initial plan. Staff is recommending that the Site Review
Committee would approve the initial plan and state a grading permit may be issued
once X, Y and Z are done.
Mr. Lafferty asked if that was the whole committee.
Mr. Fritz replied that was the whole committee. Staff is recommending that the
Architectural Review Board be a member of that committee. If they have a condition
they think needs to be met prior to the issuance of a grading permit they would say what
their condition is and that would be placed on there. If they did not feel that a condition
was necessary they would simply be silent on it and a grading permit could then be
issued. Obviously, one routine condition will be approval of an erosion and sediment
control plan.
Mr. Lafferty said in the worse case it would revert back to the present requirement.
Mr. Fritz agreed it would revert back to what they have right now. It would say the
Architectural Review Board, Planning staff or Engineering staff needed more
information before they thought a grading permit could be issued because utilities in the
area were very shallow; gas lines; or they needed to get the site plan finalized.
Therefore, they could not do it until they have the final plan and they would be right
where they are right now.
Mr. Kamptner asked Mr. Fritz to look at Section 32.4.2.8.b while they are on that point.
He asked if they need to strike the opening clause and leave the discretion to the
Architectural Review Board or to the Site Review Committee to impose a condition as
to whether or not grading on a parcel within the Entrance Corridor can be allowed or
prohibited only by a condition.
Mr. Fritz asked that the question be restated.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 4
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS
SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12
Mr. Kamptner asked should the first clause of Section 32.4.2.8.b that accepts the
Entrance Corridor Overlay District from those situations where the initial site plan is the
approved site plan for purposes of a grading permit. The way it was just described to
the Commission was at the initial site plan review stage they could simply impose a
condition that would require approval of the final site plan before the grading permit is
issued.
Mr. Fritz replied that was correct. However, he believed the language of Section
17.2.04.e has the language contained in it that the erosion sediment control plan will not
be issued if found to be inconsistent with the approval of the plan or a feature of the
plan. So by referencing that he thinks they are okay. He continued the PowerPoint
presentation.
Recommendations vs. Requirements
There are instances where the ordinance does not allow the Site Review Committee to
require changes to achieve improved site design or achieve a goal of the
Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, recommendations will continue to be made.
During the roundtable discussions and work sessions it has been emphasized that staff
will continue to require and recommend changes. The difference between requirements
and recommendations will be stated. All requirements will have to be supported by
specific ordinance provisions. The applicant is not required to modify any plan to
address recommendations. Staff will work on making a clear distinction. It is not
envisioned that staff's level of review is going down at all or interest in the good quality
product is going down.
Architectural Review Board
- The proposed ordinance amendments do not alter in any way the authority of the
Architectural Review Board.
- No changes in the regulations or design standards of the Entrance Corridor
District or the Architectural Review Board are proposed.
- The ordinance amendments only incorporate the Architectural Review Board into
the site review process earlier than currently occurs.
Significant discussion at the Roundtable occurred regarding the role of the Architectural
Review Board. Many of the concerns stated at the Roundtable about the Architectural
Review Board are beyond the scope of this text amendment. It really dealt with how the
ARB does it own work, which staff believes is a separate and distinct conversation from
this zoning text amendment. What this text amendment does and what it does not do
is-
- It does not alter in any way the authority of the Architectural Review Board.
- It does not change the regulations or Design Standards of the Entrance Corridor
District or the Architectural Review Board.
- The ordinance amendments only incorporate the Architectural Review Board into
the site review process earlier than currently occurs.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 5
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS
SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12
The ARB will review all site plans that are within the Entrance Corridor Overlay District
and they will make recommendations and requirements until they issue their Certificate
of Appropriateness and a grading permit and plan cannot be approved until the ARB is
satisfied and a Certificate of Appropriateness is issued.
