HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA200800003 Legacy Document 2008-11-05�h
� �'IRGIN�P
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY /STAFF REPORT
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA- 2008 -00003 Administrative
Waivers
SUBJECT /PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to permit
limited administrative approvals for the following:
disturbance of critical slopes; open space
dedication; buffer disturbance and site plan waivers
STAFF: Amelia McCulley, Ron Higgins
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: November 11,
2008 — Public Hearing
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS DATE: TBD
ORIGIN & BACKGROUND: On May 2, 2007 the Development Review Task Force (DRTF) provided a report to the
Board of Supervisors that outlined a series of recommendations regarding "improvements to the efficiency, effectiveness,
quality and adequate public participation" in the development review process. Among these was a fourth priority item: "to
establish staff authority for waivers and modifications in the development areas." It is in response to that priority that the
proposed zoning ordinance amendments were developed.
The Planning Commission held three (3) work sessions on the various draft proposals and criteria: November 20, 2007;
March 25, 2008 and August 26, 2008. The Resolution of Intent was adopted by the Commission on February 5, 2008. At
the work sessions, the Commission discussed these and made suggestions for refinements. The Commission agreed to
permit administrative approvals for: a) limited authority to codify administrative approval for disturbance of critical slopes;
b) open space dedication; c) buffer disturbance in limited circumstances and d) waiver of the drawing of a full site plan.
DISCUSSION: The attached zoning ordinance amendments codify the procedural changes for certain administrative
waivers and allow for public notice, comment and the ability of the abutting owners or Commissioners to call the
application to the Commission for review. In addition, these amendments outline the criteria for such waivers or
modifications, as agreed upon by the Planning Commission. The draft ordinance establishes administrative waivers of
critical slopes only in the development areas. The ordinance establishes the following circumstances for such waivers:
when the critical slopes were created as part of an approved site plan or when replacing an existing structure where the
new footprint does not exceed that of the structure being replaced.
PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED: The proposed criteria to direct the administrative waivers and modifications are
consistent with the practices for such requests that have been before the Planning Commission. Codifying these to
enable administrative approvals provides efficiencies that benefit the applicants, citizens, staff and the Commission by
reducing the time and cost to process applications, without sacrificing the quality of the review or the end product. In
addition, it affords the Commission additional time to focus on policies, legislative actions and other priorities.
ADMINISTRATION /REVIEW PROCESS: The codification of criteria will permit more appropriate administration of future
requests.
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY: By reducing time and cost to process various waivers, when they involve residential
projects, this could have a positive impact on the cost of housing. These amendments do not directly require additional
development improvements that would then result in higher development costs.
IMPLICATIONS TO STAFFING /STAFFING COSTS: This is expected to reduce staff time and costs associated with the
preparation of staff reports and presentations at the Commission and Board meetings. It is also expected to reduce the
time spent by commissioners and board members in review and deliberation on such matters, thereby providing additional
time to focus on policy matters.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval of the draft ordinance (Attachment A).
ATTACHMENTS:
(A) ORDINANCE NO. 08 -18( ), Ordinance to Amend Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle, Virginia.
Dated October 3, 2008.
(B) Staff report for the November 20, 2007 Planning Commission Work Session on Administrative Waivers along with the
first attachment to that report, being the Development Review Task Force Report & Recommendations.
Draft: 10/03/08
ORDINANCE NO. 08-18( )
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18, ZONING, ARTICLE I, GENERAL PROVISIONS, ARTICLE
II, BASIC REGULATIONS, ARTICLE III, DISTRICT REGULATIONS, AND ARTICLE IV, PROCEDURE,
OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE, VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that Chapter 18, Zoning,
Article I, General Provisions, Article II, Basic Regulations, Article III, District Regulations, and Article IV,
Procedure, of the Code of the County of Albemarle are amended and reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.2.5
Modification or waiver
Sec. 4.7
Regulations governing open space
Sec. 4.7.1
Open space, intent
Sec. 4.7.2
Uses permitted in open space
Sec. 4.7.3
Open space, design requirements
Sec. 4.7.4
Ownership of open space
Sec. 21.7
Minimum yard requirements
Sec. 21.7.1
Untitled
Sec. 21.7.2
Untitled
Sec. 21.7.3
Untitled
Sec. 26.10
Minimum yard requirements
Sec. 26.10.1
Untitled
Sec. 26.10.2
Untitled
Sec. 26.10.3
Untitled
Sec. 32.2
When required
Sec. 32.2.1
Untitled
Sec. 32.2.2
Untitled
By Adding:
Sec. 2.5 Procedure for administrative waivers
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article I. General Provisions
Applications for administrative waivers submitted pursuant to sections 4.2.5, 4.7, 21.7. 26.10 and 32.2
shall be processed as follows:
A. Application. A developer or subdivider requesting a waiver shall file a written request with the
department of community development stating the reason for the waiver and explaining why the request satisfies
one or more of the applicable criteria for the waiver.
B Notice to commission and abutting owners When an application for an administrative waiver is
submitted, the agent shall send written notice of the waiver request to the owner of each lot abutting the lot for
which the waiver is sought and to each member of the commission. The notice shall describe the proposed
waiver, the name, address, email address and telephone number of the agent, the location where any documents
submitted with the waiver request may be viewed, and the date by which the agent will act on the request. The
notice also shall advise each recipient of the right to request review of the waiver request by the commission and
the date by which the review must be requested The notice shall be mailed or hand delivered at least five (5)
Attachment A
Draft: 10/03/08
days prior to the date by which the agent will act on the waiver request. Mailed notice shall be sent by first class
mail, and the notice mailed to the owner of each lot abutting the lot for which the waiver is sought shall be
mailed to the last known address of the owner, Mailing the notice lathe address shown on the current real estate
tax assessment records of the county shall be deemed compliance with this requirement. If a lot abutting the lot
for which the waiver is sought is owned by the same owner, the notice shall be given to the owner of the next
abutting property not owned by that owner. The failure of any person to receive the notice required by this
subsection shall not affect the validity of a waiver, and shall not invalidate a waiver, if granted.
C. Request for commission review. An abutting owner or a member of the commission may
request commission review of a waiver. The request shall be submitted in writing by the date stated in the
notice and shall state the reasons that commission review is requested. The request may be submitted either by
regular mail or by email to the agent.
