The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZTA200800002 Legacy Document 2009-06-22 (2)STAFF PERSON: Elaine K. Echols, AICP PLANNING COMMISSION WORKSESSION: September 30, 2008 ZTA 08 -02: Request for Changes to Planned District Regulations BACKGROUND: On April 22, 2008, the Planning Commission passed a resolution of intent to consider changes to the Planned District (PD) regulations that would, among other things, require that site plans and subdivision plats permitted under old planned development zoning comply with current rather than "old" regulations that existed at the time of rezoning approval. On July 29, 2008, staff held a worksession with the Commission on these proposed changes to the ordinance, as well as several other changes that the staff proposed the Commission consider, based on staff's experience in administering the PD regulations. Draft minutes from the July 29 meeting will be emailed to the Commission. At the July meeting, the Planning Commission asked staff to set up a worksession /public roundtable to discuss the proposed changes. Specific items for which the Planning Commission requested additional information were the following: 1. Old PD's which might be affected 2. Sign provisions for Neighborhood commercial districts 3. Parking requirements in PD's 4. Architecture in NMD's by the proposed regulations Model Districts (NMD) and other Also, the Commission asked that the worksession /roundtable be held in the late afternoon and all interested individuals and groups be invited. Staff has notified over 40 individuals and businesses and has posted this report at the County's website. PROPOSAL : This roundtable /worksession is set up to discuss the issues related to old PD's using new regulations and signage. Recommendations on architecture and parking for NMD's are still under study and will come to a subsequent meeting. Old PD's /New Regulations and Vesting The Planning Commission's resolution of intent was based on concerns regarding old subdivision and zoning regulations being applied to new developments. The County Attorney drafted the following language, which is underlined below, to address this concern while respecting state legislation regarding vested rights: Each preliminary and final site plan and subdivision plat fora planned development shall be reviewed for compliance with the applicable zoning and subdivision regulations including the applicable code of development, in effect when the site plan or subdivision plat is under county review: provided that, at the option of the developer or subdivider, each preliminary and final site plan and subdivision plat may be reviewed for compliance with the applicable zoning and subdivision regulations in effect when the planned development was approved if the developer or subdivider establishes a vested right as provided in Virginia Code � 15.2-2307 or other applicable statute to develop under the previously approved planned development district For purposes of this section an approved planned development with an application plan is a significant governmental act for purposes of Virginia Code & 15.2 -2307. In addition, each preliminary and final site plan or subdivision plat for a planned development shall be reviewed for compliance with the following: d The water protection ordinance and all other applicable regulations. This change makes the current subdivision and zoning regulations the default regulations, but allows the regulations in effect when the PD was approved to be used only if the owner can show that it has a vested right under Virginia Code § 15.2 -2307 (significant governmental act, reliance on the act, incurring of extensive obligations or substantial expenses in diligent pursuit of the approval). The Commission asked staff to advise them on the planned districts that would be affected by the vesting provision. After researching PD's which have never been developed, staff is able to identify two largely undeveloped PD's which may be affected by the proposed regulations. These districts, identified on the attached pages (Attachments A -1 and A -2), are zoned Planned Residential District (PRD) and are shown on the 1980 zoning map but do not appear to be developed yet. The underlined words in this paragraph are important because, in order to know whether there has been a vesting, additional research would need to be done by the County and the applicant would need to provide information to substantiate whether a vesting had or had not occurred. There may be other properties affected by the changes to the PD regulations. At this juncture, there is no way to know without significant research on each property. Resource limitations do not allow staff to do all the research necessary to evaluate which, if any, PD's may be affected by the proposed new regulations. Most of the PD's listed in Attachment B -1 have already been developed or a vesting has probably already occurred. The vesting has taken place through development on the ground or proffers which would prevent today's regulations from applying. Before any new development could occur in any of the districts, a vesting determination from Zoning would be necessary. In some cases, this would be an easy determination. In others it would not be as straightforward because of the particulars of the rezoning and other factors. Signage in Neighborhood Model Districts Staff mentioned at the last worksession that the signage regulations for Neighborhood Model districts should be reconsidered because some developers believe that the sign area allowed is too restrictive. Questions arose at the Commission meeting as to the appropriateness of increasing signage area in this district because of the residential nature of Neighborhood Model districts. Staff was asked to provide additional information to the Commission before it moves forward. The focus of this discussion is on sign area for freestanding, projecting, and temporary signs only. Allowable sign area for these signs by districts is provided as follows: In R -10, R15, PRD, PUD, and NMD districts, the sign area for each of