HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA201200009 Legacy Document 2012-12-19 (27)COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
ZTA 2012 -009 Site Plan Process Improvements
S U BJ ECT /PROPOSAL /REQU EST:
Adoption of site plan process improvements zoning
text amendment
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Messrs. Foley, Elliott, Davis, Kamptner, Graham, and
Fritz
PRESENTER (S): Bill Fritz
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
AGENDA DATE:
October 3, 2012
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
REVIEWED BY:
IIJ L
BACKGROUND:
On September 5, 2012, the Board of Supervisors conducted a public hearing on ZTA 2012 -009, Site Plan Process
Improvements. The Board deferred acting on the ordinance until its October 3, 2012 meeting and asked staff to
incorporate some changes to clarify certain provisions of the ordinance. The ordinance (Attachment A) has been revised to
incorporate those changes. Attachment B is composed of those sections that have been revised, and the revisions are
highlighted. An additional public hearing is not legally required.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Goal 3: Encourage a diverse and vibrant local economy.
DISCUSSION:
The August 28, 2012 draft of the zoning text amendment has been revised as follows:
Special use permits, special exceptions and variances and their conditions: Sections 3.1 (definition of requirements),
32.4.1.3(a), 32.4.1.4(a), and 32.5.2(a) have been revised to clarify that the references to special use permits, special
exceptions and variances include "and conditions thereof."
Conditions that must be satisfied before a grading permit may be issued: Sections 32.4.2.2(a) and (b)(3) have been
revised to authorize the site review committee and the ARB to recommend to the agent, rather than to the program
authority, conditions required to be satisfied before a grading permit may be issued by the program authority. Sections
32.4.2.5(c) and 32.4.2.8(b) and (c) have been correspondingly revised.
Correction of when grading permit may be issued in a conventional zoning district that is also in an entrance corridor
overlay district: Section 32.4.2.8(b) has been revised to allow a grading permit to be issued in a conventional zoning
district upon approval of the initial site plan, even if the site is also within an entrance corridor overlay district. The
revision removes an inadvertent limitation and treats conventional and planned development zoning districts the same
on this issue.
ARB requirements regarding structures: The August 28, 2012 draft of section 32.4.2.2(b)(1) authorized the ARB to
identify requirements pertaining to the location, configuration, area, and orientation of structures in its review of initial
site plans. Section 32.4.2.2(b)(1) has been revised to authorize the ARB to identify requirements pertaining to any of
the elements in section 30.6.4(c)(2) (the location, configuration, area, orientation, mass, shape, bulk and height of
structures) if it has the information to evaluate those elements at the initial site plan stage. The revisions to section
32.4.2.2(b)(1) address questions raised at the September 5, 2012 public hearing as to why the ARB would be
authorized to identify requirements pertaining to certain elements in section 30.6.4(c)(2) but not others. Staff expects
that location, configuration, area and orientation are the elements that the ARB will be able to evaluate at the initial site
plan stage. Those elements are two - dimensional in nature and, therefore, would be shown on the initial site plan. The
ARB could evaluate those elements without the developer providing additional information. In comparison, the
elements of height, mass, shape and bulk are generally three - dimensional in nature, at least in the context of ARB
review. The ARB's evaluation of those elements would require more information from the developer than would be
available at the initial site plan stage. However, staff recognizes that height and shape also have two - dimensional
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2012 -009 Site Plan Process Improvements
October 3, 2012
Page 2
qualities that could be evaluated at the initial site plan stage. Therefore, the revisions to section 32.4.2.2(b)(1) provide
the ARB with the flexibility to identify requirements for any elements if the information is available at that stage.
Expansion of information considered by ARB during its review of the initial site plan: Section 32.4.2.2(b)(2) has been
revised to clarify the information considered by the ARB during its review of the initial site plan to include not only the
plan itself, but other information provided by the developer as part of its initial site plan application.
ARB recommendations: Section 32.4.2.2(b)(3) has been revised to clarify the ARB's authority to make
recommendations, consistent with the proposed revisions to section 32.4.2.2(b)(1).
Grandfathered review: The ordinance has been revised to change the reference date for the current site plan
regulations from September 4, 2012 to October 2, 2012.
Staff also has made a minor stylistic change in the ordinance's cross - references to other chapters and sections of the
County Code by deleting references to "of the Code." Those references are unnecessary under County Code § 1 -104.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Staff does not anticipate that this ordinance will result in the need for additional staff or funding.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached ordinance (Attachment A) with an effective date of January 1,
2013.
ATTACHMENTS:
A — Proposed zoning text amendment
B — Excerpts highlighting key revisions to the August 28, 2012 draft zoning text amendment
C — Executive summary from the September 5, 2012 Board public hearing
Return to agenda