D. Procedure if commission review requested If review of a waiver by the commission is timely
requested as provided in subsection (B) —the commission shall review and act on the waiver request within thirty
(30) days of the date of the request for review. In its review and action on the waiver, the commission shall
apply the applicable standards and findings set forth in sections 4.2.5.4.7.21.7. 26.10 or 32.2. In granting a
waiver, the commission may impose such conditions deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety. or
welfare.
E. Appeals The denial of a waiver, or the approval of a waiver with conditions obiectionable to
the developer or subdivider, may be appealed from the agent or the commission to the commission or the board .
as the case may be, as an appeal of a denial of the plat, as provided in section 14 -226 of the Code, or the site
plan, as provided in sections 32.4.2.7 or 32.4.3.9, to which the waiver pertains. A waiver considered by the
commission in conjunction with an application for a special use permit shall be subject to review by the board of
supervisors. In considering a waiver on appeal, the commission or the board may grant or deny the waiver
based upon the applicable standards and findings set forth in sections 4.2.5, 4.7, 21.7, 26.10 or 32.2(a), amend
any condition imposed by the county officer or the commission, and impose any conditions deemed necessary to
protect the public health, safety, or welfare.
F. Waivers include modifications. For the purposes of this section 2.5. the term "waiver" or any
form thereof, includes the term "modification" as used in this chapter
Article H. Basic Regulations
Sec. 4.2.5 Modification or waiver
Any mquifefnefA of seetien 4.2 may be medified or wa4ved in an indi-Adual ease, as pr-wAded herein-
pool
Y.
N
•�
Draft: 10/03/08
IN . - - M.— I
eensistepAwith the intent of seetion ,, 2
Y.
,
MI
Any requirement of section 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 or 4.2.4 may be modified or waived as provided herein:
A Modification or waiver by the commission The commission may modify or waive any
requirement that is not subject to an administrative waiver as provided in subsection (B). as follows:
1. Request A developer or subdivider requesting a modification or waiver shall file a
written request in accordance with section 32.3. 10(d) of this chapter and identify and state how the request
would satisfy one or more of the findings set forth in subsection 4.2.5(A)(3). If the request pertains to a
modification or waiver of the prohibition of disturbing slopes of twenty -five (25) percent or greater (hereinafter
"critical slopes ") the request also shall state the reason for the modification or waiver, explaining how the
modification or waiver, if granted would address_ the rapid and/or large -scale movement of soil and rock.
excessive stormwater run -off, siltation of natural and man -made bodies of water loss of aesthetic resources
and in the event of septic system failure a greater travel distance of septic effluent (collectively referred to as
the "public health. safety, and welfare factors ") that might otherwise result from the disturbance of critical
sly
2 Consideration ofrecommendation: determination by county engineer. In reviewing a
request for a modification or waiver, the commission shall consider the recommendation of the agent as to
whether any of the findings set forth in subsection 4.2.5(A)(3) can be made by the commission. If the request
pertains to a modification or waiver of the prohibition of disturbing critical slopes the commission shall
based - upon the fn dings
. .
E1 io
set fe ubseet
(B), amend ,. imposed «e,] b j he
6ei ' and impose
seeti..,,. (4.
wy ndifiens it
Qeems- neeessar -y for -- the feasofis set f ft
Any requirement of section 4.2.1, 4.2.2, 4.2.3 or 4.2.4 may be modified or waived as provided herein:
A Modification or waiver by the commission The commission may modify or waive any
requirement that is not subject to an administrative waiver as provided in subsection (B). as follows:
1. Request A developer or subdivider requesting a modification or waiver shall file a
written request in accordance with section 32.3. 10(d) of this chapter and identify and state how the request
would satisfy one or more of the findings set forth in subsection 4.2.5(A)(3). If the request pertains to a
modification or waiver of the prohibition of disturbing slopes of twenty -five (25) percent or greater (hereinafter
"critical slopes ") the request also shall state the reason for the modification or waiver, explaining how the
modification or waiver, if granted would address_ the rapid and/or large -scale movement of soil and rock.
excessive stormwater run -off, siltation of natural and man -made bodies of water loss of aesthetic resources
and in the event of septic system failure a greater travel distance of septic effluent (collectively referred to as
the "public health. safety, and welfare factors ") that might otherwise result from the disturbance of critical
sly
2 Consideration ofrecommendation: determination by county engineer. In reviewing a
request for a modification or waiver, the commission shall consider the recommendation of the agent as to
whether any of the findings set forth in subsection 4.2.5(A)(3) can be made by the commission. If the request
pertains to a modification or waiver of the prohibition of disturbing critical slopes the commission shall
Draft: 10/03/08
consider the determination by the county engineer as to whether the developer or subdivider will address each of
the public health, safety and welfare factors so that the disturbance of the critical slopes will not pose a threat to
the public drinking water supplies and flood plain areas, and that soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution
nd septic disposal issues will be mitigated to the satisfaction of the county engineer. The county engineer shall
evaluate the potential for soil erosion, sedimentation and water pollution that might result from the disturbance
of slopes of twenty -five (25) percent or greater in accordance with the current provisions of the Virginia
Department of Transportation Drainage Manual, the Commonwealth of Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook and Virginia State Water Control Board best management practices, and where applicable. Chapter
17, Water Protection. of the Code.
3. Findings. The commission may grant a modification or waiver if it finds that the
modification or waiver would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly
development of the area, or to adjacent properties: would not be contrary to sound engineering practices: and at
least one of the following:
a Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the
purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare:
b. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the
p=oses of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree:
C. Due to the land's unusual size topography, shape location or other unusual
conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting the disturbance of
critical slopes would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in
significant degradation of the property or adjacent Properties: or
d. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public p=ose of greater
import than would be served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived.
4. Conditions. In granting a modification or waiver, the commission may impose
conditions deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare and to insure that the development
will be consistent with the intent of section 4.2.
5. Anneal. The board of supervisors shall consider a modification or waiver as follows:
a. The denial
modification or waiver by the commission
by the commission
with conditions
objectionable
of a modification or waiver, or the approval of a
to the developer or subdivider may be
appealed to the board
of supervisors as
an appeal of
a denial of the plat, as
provided in section 14-22h-of the
Code, or the site plan,
as provided in section 32.4.2.7
or 32.4.3.9,
to which
the modification or waiver pertains.