The Architectural Review Board's authority to regulate a site is not being modified in any
way. The new action by the Architectural Review Board will be review the site plan
earlier in the review process and to authorize the issuance of a grading permit earlier
than currently occurs. The current requirement is that a project must receive a
Certificate of Appropriateness and have the final site plan approved prior to the
issuance of a grading permit. During the review of the initial site plan the Architectural
Review Board may make recommendations they believe would improve the
development. For example the Architectural Review Board may recommend that a
buildings orientation be altered or additional landscaping be provided so that building
design is less of an issue in meeting the standards of the Entrance Corridor. The
applicant is not required to follow this recommendation but has the advantage of
knowing earlier in the review process what will be of concern to the Architectural Review
Board during the review of the building design and the issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness. Another example of a condition may be that for a site with severely
restricted area for landscaping due to utility easements that a landscape plan be
approved prior to the issuance of a grading permit in order to verify that the minimum
requirements of the ordinance will be met. During a work session with the Architectural
Review Board it was determined that the entire Board will not be reviewing and acting
on the initial plan. Staff will be reviewing and acting on the initial plan with some
coordination with the Architectural Review Board.
Mr. Morris asked if that would be limited to the Entrance Corridor.
Mr. Fritz replied that the Architectural Review Board would only be a Site Review
Committee Member and only making comments for projects that are in the Entrance
Corridor District. It is also important to note that during the work session that the
Architectural Review Board had is that the Architectural Review Board as a body will not
be reviewing these projects. They will be relying on staff. They are going to
incorporate their own method of communicating back and forth, but it will be a staff
person that is the committee member representing the Architectural Review Board.
That is not unusual that they would say the Architectural Review Board. For example,
they say VDOT is a member of the Site Review Committee, and obviously there is one
representative of VDOT. There is one representative from the Albemarle County
Service Authority. It is not the board that does it, but is one member. The Architectural
Review Board is going to follow the same sort of process that those other organizations
use.
Mr. Lafferty asked how many of the committee members have to say yes before it goes
through or the process goes forward because there are a lot of people on that
committee.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 6
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS
SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12
Mr. Fritz replied for the initial plan it was none. It would just be the staff person that is
working with the Architectural Review Board. During a work session with the
Architectural Review Board it was determined that the entire Board will not be reviewing
and acting on the initial plan. Staff will be reviewing and acting /making comments on
the initial plan with some coordination with the Architectural Review Board.
Mr. Lafferty asked what happens if the project was outside of the Entrance Corridor.
Mr. Fritz replied that the Architectural Review Board would not be involved.
Mr. Lafferty asked how many members of the committee have to be present in the
review process of the Site Review Committee.
Mr. Fritz replied that process would not change from what they have now. Staff sends
the plans to all the members of the Site Review Committee. Every member of the Site
Review Committee needs to review the proposal to determine if it meets their minimum
requirements for granting approval. If it does not they need to cite what it does not
meet. That would continue. If one member, such as VDOT, says this does not meet
the minimum site distance requirements and it can't be approved, then it cannot be
approved. They have to look at how the ordinance relates and do they make it a
condition or deny the initial. Typically what they do now is make it a condition instead of
denying because typically it can be altered.
Mr. Kamptner said Sections 32.4.2.2 and 32.4.2.8 on pages 42 and 45 both have
subsections that deal with the role of the Architectural Review Board. As described this
draft language does not refer to the representative of Architectural Review Board, it
refers to the board itself. What they really want to be saying here is the representative
of the Architectural Review Board.
Mr. Fritz said they had this conversation before and he would welcome any comments.
They don't say representative of the Albemarle County Service Authority. However,
they are a member of the Site Review Committee. Obviously, it is a member of that
Authority that they have routinely accepted. The United States Department of
Agriculture has one person they talk to. They don't say their designee unless they think
that because it is a County board they need to do something different. However, he did
not see the need to do that since it is a day to day practice.
Mr. Kamptner noted one thing they are trying to accomplish in these two sections is to
define what is taking place at the initial site plan stage with respect to the architectural
review. They are also trying to bring some closure to the issues that will be associated
with the Certificate of Appropriateness. So Section 32.4.2.8 after discussing with some
members of the public he realized that section requires further refinement. They are
trying to narrow the issues that will be considered by the ARB as a Board once the final
goes to the ARB so the issues are not completely reopened if they have done what was
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 7
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS
SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12
either required or recommended by the ARB or the ARB's representative at the initial
site plan stage.