these signs may be up to 24 square feet. In C -1, C -O, HC, PD -SC, PD -MC, HI, LI, and PD -IP districts, the sign area may be up to 32 square feet. At the time of rezoning, an applicant may request a modification to the sign requirements in any of the planned districts. Since PD -SC and PD -MC districts already allow for 32 square feet of sign area, the request has been made specifically for the NMD. The issue that has most recently arisen relates to the Albemarle Place, a NMD. Albemarle Place is largely commercial but allows for multifamily residential and townhouses as well. The owners of this development wish to have signage for their commercial properties that is consistent with other commercial districts, especially for signage that would appear from Route 29 North. At this juncture, the owners of the development have been told they will need to request a rezoning to increase the amount of sign area by 8 square feet. Their response was to ask if a zoning text amendment might be more appropriate, which is why staff has brought the issue to the Commission. Staff notes that there are different types of NMD's in the County. Some are more residential than commercial and vice versa. Some of the districts are on major thoroughfares which would be governed by Entrance Corridor guidelines; others are not. Some of the NMD's cover several hundred acres, such as Old Trail and Biscuit Run. Others are less than two acres, such as Woodbrook Station on Berkmar. There are several different ways to deal with signage in these different types of NMD's. The options range from changing the ordinance to allow for all NMD's to have up to 32 square feet for the three types of signs identified above to not changing the ordinance at all. In not changing the ordinance at all, the onus is on the applicant to request additional sign area at the time of rezoning, which could be evaluated as to scale, context, and the number of signs permitted as part of the rezoning. The applicant, however, may not be able to anticipate how many signs and where they might be located because the final location of buildings is not determined until time of site plan approval. The alternative recommended by staff would be to keep the requirements as they are right now with one exception. That exception would be to allow the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to increase the area of signage on freestanding, projecting, and temporary signs from 24 square feet up to 32 square feet in the Entrance Corridor for NMD's, during the site plan process. Staff believes that the need for additional sign area relates primarily to buildings and uses on major streets which are part of the Entrance Corridor. The ARB already reviews and approves signage in these areas and makes decisions related to the scale of the buildings and signs, the context of the area in which the sign is proposed, and the number of signs already allowed. Since sign approval is site specific in the Entrance Corridor, it would be expected that the ARB would only approve additional area in appropriate settings. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: This worksession provides the Commission the opportunity to consider and discuss with the public the proposed language changes regarding old PD's and application of zoning regulations as well as options for the size of signage in the NMD. Staff asks that the Commission advise on any changes which it would like to see in the proposed language of the ordinance regarding old PD's and agree to take this to a public hearing. Staff also asks that the Commission provide direction regarding the size of signage in the NMD. Staff will bring back language reflecting the Commission's direction along with additional information on parking requirements and architecture to a subsequent worksession. ATTACHMENT A -1 and A -2: Maps showing old Planned Districts ATTACHMENT B -1: List of Planned Districts Map is for display purposes only • Aerial Imagery from Commonwealth of Virginia Attachment A--) 33 -10 33 -14 0 445 Feet Map is for display purposes only • Aerial Imagery from Commonwealth of Virginia CIS -Web Geographic Data Services www.albemarle.org (434) 296 -5832 -�I Legend ( Note: Same Items on map may not appear in legend) 21 -18G 21 -18A2 ❑ �a a a 21 -14 21 21 -18A1 3\3-2A �• -14C _ • l4 33 -2 33 -6A �ti= pV 600 ■ �� a o 29, V S, 33-6 ❑ °. ° 29 W. 33 -4 33 -7 33- 33 -4A 33 -4B 33 -1A 33 -4C 33 -10 33 -14 0 445 Feet Map is for display purposes only • Aerial Imagery from Commonwealth of Virginia CIS -Web Geographic Data Services www.albemarle.org (434) 296 -5832 List of Planned Districts* As of September 23, 2008 Albemarle Place Gra rock North Peacock Hill Ashcroft Gra rock Orchard Peter Jefferson Place Avinity Haden Place Poplar Glen Avon Park Hickory Ride Redfields Avon Park II Hollymead Rio East Avon -Fifth Street Hollymead Town Center A -1 Rio Square Bar gamin Park Hollymead Town Center A -2 Rivanna Belvedere Hollymead Town Center B Rivanna Village at Glenmore Biscuit Run Hollymead Town Center C Still Meadow Blue Ridge Co-housing Hollymead Town Center D Treesdale Branchlands Ivy Meadow UVA Research Park Briarwood Jarman Gap Estates Villas at Southern Ridge Brookmill Lewis Hill RPN Walnut Hills Buck Mountain Liberty Hall Wavertree Candlewick Luxor Wa lands Grant Cascadia Mill Creek Western Ridge Clifton Lakes Mill Creek Village Homes Westhall Clover Lawn North Pointe Whittington Earl sville Forest Oaklei ht Farm Wickham Pond Ednam Old Trail Wickham Pond II Fashion Square Panto s Place Willoughby Fontaine Avenue Townhomes Peacock Hill Willow Glen Forest Lakes South Peter Jefferson Place Windsor Estates Four Seasons Poplar Glen Woodbrook Station Foxcroft Redfields TMP 60 -6813, 68C, & 68D Franklin Rio East TMP 33 -1 & 1 D Gazebo Plaza Rio Square Georgetown-Hydraulic Rivanna Glenmore Rivanna Village at Glenmore Glenmore Leake Still Meadow Glenmore Liven good Treesdale * Planned Districts may have a different name than when approved; there may be fewer or more districts than indicated here because of these different names. Attachment B" 1