A modification or waiver considered by
the commission
in conjunction
with
an application fora special use
permit shall be subject
modification or waiver
to review by the board of supervisors.
b. In considering a modification
based upon the findings set forth
or
in subsection
waiver, the board may grant or deny the
4.2.5(A)(3), amend any condition
imposed by the commission.
and impose
anv conditions it deems necessary
for the reasons set forth in
subsection 4.2.5(A l(41.
B. Waiver by the agent. In accordance with the procedures stated in section 2.5 of this chapter, the
agent or other county officer may waive the prohibition of disturbing critical slopes on anv parcel not within the
Rural Areas (RA), Monticello Historic District (MHD) or Village Residential (VRl zoning districts in the
following circumstances: (i) the critical slopes were created during the development of the property pursuant to
a site plan approved by the county: or (iil the critical slopes will be disturbed to replace an existing structure
located on the critical slopes and the extent of the disturbance is the minimum necessary to replace the existing
Draft: 10/03/08
structure with a new structure whose footprint does not exceed the footprint of the existing The agent may
grant a waiver if he or she finds that:
1 The property is not identified in the oven space plan as one having any protected
resources and a field inspection has confirmed that there are no significant or critical features on the property
identified for protection in the open space plan:
2 There is no reasonable alternative that would eliminate or reduce the disturbance of
critical slopes:
3. The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the program
authority of an erosion and sediment control plan, regardless of whether the area disturbed is less than ten
thousand (10.000) square feet: and
4 The developer or subdivider submitted and obtained approval from the county engineer
of a plan that describes how the movement of soil and rock, stormwater runoff siltation of natural and man-
made bodies of water, the loss of aesthetic resources identified in the open space element of the comprehensive
plan and, in the event of the failure of a treatment works and subsurface drainfield. a greater travel distance of
septic effluent, will be mitigated through design, construction techniques, revegetation, stormwater managemen
and other best management practices.
(12- 10 -80, § 4.2.5; 11- 15 -89; Ord. 01- 18(4), 5 -9 -01)
Sec. 4.7 Regulaflons Qpen space
4.7.1 Open spaee, inteat
eempf:ehensive plan by pemiAting flexibi4y in design. Mery speeifieally, open spaee is intended to sef-,,,,e sueh
D,- eteetio of a--eas sensitive
to
deye1.,pflw.,+•
,
D..esefya ie.. of ee..ie..lt..rel
To
.,etiyit..
development
inelusion of epen
this >
>
plat,
d—er-
of
the
site
plam proposing
for- the intended
"pr-opr-imeness
ef sueh areas
} + ^r-s as
See. 4.7.2 Uses peFmitted in
Unless
1pea+Ien,
open spaee
by
size,
shape
and
r- p
tc pog
in
ie ehar-aeTGI13ties.
shall be maifftained in a
otherwise pefffiWed
be developed
the cowmaission
a paftieular-
ease, open spaee
featufe. VLher-e deemed appropriate by the
natffal state and shall
. .
not
be
with
fef
any
man made
the
follewing s*eet to the r-egulatiens e
I open spaee
the zoning dirt irat ,,,...,L.ieL,
may
the
used
.leyele,..,,ent
one of
is
more of
lee ted-
uses
7
L
G e pr-esefves, wildlife
sanetuaries
and
the like;
Draft: 10/03/08
Rr. m am oil
mmmm
1,,,n d - °,a
Land 1 t ,7 'tl,' the
flood
plain; and (Added 11 15 49)
flooding as .7 °4;n °(7 in Table 16 Soil and A.Z ate
a. one year-
b. Land b et t„ a «
oommen
- - r
lo
All. 1 County, Vifginia, August, 1985;
mmmm
1,,,n d - °,a
Land 1 t ,7 'tl,' the
flood
plain; and (Added 11 15 49)
flooding as .7 °4;n °(7 in Table 16 Soil and A.Z ate
a. one year-
b. Land b et t„ a «
oommen
4: .° e t
o
All. 1 County, Vifginia, August, 1985;
(Added 11 15 89)
°at°,- -„7
fe 'efated into
°„t.. 4:..° /25\
Land
and
„t
e. slopes oft...
p
(Added 11 15-"
d. Land devoted flood
o
deviees
to stom+watef of eentfol
lake featufe
deemed
exeept whefe sHeh
by the to eoastil4utPe Aa
a pefmaneat pond, or- othef water-
11 15 90)
eomfflission
open spaee amenity. (Added
Draft: 10/03/08
Open space shall be established, used, designed and maintained as follows:
A. Intent. Open space is intended to provide active and passive recreation, protect areas sensitive
to development, buffer dissimilar uses from one another and preserve agricultural activities. The commission
and the board of supervisors shall consider the establishment, use, design and maintenance of open space in their
review and approval of zoning map amendments. The subdivision agent and the site plan agent (hereinafter.
collectively referred to as the "agent ") shall apply the following principles when reviewing open space provided
in a subdivision plat or site plan.
B.
Uses permitted
Open space
shall be maintained in a natural state and shall not be developed
with any improvements.
provided
that the agent may authorize the open
space to be used and improved for the
following P=oses:
G) agriculture
forestry
and fisheries including appropriate
structures: (ii) game preserves.
wildlife sanctuaries
and similar uses;
(iii)
noncommercial recreational
uses and structures: (iv) public utilities:
(v) individual
wells and treatment works
with subsurface drainfields (reference
section 4.1.7): and (vi)
stormwater management facilities
and flood
control devices.
C. Design. Open space shall be designed as follows:
1 Lands that may be required The agent may require that open space include: (i) areas
deemed inappropriate for or prohibited to development includin g. but not limited to. land in the one - hundred
year flood plain and significant drainage swales, land in slopes of twenty -five (25) percent or greater. public
utility easements for transmission lines stormwater management facilities and flood control devices, and lands
having permanent or seasonally high water tables; (ii) areas to satisfy section 4.16. and (iii) areas to provide
reasonable buffering between dissimilar uses within the development and between the development and
adjoining properties.
2. Redesign during review. The agent may require the redesign of a proposed
development to accommodate open space areas as may be required under this subsection 4.7, provided that the
redesign shall not reduce the number of dwelling units permitted under the applicable zoning district.