Mr. Fritz said they can certainly change it. He had no problem with writing into the
ordinance to make it very clear that it is the representative of the Architectural Review
Board. The ARB based on their work session would not be opposed to that either.
Mr. Lafferty pointed out he would be more comfortable with that.
Mr. Kamptner said staff will do that. They realize that those two sections just referred to
need some further refinement and clarification and better linkage between the two.
Mr. Fritz noted that was the end of the formal presentation. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission support this amendment and forward it to the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff. There being none, he opened the public hearing
and invited public comment.
Valerie Long, attorney, thanked the Commission for suggesting that staff hold the
roundtable discussion with the development community and others who are interested
in it. As Mr. Morris can attest they had a lively discussion and she thought it was very
productive. It was Mr. Randolph's suggestion initially to seek out opinions from
Chamber of Commerce and others. Generally speaking she thinks the ordinance really
goes in the right direction. She certainly applauds the initiative and effort on the staff's
part to improve the process which is a goal they all share to make it more efficient for
everyone and better serve the goals of the county. She had two comments.
- It looks like the draft ordinance has been changed and updated since the
Roundtable discussion, which has a date of July 10 on it. She was not able to
figure out what changes were made from the prior draft because it looks like it
just shows all the changes compared against the existing ordinance. It would be
helpful to understand what those changes were at some point. It sounds like
they incorporated comments from the Roundtable discussion, but yet she was
not able with any ease to parse those out.
- The other issue has to do with the grading permits. The way she understands
the ordinance works now and she just reread it — there is a section in the current
ordinance that if one has a planned zoning district one can actually get their
grading permit before getting any site plan approval, including any ARB
approvals, as long as the application plan that was approved with the rezoning
showed enough detail with regard to grading and so forth that the county staff
can review the erosion and sediment control grading plan for conformance with
the application plan. That is a significant benefit, especially to large projects that
require a lot of site work, to be able to get that grading permit on the front end
while the site plan is being drawn by the engineers, reviewed by the county staff
and ultimately approved. Especially for a long project the site plan process, even
just the preliminary process, can take a year. It is an incredible benefit to a
project to be able to go in and go ahead and get the grading permit. If she is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 8
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS
SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12
reading this properly it sounds like that process is going to be altered such that
they may have to wait until they have at least preliminary site plan approval
before getting the grading plan. If that was the case and she was reading that
correctly, she would caution that is a major change for a Planned District
Development projects that should take a little more work
- It was said the process was not going to be any worse and actually they think it is
going to get better. She thinks it all fits together very correctly.
Morgan Butler, with the Southern Environmental Law Center, thanked staff primarily for
separating tonight's ordinance amendments from the legislative ordinance amendments
and allowing ministerial changes to be reviewed separately. Both issues are complex
and it is helpful to separate them. Having followed this effort since its outset he did
want to say there are several things in this large packet of proposed amendments that
make sense. It includes filling out clear submittal requirements and reducing the level of
detail required for minor site plan amendments. However, when he read the draft
carefully and also looked at the staff report and read it carefully there are other
suggested changes in here that jump out as being very problematic. Most of these
were late to the effort to make it permissible to strip and grade the land as soon as a
preliminary site plan is approved. He made the following comments.
- His understanding based on the staff reports is that the current default rule is that
a grading permit cannot be issued until a final site plan is approved. He thinks
that was reiterated tonight although there is an exception for Planned
Developments. Also, if the site is in an Entrance Corridor a grading permit
cannot be issued until the ARB determines that the overall layout is consistent
with Design Guidelines with natural features that would serve as good screens or
buffers will be preserved. This makes sense as a default rule. It ensures that a
site is not stripped and flattened based solely on a preliminary plan and it allows
the ARB to make sure that those natural buffers and streams are not destroyed
during grading.