3 Limitation on certain elements If open space is required by this chapter, not more than
eighty (80) percent of the minimum required open space shall consist of the following: (i) land located within
the one - hundred year flood plain: (ii) land subject to occasional._ common or frequent flooding as defined in
Table 16 Soil and Water Features of the United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service
Soil Survey of Albemarle County, Virginia. August. 1985: (iii) land in slopes of twenty -five (25) percent or
greater; and Gv) land devoted to stormwater management facilities or flood control devices, except where the
facility or feature is incMorated into a permanent pond, lake or other water feature deemed by the agent to
constitute a desirable open space amenity. [GK: Is the 1985 Table still the correct reference ?]
D. Ownership of open space. Oren space may be privately owned or dedicated to public use.
Open space in private ownership shall subject to a legal instrument ensuring the maintenance and preservation
of the open space that is approved by the agent and the county attorney in conjunction with the approval of the
subdivision plat or site plan. Open space dedicated to public use shall be dedicated to the county in the manner
provided by law. Open space dedicated to public use shall count toward the minimum required open space.
Article III. District Regulations
Sec. 21.7 Minimum yard requirements
The minimum yard requirements in the commercial districts are as follows•
74A. Adjacent to public streets =. No portion of any structure, excluding signs, shall be
erected closer than thirty (30) feet to any public street right -of -way. No off - street parking or loading space shall
be located closer than ten (10) feet to any public street right -of- way. (Amended 7- 10 -85; 7 -8 -92)
Draft: 10/03/08
(12- 10 -80, § 21.7.1; 7- 10 -85, 9 -9 -92; Ord. 01-18(3),5-9-01)
214-2B. Adjacent to residential and rural areas districts-.-A No portion of any structure,
excluding signs, shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any residential or rural areas district. No off - street
parking or loading space shall be located closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural areas district.
(Amended 7- 10 -85; 7 -8 -92)
2 i.:7 -.3C Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts =. No construction activity3
including grading or the clearing of vegetation} shall occur closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural
areas district. Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9. (Amended 9 -9 -92)
1. Waiver by the commission. £keept-,41he commission may waive this
text the prohibition of construction activity, grading or the clearing of vegetation in the buffer in a
particular case where it has been the developer or subdivider demonstrateds that grading or clearing is necessary
or would result in an improved site design, provided that: a-. Q1 Mminimum screening requirements are met; and
b-. ii lkexisting landscaping in excess of minimum requirements is substantially restored. (Added 7- 10 -85)
2. Waiver by the agent. In accordance with the procedures stated in section 2.5 of
this chapter, the agent may waive the prohibition of construction activity, grading or the clearing of vegetation
in the buffer zone in the following circumstances: (i) adequate landscape screening does not currently exist and
the installation of screening which meets or exceeds the requirements of this chapter would result in disturbance
to the buffer: (ii) an arborist or landscape architect certifies that trees in the buffer are dying, diseased or will
constitute a fall hazard: (iii) the county engineer determines that disturbance of the buffer is necessary in order
to address an existing drainage problem: or (iv) disturbance of the buffer will result in improved screening
through the use of a berm, a retaining wall or similar physical modification or improvement. In such a case. the
evelmer or subdivider shall illustrate the result of both the existing screening without disturbance of the buffer
and the screening that would be provided as a result of the disturbance of the buffer.
See. 26.10 Minimum yard requirements
The minimum yard requirements in the industrial districts are as follows•
26404A. Adjacent to public streets =,. No portion of any structure, excluding signs, shall be
erected closer than fifty (50) feet to any public street right -of -way. No off - street parking or loading space shall
be located closer than ten (10) feet to any public street right -of -way. (Amended 7- 10 -85; 7 -8 -92)
26-402B. Adjacent to residential or rural areas districts =. No portion of any structure, excluding
signs, shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet to any r.° residential or rural areas district and no off -
street parking space shall be closer than thirty (30) feet to any fwal "ea; -e= residential or rural areas district.
For- In the heavy industry (HI) district, no portion of any structure, excluding signs, shall be located closer than
one hundred (100) feet to any rum - areas 9 residential district and no off - street parking shall be
closer than thirty (30) feet to any mfal -areas er residential or rural areas district. (Amended 7- 10 -85; 7 -8 -92)
26.444C Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts == No construction activity
including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than thirty (30) feet to any residential or rural areas
district. Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9. (Amended 9 -9 -92)
1. Waiver by the commission. £*eept; tThe commission may waive this
Y-equir-efn the prohibition of construction activity, grading or the clearing of vegetation in the buffer in a
particular case where it en the developer or subdivider demonstrateds that grading or clearing is necessary
or would result in an improved site design, provided that: a Ci Mminimum screening requirements are met; and
b- ii Rexisting landscaping in excess of minimum requirements is substantially restored. (Added 7- 10 -85)
Draft: 10/03/08
2. Waiver by the agent. In accordance with the procedures stated in section 2.5 of
this chapter, the agent may waive the prohibition of construction activity, grading or the clearing of vegetation
in the buffer zone in the following circumstances: (i) adequate landscape screening does not currently exist and
the installation of screening which meets or exceeds ordinance requirements would result in disturbance to the
buffer: (ii) an arborist or landscape architect certifies that trees in the buffer are dying, diseased or will constitute
a fall hazard: (iii) the county engineer determines that disturbance of the buffer is necessary in order to address
an existing drainage problem: or (iv ) disturbance of the buffer will result in improved screening through the use
of a berm, a retaining wall or similar physical modification or improvement. In such a case, the developer or
subdivider shall illustrate the result of both the existing screening without disturbance of the buffer and the
screening that would be provided as a result of the disturbance of the buffer
Article IV. Procedure
Sec. 32.2 When site I>� an is required;
A site plan meeting the reguirem_en_ts_ of section 32 and all other applicable regulations shall be required
as follows.
32.24A. When required. A site plan shall be required for any construction, use, change in use or
other development in all zoning districts; provided that no site plan shall be required for the following:
al. The construction or location of any single - family detached dwelling whieh is leea a
epen on a lot whet -7°°„ are leeat °a ° °a to be leeated an gate e on which not more than two (2) Of
fewer dwellings are located or proposed to be located.
other dwellings.
dwelling.
Q. The construction or location of a two - family dwelling on any lot not occupied by any
s Any aeeess structure that is accessory to a single - family detached or two - family
44. Any agricultural activity except as otherwise provided in section 5.0:
e5. Any change in or expansion of a use provided that: (Ij� sueh the change or expansion
does not eeeasion reguir additional parking under thefegWr- em section 4.12 of this chapter; (4j ii
additional ingress /egress or alteration of existing ingress /egress is r-eeeeAnended re uir by the Virginia
Department of Transportation based on 1U intensification of the use; and (2iii) no additional ingress /egress or
the alteration of existing ingress/ egress is proposed by the developer. (32.2.1, 1980)
32.2.2B Waiver of the drawing of site plan by the commission `mhe fr feegei ° „etwit Stan i^g,
aAfter r vi in notice ' ' as provided by section 32.4.2.5, the commission may waive the
drawing of a site plan meeting all of the requirements of sections 32.5 and 32.6 in a particular case upon a
finding that the requirement of seeh drawing a site plan meeting all of the requirements of sections 32.5 and
32.6 would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest; provided that no such
waiver shall be made until the commission has considered the recommendation of the agent. The agent may
recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of saeh the waiver. In the ease of Benditional
appFe lIf recommending approval of the waiver with conditions, the agent in his recommendation shall state
the relationship of the recommended condition to the provisions of this section. No condition shall be imposed
which could not be imposed through the application of the regulations of section 32.0. (32.2.2, 1980; Amended
5 -1 -87)
C Waiver of the drawing ofa site plan by the agent In accordance with the procedures stated in
section 2.5 of this chapter, the agent may waive the drawing of a site plan meeting all of the requirements of
sections 32.5 and 32.6 if (i) the site review committee finds that all of the information required by sections 32.5
Draft: 10/03/08
and 32.6 is not necessary for its review of the proposed development: and (ii) the zoning administrator, in
consultation with the county engineer and the manager of zoning enforcement. finds that a site plan meeting all
of the requirements of sections 32.5 and 32.6 is not necessary to determine that the site is developed in
compliance with this chapter and all other applicable regulations.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to , as recorded
below, at a regular meeting held on
Ave Nay
Mr. Boyd
Mr. Dorrier
Ms. Mallek
Mr. Rooker
Mr. Slutzky
Ms. Thomas
10
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
� �'IRGINZP
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE: Administrative Waivers and
Modifications in the Development Areas
SUBJ ECT /PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Work Session - Discussion of Implementation of
Development Review Task Force
Recommendations for Certain Administrative
Approvals in the Development Areas
STAFF: Amelia McCulley, Ron Higgins
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: November 20,
2007
BACKGROUND
The Development Review Task Force (DRTF) was charged by the Board of Supervisors to: review and assess the
current legislative review process for improvements in efficiency, effectiveness, quality and adequate public participation.
One of the recommendations (listed as fourth priority) in their report to the Board on May 2, 2007 was "to establish staff
authority for waivers and modifications in development areas. The committee clearly felt that there are minor issues that
come to the Planning Commission and Board that could be handled by staff if there were clear definitions." (See
Attachment A for the DRTF recommendations and Attachment B for minutes of the Board's discussion.)
The DRTF specifically recommended that the Board "adopt standards that allow staff to have clearly defined discretion
and authority on the following items that would have a significant impact on streamlining the approval process: private
roads; critical slopes; and buffers." It was acknowledged that this task would require ordinance changes.
This recommendation was endorsed by the Board with the provisions that: a) we would consider the impact on the public
input process and b) there would be policy guidance from the Commission and Board as to how this would be
implemented.
With the intent of streamlining the review of minor issues in the Development Areas and consequently allowing the
Commission to have more time to focus on policy issues, staff considered which issues may be taking unnecessary
agenda time. We examined 2007 Commission agendas for information as to which are recurring waiver requests.
(Information could not be accurately counted in numbers because not all waivers or reasons for Commission review are
listed in the agenda description. We have changed our agenda descriptions to better capture that information for the
future.) While there are a fairly high number of curb and gutter and inter - parcel connection waivers, staff is not prepared
at this time to recommend that these become administrative reviews. As we have more experience with these, we can
revisit whether they may be appropriate for administrative reviews.
Staff identified three additional reviews which may appropriately qualify for administrative approvals with clear criteria.
Each review item will be discussed with the three recommended by the DRTF.
DISCUSSION
Of the six items to be considered for administrative review (three from the DRTF and three additional from staff), staff can
suggest clear criteria and supports five of the six. The sixth item, private roads, is not a recurring waiver request in the
Development Areas. In fact, the current Subdivision Ordinance adopted in July 2005, already provides for most of the
common requests for private roads in the Development Areas to be approved administratively (by the Agent). (The
relevant section, 14 -233 is found in Attachment C.) Staff suggests that we continue to monitor the private road issue to
determine if they become a common waiver request.
Attachment 18
Of the five items recommended for administrative review, the critical slopes issue has perhaps the most difficult related
issues. It will likely be the focus of most of this work session discussion and will be covered last.
Staff has considered the concern raised by the Board about diminished public input and has a recommendation to
address it. We recommend that adjacent owners be sent written notice that an administrative waiver request has been
submitted with information about the decision timeline. This will allow the public to provide information for staff to consider
prior to rendering the decision.
1. Buffers (recommended by DRTF): A 20 foot undisturbed buffer is required in the Commercial Districts and a 30
foot undisturbed buffer in the Industrial Districts for properties adjacent to residential or rural areas. The
Commission may allow buffer disturbance subject to two conditions (the same for commercial and industrial as
listed on Attachment D). The two criteria currently within the Ordinance provide sufficient guidance so this waiver
may be addressed by staff.
Certain -404 Requests for a Separate Access (recommended by staff): The current language of Subdivision
Ordinance Section 14 -404 requires a -404 waiver for property split by an existing public road to use separate
shared driveways or private roads. This arises for example, when an existing public road runs through property
splitting it into physically separate portions which lie on both sides of that road. This is clearly a case in which it is
not physically possible to serve the portions of the property on two different sides of an existing road with the
same driveway. Therefore, it does not appear to be a good use of Commission agenda time or applicant and staff
time to require approval of a waiver. There are currently no Ordinance exemptions from this requirement. Staff
recommends that the Subdivision Ordinance language be revised to exempt this specific situation from the
requirement for a Section 14 -404 waiver.
3. Site Plan Waiver Approval for Certain Situations (recommended by staff): The current language of Section
32.2.2 allows the Commission to waive the drawing of a full blown site plan and the acceptance of a site plan
drawn to reduced requirements. Members of the Site Review Committee provide a recommendation to the Agent
(and Commission) regarding whether a site plan waiver will adequately serve the purposes of their technical
review. The requirement for a site plan comes up in situations such as three or more dwellings on one parcel.