- There are circumstances where it makes sense to allow grading to occur sooner
and before final site plan approval. The Water Protection Ordinance already
recognizes this listing several instances in which a grading permit can be issued
early. If that list in the Water Protection Ordinance is incomplete then let's focus
on what additional exceptions need to be added to it rather than turning our
current default rule on early grading inside out and making early grading the rule
rather than the exception. Further, by trying to make early grading the default
rule the draft runs into a number of problems.
- First, the staff report suggests that whenever early grading would not be
appropriate there can be protective conditions put on the issuance at the initial
site plan to limit early grading. The staff report points to Section 2.04.e of the
Water Protection Ordinance as staff's authority to impose those conditions.
Having read that provision several times he thinks it is a very questionable
interpretation of it. If they are being asked to rely on staff's authority to impose
conditions to limit the damage from early grading it needs to be clear in the
ordinance that authority actually exists.
- A related problem and one he discussed with Mr. Kamptner earlier tonight is
caused by the attempt to pull the ARB into the process earlier and have it review
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 9
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS
SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12
initial site plans for issues related to site layout and landscaping. The staff report
indicates that any ARB input on those items would merely be recommendations.
The developer could ignore those and still get the initial site plan approved. Yet
the first section 32.4.2.8 makes clear that once the initial site plan is approved
the ARB cannot then revisit the issues related to site layout and landscaping as
part of its review of a Certificate of Appropriateness. So in effect when the ARB
does its earlier review apparently the only thing it can do is offer
recommendations and yet it has been precluded by this later section from
revisiting those items and making them requirements as part of the Certificate of
Appropriateness. In effect the ARB's current authority to require items related to
site layout and landscaping would be reduced to only the ability to recommend if
he was reading the staff report correctly. They also heard tonight that the ARB
won't actually be sitting on the Site Review Committee. It is only going to be
minimally involved in this initial site plan review and will primarily be a staff
person deciding what these important conditions relating to layout and
landscaping are.
- In short there are definitely some good ideas in this complex package of
proposed amendments, but there are others that clearly require more thought
and work. They don't think this is ready for a vote tonight. They urge staff to
work with the public to address the problematic pieces before they decide
whether to recommend it to the Board of Supervisors.
Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, said Mr. Butler stated clearly some of
the concerns that he had. In looking at the key elements contained in the attached
zoning text amendment #6 incorporates the Architectural Review Board earlier in the
process. When he was growing up his mother told him if they were going to be trying to
catch that bee — catch it or be done with it because all you are going to have is an angry
bee. He cannot imagine what an applicant when they receive comments, which will
only be recommendations, because the ARB does not have statutory authority that it
can point to say this is where a building goes. Then because of other concerns be it
utilities, topography, or the Neighborhood Model they are forced to put the buildings
somewhere the ARB did not recommend and then as someone who attends most of the
ARB hearings they come before the ARB and the ARB says our staff person told you
what we thought you needed to do — you did not do it. Now they are really in a mix
here. He thinks the ARB does not belong in this process.
- He firmly believes the ARB is in many respects can't balance the requirements
that the other entities on the review committee have compared to the
recommendations. The ARB inclusion in the site review process is a problem
and needs to be addressed.
- He also highlighted the same section as Mr. Butler with regard to a Certificate of
Appropriateness. Really what the ARB would be doing is advocating the right for
a Certificate of appropriateness to a staff member who is dealing with only the
site plan issues. There is a lot more to the site plan issues. The balance needs
to stay with the regulatory agencies that have codified powers rather than the
recommendations.
- In addition, there is a little bit of a tone throughout the ordinance that strikes a
little bit of a balance that blames the applicant. There is a lot of good in here
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 10
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS
SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12
about streamlining the application process and a pre - application process that
actually is longer on the calendar, which makes it shorter than the current
process. He was willing to give this a try, but did not believe that the ARB
sections should be included.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing to bring the
matter before the Planning Commission for action.
Mr. Fritz noted the one thing he wanted to be very clear on Ms. Long brought up is there
is no change whatsoever in Section 8, which is the Planned Development sections. It
would not affect in any way the ability to get a grading permit within a planned
development prior to submitting either a site plan or a subdivision plat. Therefore, there
is no change there.