Staff suggests that if there are no other properties (other than the subject property) sharing the access road to the
public road, a site plan waiver can be administered by staff. Another example is property developed prior to the
current site plan requirements which would otherwise be required to complete a full blown site plan for a minor
addition such as a greenhouse or a small building addition. Staff recommends that the Zoning Ordinance be
revised to allow staff to administratively approve the use of a site plan waiver as opposed to a full blown site plan
drawing in certain cases.
4. Open Space (recommended by staff): The Ordinance currently requires Commission approval for the dedication
of open space and various aspects relating to open space (such as private ownership and inclusion of certain
areas). Staff recommends that the Ordinance be amended at a minimum to allow staff approval of the dedication
of open space. The current Ordinance language (found in Attachment E) can guide staff in the decision as it
guides the Commission to "consider the appropriateness of such areas for the intended usage in terms of such
factors as location, size, shape and topographic character."
5. Critical Slopes (recommended by the DRTF): The Ordinance currently requires Commission approval of critical
slopes disturbance. We have (administratively) allowed disturbance to artificial or manmade critical slopes which
result from development under a prior plan approval by the County. Staff uses the Open Space plan in the
determination of whether there is a resource which may be impacted by the slope disturbance. To avoid the later
need for critical slope waivers, staff has been addressing it as part of the legislative review.
In the future when the Open Space plan is re- evaluated and the key features can be more accurately depicted on
a parcel -by- parcel basis, staff recommends that it becomes the tool in determining whether critical slopes
disturbance may be permitted without a waiver. However, this re- evaluation is a significant undertaking including
field analysis and it is not currently scheduled. The Open Space plan considers systems of significant wooded
areas and significant stream valleys, among other things. Because the extent (or distance) to protect a stream
valley depends on various factors such as sensitive soils, drainage area and slopes of the stream bank, there is
no one - size - fits -all solution.
The Commission has several options for how to implement the DRTF recommendation on critical slopes.
Staff recommends that at a minimum, we codify the practice of exempting the disturbance of slopes created
artificially as a result of prior development approval from the requirement for a waiver.
2
The Commission also has these options:
A. No longer prohibiting the disturbance of critical slopes in the Development Areas and instead
relying on the review, measures and protections under the Water Protection Ordinance.
B. Allowing disturbance of a certain area of critical slopes, such as 10,000 square feet, either as an
exemption or as an administrative waiver.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff has purposely not provided draft Ordinance language at this time in order to facilitate focus on and discussion of the
issues rather than that language. We also do not have a resolution of intent for Ordinance amendment drafted at this
time. We recommend based on decisions made in this work session, that staff draft a resolution of intent with an
executive summary, for the Commission to adopt on a future consent agenda. We will then follow with public hearings on
the draft Ordinance language.
In summary, staff recommends a resolution of intent to provide for:
1) Exemption to Section 14 -404 for properties split by an existing public road;
2) Administrative approval for buffer disturbance, site plan waiver, open space dedication and disturbance of
previously approved critical slopes. The Agent shall have the option in a particular case, involving impacts to
neighboring properties or for other reasons, to refer the waiver request to the Commission. Prior to action by the
Agent on a waiver request, adjacent owner notification shall be provided with adequate time allowed for input to
be submitted.
ATTACHMENTS:
A - Development Review Task Force Report and Recommendations
B — Excerpt from May 2, 2007 Board of Supervisors' Minutes
C — Subdivision Ordinance Section 14 -233 Private Roads in Development Areas
D — Buffers
E — Site Plan Waiver, Open Space and Critical Slopes
Attachment
Task Force Charge: Using the existing staff work on process improvements as a starting point, the
task force will review and assess the current legislative review process for improvements in
efficiency, effectiveness, quality and adequate public participation.
Task Force Membership:
A. Bruce Dotson
Ann Mallek
David Bowerman
Michael Hancox
Valerie Long
Michael Barnes
Marcia Joseph
Eric Strucko
Kenneth C. Boyd
David C. Wyant
Robert W. Tucker
Robert Spekman, PhD
Scope of Review: To focus on improving the legislative review process, but not to alter policy
regarding the scope of legislative reviews, with consideration of the following issues:
• Public input process
• Timeliness of review
• Quality of review
• Quality of approved plans
• Complexity of review
• Thoroughness of review
• Ease of the review process
• Efficiency of the review process
• Review processes in Rural Areas vs. Development Areas
• Resources necessary to implement any proposed changes
• Consideration of changes to current development fees
Major Tasks:
• Review and evaluate staff's initial set of recommendations
• Identify new possibilities for process and public participation improvements
• Solicit community input via a survey of citizens, development community and staff
• Evaluate current process for plan review
• Draft list of potential recommendations
• Prioritize recommendations based on those that would have the most positive impact and
those that could be implemented most quickly
• Develop preliminary action plans for priority recommendations
Recommendations:
Committee recommendations are presented in the following three categories:
1 . New actions that were identified as higher priority
2 . Actions already planned or underway
3 . Other ideas
(1) New actions that were identified as higher priority
Priority
Action Steps /Timeline /Staff Resources Required
2 Phase ZMA Process
The first phase of the two step process would start by
defining the issues related to the proposal. These issues
2 phase ZMA process will avoid need for
would include, but not be limited to, the developers concept
detailed submissions until "big picture"
for the parcel, the citizen input /concerns, the county staff
issues have been answered, reducing cost
assessment of: the Comprehensive Plan's goal for the
to applicants and review time required and
parcel, how the project does or does not fit into the context of
improving the ultimate quality of the
the surrounding neighborhood, the infrastructure deficiencies
project while maintaining appropriate
(either existing or caused by the proposal), etc. Next, the
public input
process would focus on developing and ranking design
parameters that, if implemented correctly, would address the
goals and mitigate the concerns. The first phase would
conclude with the establishment of "findings" by the Planning
Commission that, if the project implemented the design
parameters, it would be generally consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and the surrounding neighborhood. A
record of comments would be available to the applicant and
would serve as a basis for the site design in Phase 2.
The PC's "findings" would not insure the ultimate approval of
the application and the project would not go to the Board at
this stage, but a copy of the findings would be sent to the
Board for their review and information."
Phase 2 — the second phase consists of a detailed review to
meet all requirements and policies of the County
A related staff recommendation is to conduct a
comprehensive evaluation of the 100 -plus item list to see if
some /all requirements should be included in an ordinance.
Community Development staff anticipates this effort can be
completed in 2007 and any ordinance changes would follow
this. In the short -term, development and implementation of this
process requires additional staff work, but this process is
intended to quickly recover that investment.
Improve ARB /PC /Board coordination,
• Review current applicable ARB ordinances with the Board
clarify role of ARB
to clarify code guidance on the role of the ARB
Explain the current practice as to ARB involvement in
Clarify the sequential review process to
Planning Commission processes
alleviate confusion for staff, applicants,
• Determine whether the Board wants to amend the
planning commission and board of
ordinance to reflect current practice or to use existing
supervisors and clarify the extent of review
ordinance guidelines for ARB involvement — the
from the PC and ARB expected by the
committee recommends that the existing guidelines be
Board, prior to BOS review.
used to refine the ARB role to its original purpose
Communicate guidance to the Planning Commission and
ARB members regarding the BOS guidance, and provide
training to clarify appropriate roles and functions
Prepare staff to assist ARB members to stay within the
designated review and decision - making roles
• Provide the following sequence in flow chart form as a guid
for staff and applicant:
Comp Plan amendments review step 1- PC, Step 2 - BOS,
ZTAs - review step -1 PC, step 2 - BOS
ZMAs - Assuming 2 part zoning review (part 1 focused on land
use, part 2 focused
on design elements) review part 1 - PC, review part 2 if in an
entrance corridor- ARB, PC, BOS
SPs- PC, ARB, BOS
• Establish policy for extent of review - visibility and extent of
information required for ARB review, extent of information
required for PC and BOS review.
• Establish staff led training sessions for ARB, PC and BOS
clarify legal roles and help to establish policy.
Community Development staff, with assistance from the County
Attorney, can facilitate the review with the Board over the next six
months. Scheduling the remaining tasks will depend on the
outcome of that review.
Detailed process documentation
focused on creating consistent review
• Process flow diagrams and review process are in place
for subdivisions (SUBs) and site plans (SDPs) . These
Documentation on review process for
can be placed on the web as part of the one -stop web
ZMAs, SPs, SDPs, and SUBs will be used
page update.
by staff for performing reviews and
• Process maps and documentation for ZMAs and SPs will
available to applicants and the public to
be finalized after completion of the 2 phase process.
understand process. Also, need to include
Anticipate 2nd half of 2007.
the complete list of (104) issues
• All process maps and other documentation will be
considered with applications and the
reviewed on a regular basis and changed when
process for proffer review.
processes are revised
• This effort will result in standards, methods and checklists
that will insure consistency in expectations on the part of
applicants, citizens and staff.
This reflects an ongoing effort for Community Development
staff.
Establish staff authority for waivers
Adopt standards that allow staff to have clearly defined
and modifications in the development
discretion and authority on the following items that would
areas
have a significant impact on streamlining the approval
process:
• Private roads
• Critical slopes
• Buffers
This task would require ordinance changes which would require
some staff support as an upfront part of the process. The level of
staff effort would depend on what review process was decided
upon by the Board re: the ordinance changes.
Develop a Proffer Policy to include
• Identify appropriate staff to develop the policy
elements beyond a cash amount
One -stop webpage devoted to staying
informed about county development
Creation of a new webpage on the county
website that brings all elements of the
online county development information
together in one place
Review successful proffer policy models from other
jurisdictions
Strive to avoid creating undefined mandates as new
regulations are adopted
Determine proper process for adopting the policy if it is
determined to be a Comprehensive Plan Amendment,
move as quickly through that process as possible with
support of the Planning Commission
Community Development staff anticipates that incorporating a
proffer policy into the Comprehensive Plan will take a year for
development and implementation.
• Determine what elements are important to include on new
webpage and develop prioritized content list — use task
force survey results and input from CDD staff (staff
identified electronic staff reports and electronic copies of
plans and other project material as priorities)
• Assess existing website content to determine what
desired material already exists in some form or location
• Assess CountyView as to its usefulness in serving
desired functions
• Identify gaps in material
• Create links or new content to address gaps in highest
priority areas of interest to citizens
• Create an interactive page for neighborhood contact
information including up -to -date email addresses to allow
neighborhood representatives to post current information
• Design one -stop webpage with input from citizens
• Test new webpage with selected focus groups
• Publicize availability of new page
• Continue process with next level of priority areas
Due to evolving nature of internet technology, staff anticipates
that this will be an ongoing task, but estimates that the first level
of priority improvements could be made to the website within 6
months. This work will be incorporated into existing ongoing
improvement efforts.
This will involve staff from the Community Relations Office,
primarily the web content manager and the Community Relations
Manager, and various Community Development staff in
organizing existing information. Implementation can be
accomplished as a part of regular work tasks over the next 6
months.
Create a comprehensive guide to the
• Review task force survey results and determine priority
development process for citizen use
items that should be included in a comprehensive guide
• Review existing materials, printed and on the website, to
"How to Understand and Get Involved with
see what the county already has developed regarding
County Development Processes"
those items
• Work concurrently with the website effort to coordinate
preparation of any additional materials
• Create printed (and DVD versions on demand) of the
guide that is appropriate for mass dissemination and that
links up with the website
• Get feedback on the material from citizens prior to
releasing, and make any necessary improvements
• Publicize availability of new materials
Many of these actions are similar to the website enhancement
priority and should occur on a parallel track. Staff would estimate
that an initial DVD could be released within 6 months, and then
would need to be updated on a regular basis.
This will involve staff from the Community Relations Office,
primarily the web content manager and the Community Relations
Manager, and can be accomplished as a part of regular work
tasks within the six month period. It is anticipated this DVD will
need to be updated as new ordinance re uirements are added.
Expand the contact area around
• Establish appropriate contact radius
projects to include more than adjoining
• Review existing contact letter
owners, include more comprehensive
• Determine appropriate new letter content including
info in the letter
contact info and county resources — include citizen input
• Revise letter, implement new contact radius
Newly defined contact radius for
• Solicit feedback from notified residents after certain time
notification letters and a more descriptive
period to assess effectiveness
letter to be sent as the initial notification -
directives for exceeding minimum legally
Staff estimates that this priority could be implemented within 6
required standards to be outlined in the
weeks. Longer term, Community Development staff anticipates
form of an administrative policy
this will increase the staff resources needed to be spent with
citizens in answering questions and facilitating input.