Mr. Lafferty said he would be remiss in saying they are requiring more of staff and they
have less staff. It seems like every time they get a proposal it is indicating staff is taking
on more and more responsibilities. They are understaffed now. It should be noted by
the Board of Supervisors that there are things they have requested they have been told
that is just not on the agenda because there is not enough staff to do. That is always of
concern to him when he sees something like this. He had some specific questions. He
asked the difference between streets, travel ways and bicycle ways, which are on pages
56 and 57 in section 32.7.2.3.c.
Mr. Randolph said he takes exception to that since bicycling is not a pedestrian activity
but a vehicular activity.
Mr. Fritz said on section C they would want bicycle ways separated out from pathways
and pedestrian ways.
Mr. Lafferty said in 32.7.2.2 it refers to travel ways as vehicular access to site and later
on talks about sidewalks, paths and bikeways. Since bicycles are defined as vehicles it
looks like they are putting bike ways in separate category from streets and travel ways.
He questioned why and asked staff to compare it to bike ways.
Mr. Fritz replied travel ways are generally within the parking areas and streets are
connecting parcels to each other. It is typical way they are using them.
Mr. Lafferty said on 32.7.2.3.c when they talk about interconnectivity they specify
connect to existing sidewalks, walkways and bicycle ways.
Mr. Fritz pointed out he understood what he was saying about separating those.
Mr. Lafferty said one concern was they have sidewalks and other pedestrian ways and
travel ways and he would like to see the county get more proactive in getting multi -
modal transportation and bicycles incorporated in our planning process
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 11
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS
SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12
Mr. Fritz said that should be in the prior section and dealt with there in a more forceful
way. He noted that streets are defined as a public or private thoroughfare which affords
access to abutting property.
Mr. Loach congratulated staff for the public notification since it important. In the end he
thinks it will make their jobs easier because when staff gets calls those calls will be
based on the contents of the letter. It will be more direct rather have staff explain all of
that up front and then get to the questions. Grading was brought up by Mr. Butler and
Ms. Long. His only question was by allowing early grading if they were setting
themselves up to situations like Hollymead. He heard Ms. Long say it takes up to a
year to get approval and he questioned if this change will make it more difficult.
Mr. Fritz replied that they now can't leave sites open as long and have to stabilize the
site. That was not the way the ordinance was when Hollymead was built.
Mr. Loach noted that when listening to Mr. Butler's and Ms. Long's comments about the
ARB it sounds like they are putting the ARB in a catch 22 position where they make a
recommendation and can't be revisited. Staff said the ARB was a separate issue.
However, he wonders if the issue Mr. Williamson brought up that the authority should be
worked in the final language in this document as to what role the ARB is going to take in
the process. He was not sure they have gotten to that point yet.
Mr. Franco asked if in the example they were given is it a recommendation or
requirement that the ARB says to rearrange the buildings despite the Neighborhood
Model. That may never happen, but something they read in the newspaper recently.
How is that resolved — is that a recommendation or requirement?
Mr. Fritz replied the issue is the ARB or he in reviewing a project what he stressed to
the Architectural Review Board is that if they are going to make it a requirement they
need to be able to cite the provision or ordinance section that authorizes them to do
that. If they can cite the provision that says under the authority of this section they can
require this thing to occur, then it is a requirement. If there is no section number they
can refer to, then it is a recommendation. That is the same as staff as to do right now.
Mr. Kamptner noted in two of the three subsections that are referenced in those
sections there are actual requirements that the ARB is authorized to impose related to
two of those three issues under 30.6.4.
Mr. Loach asked what stage that takes place. How can they make a recommendation
on something they don't have the information and then can't do it afterward. It was the
timing. He did not want to be in the position if he was the ARB to essentially make a
recommendation based on something that he had not established the section and then
not be able to be brought up later when he has the information to make his requirement
based on his authority. It sounds like a Catch -22. It is a good idea the ARB to be
brought in early, but it is nebulous on the authority and when they can cite their
authority.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 12
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS
SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12
Mr. Randolph said on page 57 in section 37.7.2.3 sidewalks and pedestrian ways shall
be provided as follows — once again interconnectivity shows up in bicycle ways on
abutting parcels. The more they get bicycles out of sidewalks and pedestrian ways and
keep them in vehicular access the better on that. Flipping over on the other side to
parking, there is no mention in here as they look at on -site parking about the impact of
parking on traffic. Repeatedly now one of the issues they have been dealing with, even
today, was about the impact of parking for a business on the traffic flow in the county.