Create easily accessible space at COB
• Use terminal in new CDD lobby to share project info with
for project information
the public
• For those projects that have significant public interest,
Public information/ visual displays on
prepare visual display for citizens to view — determine
critical projects
what project info will be displayed
• Identify best possible space for new display area
• Publicize availability of new display area
Staff estimates that this priority could be implemented within 6
weeks in the new Community Development space on the first
floor of the COB.
Implementation will involve staff from the Community Relations
Office to assist with publicizing the new display area; this can be
accomplished as a part of regular work tasks within the six week
period. Longer term, it is anticipated this will increase
Community Development's workload as information will need to
be regularly updated and staff will need to be available to
address questions and concerns raised by the information. .
Examples of proffer and code of
• Drafts of both documents have been prepared by staff
development language for applicants
and are being internally reviewed.
on Web
• After internal review, will circulate to interested parties.
• Anticipate documents could be finalized and put on web
Model Code of Development and Proffers
site by mid -2007.
available to applicants, which reduce the
• Staff will review uses to establish conditions and eliminate
need for changes and resubmissions of
special use permit categories where possible, i.e. mobile
documents. Also, need to provide
homes
examples of good CDs and proffers and
standard conditions used with certain SPs
Community Development staff notes that standardized language
(e.g. Churches, Home Occupations)
is hard to develop due to evolving nature of proffers and desire of
applicants to negotiate certain items — examples of these items
can be made available as "models ", but an acknowledgment
should be made that these are ever - evolving documents based
on the most recent approvals. As such, it is anticipated that staff
will need to dedicate ongoing time to this task.
Approval letters explaining remaining
• Staff has already started and can easily expand current
process through occupancy
letters to provide more detailed descriptions of remaining
processes.
Approval letters will outline steps
• Will implement into process upon approval by Board.
necessary before buildings can be
occupied or uses are allowed.
Community Development staff has already started this effort and
it can be expanded without significant workload increases
Outlines of staff reports with
Staff is working on possible steps to address this issue
outstanding issues (provide advance
and bring major areas of concern to the attention of the
notice and interaction)
applicant in a timely way that allows them to be
responded to, recognizing the obvious need to stop the
There should be no surprises for
interaction with the applicant at some point and prepare a
applicants in a staff report. Any issue
final report
should have been raised in advance of the
Staff reports are finalized and made available to the
staff report, with the opportunity to resolve
public and the applicant one week before the item is
misunderstandings or mistakes.
before the Planning Commission, so there should not be
any complete surprises
Community Development staff notes this will be difficult to
resolve without building additional time into the process
schedule. The current schedule has no downtime between the
resubmission deadline for materials and the deadline for
completion of a staff report. Thus, if new issues are raised as a
result of plan changes, there is no time in the schedule for staff
and the applicant to discuss these issues.
(2) Actions already planned or underway
Some of the items discussed by the task force were already planned for or underway in some form
as the group was meeting. The task force wanted to reaffirm the County's commitment to these
actions and in some cases they provided specific direction regarding individual action items as
outlined on the following chart.
Action Item I Status I Committee Comment/Direction
Alternative Engineering Review
Pilot program underway
The committee has recommended six
month updates over the two year pilot
period, with the first update
scheduled for April, 2007
Counter Planner/ Person to answer simple
Position created, staffed
Committee supported the staffing of
questions
this position
Organize the Planning Department around
Has been implemented
Committee was supportive of this
the concept of "area planners"
in Crozet, additional
initiative
area planners will be
proposed for funding as
the master plan
schedule progresses
CountyView Web to serve as "project
Public application of
Ensure that the program is user -
diary", electronic access to project maps,
CountyView Web to be
friendly and accessible to the average
plans, etc.
launched soon, currently
citizen
being tested by selected
users
Support hiring of a Community
Position approved by
Incorporate appropriate
Engagement Specialist
BOS, hiring planned for
communication responsibilities into
late April, 2007
the job description
Create easily accessible display space at
Display area has been
Provide public information/ visual
COB for project information
designated in new
displays on critical projects
Community
Development office
space
(3) Other Priorities
In addition to the higher priority items, the task force identified a number of other actions that they
felt would be significant improvements to the development review process. While these actions did
not receive the highest endorsement by the task force, it was recommended that these items should
be kept on record and addressed by staff as they are able.
There was agreement among task force members that the item related to increasing awareness of
Amail was a particularly important action and they strongly supported efforts by staff to continue
focusing on using Amail as a communication tool.
Actions
Change submission dates for rezonings and special permits
A schedule of submission dates is annually generated and can be easily modified starting in 2008. Before next
year's schedule is developed, staff will seek input from the Planning Commission and community on factors
they consider important for these dates.
Engineer Exchange
While staff is ready and willing to implement a program which trains outside engineers as reviewers, those
engineering firms would need to be willing to fund the positions. It is noted there is no assurance that a trained
engineer would continue working for the firm that subsidized the participation or that the engineer would
continue to work in this area.
Guides to correct terminology — "plug -ins"
Staff has already compiled and published a glossary of terms and a "Planning 101 " on the departmental web
site. This will be revised and expanded as customers identify additional subject matter.
Early letter to applicants with timetables, etc.
Staff has started this effort and will expand the content as applicants indicate an interest in additional materials.
Sample reports and examples of good applications on Web site
Staff is currently developing these materials and plans to publish this later this year.
Outsourcing / Private Contractors
This will be discussed with the Board as part of a broader fee study now under way. Use of contractors will
significantly increase the cost of reviews and the Board will need to agree to either pass this cost through to
applicants or increase Community Development's funding.
Campaign to increase awareness of and use of AMail
The committee felt that Amail was a useful public information tool and recommended a continued aggressive
marketing campaign to get people to sign up for the service.
Better coordination with neighborhood assoc/ homeowner groups
The committee believes that neighborhood based information is often very effective and recommended that
effort be made to share appropriate information with neighborhood
Provide Citizen Planning Academies on a regular basis
Citizen Planning Academies that have been held in conjunction with master plan activities have been helpful in
communicating general growth management and land use information to the public. The committee
recommends that more academies be conducted for the general public to share that information as much as
possible.
Return to exec summa