He was wondering if there was some way they can begin to formalize a process by
which applicants really do begin to access in a meaningful way without getting in to
detailed quantitative studies, but some meaningful way they can begin to access the
impact of their project on traffic.
Mr. Fritz replied that staff sees what is happening here as the first step in what he is
talking about amongst other things. By making it administrative process for site plans
the Planning Commission won't be involved in that and won't be hearing site plans any
more. That means the Planning Commission will have more opportunity to spend time
on those other ordinance amendments. All the parking issues are dealt with in another
section, section 4, which are the design standards. What they are trying to do is set up
a process where they would administer plans to ensure they met the minimum
standards of ordinance and as a separate process go through and look at what the
minimum design standards that the county wants. Then this process would simply
implement those. That is a good comment and something they would want to bring
forward to the Commission at a later date.
Mr. Franco echoed Mr. Loach's concern about the ARB earlier in the process. He
understands the statements made about requiring the ARB to cite a section of the
ordinance. He was still unclear do they have the right to say rearrange the buildings
when it may be contrary to the Neighborhood Model as a requirement. He asked if the
ARB may require that under their current authority. Bringing them earlier in the process
enables it to be thought longer. He thought that was Mr. Williamson's point that he was
going to be wrestling that bee for a lot longer.
Mr. Fritz replied that was part of his comment that much of the comments received deal
really with how the ARB does its review and how it implements those things versus
when and where it is doing those. They see that as a broader issue between the
Architectural Review Board and potentially the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Kamptner said to also answer the question when in the process that part of the
concerns that they have heard was they get the preliminary site plan approved and then
go to the ARB and the ARB completely overturns the orientations of the buildings
because they are now looking at the design guidelines. So where is the applicant at
that point. They were trying perhaps unsuccessfully based on the language they have
right now to have the big picture. They only chose the three issues that are the big
picture issues that the ARB looks at to have those addressed up front at this stage.
That is what they were trying to accomplish with these two sections. Staff will work on it
some more to see if they can make it work.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 13
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS
SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12
Mr. Franco said that he did not know if he loses standing if he did not have a preliminary
plan that then goes to the ARB and they try to move things around. He asked if there
are competing interests between the Neighborhood Model and the ARB then who
decides. What is difficulty in here is that the ARB's ability to require something If they
don't have that ability is very subjective. The concern is while it brings their comments
sooner and he would know what their concerns are sooner he did not know that it was
giving him any stronger ability to say yes but the Neighborhood Model requires me to
do this.
Mr. Cilimberg noted they have to remember that right now the Neighborhood Model is
policy and it is not actually codified in a rezoning district. It is only codified for the
Planned Development District that is called the Neighborhood Model District. So those
rezonings and other development plan rezonings can stipulate locations of buildings in
accordance with the Neighborhood Model which the ARB could not change. Beyond
that any location of building is really up to the applicant in the site plan process not
stipulated under the general provisions.
Mr. Franco noted it was not any longer up to the applicant it is going to be up to the
ARB.
Mr. Cilimberg said he was saying where they locate buildings today and still can locate
buildings under this proposed process for conventional zoning districts is what is
allowed under the provisions of that conventional zoning district. They could choose to
put a building up on a street, but actually they can't put the building as close as the
parking can be to the street under our conventional zoning.
Mr. Franco said he knew that was one of the things they have been working on. But
can the ARB then come back through and even though he is in the envelope that is
available to him per the zoning district and say no he wants that building in the back left
corner instead.
Mr. Cilimberg noted his question really was about what the ARB can require versus
what they can recommend.
Mr. Franco agreed.
Mr. Fritz noted that is not changing at all.
Mr. Graham said that was an excellent point. Right now they could have a preliminary
plan approved with the buildings in a certain orientation and the ARB might not like that.
But the ARB does not have the authority to require a different orientation. That does not
change. That is still what is there. Maybe the ARB does not like that orientation. He
thought what Mr. Cilimberg was saying and maybe what is needed here is a review of
the distinctions between what the ARB may require versus what they may recommend.
As far as what the ARB can require nothing has changed. The things the ARB can
require today they will be able to require under this ordinance.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 14
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS
SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12
Mr. Franco said he can understand that. However, it would be helpful to better
understand what the ARB can require.
Mr. Graham noted that was why he was saying perhaps a review with the Planning
Commission of what specifically the ARB can require would help engage the comfort.
Mr. Franco said he thought it was great if they involve the ARB earlier in the process
and if they are able to provide recommendations that they think will enhance the plan. It
would be left to the owner to make a decision whether they want to accept that or not. If
he was going to wrestle that pig on recommendations only he would rather just do it
once.
Mr. Graham said they already see a lot of applicants who submit early specifically for
that because they know they are going to have to deal with the recommendations of the
ARB and they would just assume to find out early and determine what they can work
with and what they can't work with and try to move forward with that information. This is
simply formalizing getting that type of information early.
Mr. Loach asked how many members of the ARB will be at these early meetings and if it
will be the full ARB or just one person.
Mr. Fritz replied that it would only be staff at the meeting and no ARB members.
Mr. Franco pointed out staff was going to get the plan similar to the way VDOT gets it
30 days in advance or something and they will circulate it potentially to work out their
own process by which the board as a whole might be able to see it.
Mr. Fritz noted the format he believed the ARB is going to go with is the ARB is notified
of all the projects that come in within the Entrance Corridor District. What they
discussed at their work session is the staff person would develop their comments and
forward them to the members of the ARB sometime prior to the Site Review Meeting.
So if ARB members wanted to provide comment or feedback to the staff person they
could. If they don't, then they don't. They would let the staff person do it. That was
how the staff and the ARB members were going to work together and know what the
comments were that was going out. However, it was not a meeting that they are
holding.
Mr. Morris said he did not want to beat a dead horse, but he completely agrees with Mr.
Loach and Mr. Franco. He had a real hard time with the ARB representative being in so
early. However, he also could surely see advantages to it as long as our
recommendations were clear and then they don't come back and say well we
recommended and you should have done it. It needs to be clarified.
Mr. Franco said his experience from the past is with the creation of Mr. Fritz's position
years ago that a lot of it has been separated. A lot of Mr. Fritz's efforts have been in
separating recommendations from requirements. Therefore, he could see that as
potentially the way this is going in helping to improve that process. He just wants to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 15
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS
SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12
voice his concern about it. One of the other points raised was the idea of the early
grading permit so to speak being the standard now as opposed to the exception. He
thought Mr. Butler raised the point about looking at the Water Protection Ordinance and
seeing where it is allowed there.
Mr. Fritz pointed out he believed Mr. Butler had some conversations with Mr. Kamptner.
He talked with Mr. Kamptner about that just before the meeting and there are a few
things that do need to be touched on there to ensure that through the site plan in
Section 32 that there is sufficient language within the ordinance that would allow for
conditions to be put in place or limitations to be put in place to ensure that whatever
needed to be protected could be protected above and beyond what the Water
Protection Ordinance has. He thought that was a valid comment and needs to be
incorporated into ordinance.
Mr. Franco noted his question to end things would be are they close enough with the
comments they have for a recommendation. He asked what action staff is looking for.
Mr. Lafferty said in summary if they are trying to stream line this process it might be
helpful to provide the applicant if they are going to be in the Entrance Corridor with a
sheet or whatever it takes saying that the ARB has these requirements and
recommendations if they are going to be building in the Entrance Corridor. This would
enable them to have some guidelines to go by. They heard the term subjectivity and he
thought what Mr. Franco is trying to do and what he heard is to sort of codify this so
there are fewer obstacles to overcome that may be subjective.
Mr. Fritz said he hears a very clear statement by the Planning Commission that the
ARB's role in applying the provisions of the Entrance Corridor District via it initially or as
it is now at the end needs to be better clarified. That needs and should be done as part
of this zoning text amendment. He asked if that was what he was hearing.
The Planning Commission agreed.
Mr. Randolph asked to add a point. As he went through this he was looking for a flow
chart or a heuristic model that he could look at to try to understand the stages of the
approval process. He is a visual person and it was very hard to find that in here. He
thought that would enhance Ms. Long's point. Having such a chart for the applicant
would make things much easier for them. Under the current process it goes to the ARB
for a Certificate of Appropriate to be issued. Then it goes to the Planning Department,
the site plan approval and then they get the Planning Department for the grading permit.
Having the proposed process that is in here clarified visually he thought would be
immensely helpful for the applicants and the Commissioners.
Mr. Fritz pointed out that he was working on that today, but did not like the way it
looked. He should have included it.
Mr. Randolph said that a synopsis of just those powers versus recommendation
capabilities in bullets would be helpful so they are generally known. There may be
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 16
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS
SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12
really detailed situations where the ARB can recommend something. That probably is
not so important. However, just knowing generally speaking what the power to require
is and what is the power to recommend for the ARB on one page would be really useful
if that is possible.
Mr. Morris asked getting back to what Mr. Franco came up with he asked if staff has
enough information and feedback.
Mr. Franco asked if this was a work session.
Mr. Fritz pointed out this was a public hearing. His opinion based on what he heard the
Commission saying is they may be comfortable in forwarding this on to the Board of
Supervisors knowing that staff was going to take a look at this and present that to the
Board of Supervisors. The Board would more information about how the ARB will be
doing its work and involved with the review of the initial plan. The Commission's desire
is that it be clear what the recommendations and the requirements are and if the Board
is comfortable that they have given them the information that outlined that based on a
report or a presentation focusing on the ARB.
Mr. Morris asked if the Commission feels comfortable with forwarding this on knowing
that they are going to make the changes.
Mr. Franco replied yes, but wanted to make sure since it was going to be in a motion
that the issues that are going to be looked at by staff and resolved before it goes to the
Board so to speak will be dealing with:
1. Dealing with the Architectural Review Board's process in how they do that.
2. The arrangement in the Code itself in the discussion on what a bike path /bike
way is.
3. The early grading permit, so to speak, in trying to bring in the Water Protection
Ordinance into that process a little bit better.
Mr. Fritz noted in addition it was also clarifying that it is the ARB staff and not the full
ARB.
Mr. Franco agreed and that he was comfortable recommending approval and moving it
on to the Board.
Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Randolph seconded to recommend approval of
ZTA- 2012 -00009 Ministerial Review Process (site plan process improvement) as
outlined in Attachment A of the staff report with the four conditions as mentioned
previously.
1. Address the Architectural Review Board's authority to require changes to the
layout of the site.
2. Address bike paths separately from sidewalks and other pedestrian ways.
Incorporate bike paths as transportation.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 17
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS
SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12
3. Insure that the ordinance allows for the placement of conditions on the issuance
of a grading permit as part of initial approval.
4. The ARB staff and not the full ARB is on Site Review Committee
Mr. Cilimberg clarified that this is the Planning Commission's recommendation with the
things that need to be addressed.
Mr. Morris agreed.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0. (Dotson, Smith absent)
Mr. Lafferty thanked staff for their efforts.
Mr. Fritz noted that Mr. Kamptner deserved much of the credit since he is the one who
has really spent the time making sure they have not duplicated sections and they all
refer back and forth to each other in the proper order.
ZTA- 2012 -00009 Ministerial Review Process Improvements (site plans) would be
forwarded to the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for adoption with
conditions as outlined.
Return to exec summ
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -JULY 17, 2012 18
DRAFT MINUTES - ZTA- 2012 -00006 MINISTERIAL REVIEW PROCESS
SUBMIT TO BOS 8 -30 -12