The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZTA200800003 Legacy Document 2009-11-13 (3)I IRm COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: Work Session on Administrative Waivers and Modifications in the Development Areas SUBJECT /PROPOSAL /REQUEST: Work Session - Review and Discussion of Criteria for Administrative Waivers and Modifications STAFF: Amelia McCulley, Ron Higgins PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: March 25, 2008 BACKGROUND The Development Review Task Force (DRTF) was charged by the Board of Supervisors to provide recommendations for improvements in efficiency, effectiveness, quality and adequate public participation. The fourth priority in their May 2, 2007 report to the Board was "to establish staff authority for waivers and modifications in development areas." (The bold emphasis is added by staff to reduce any confusion that this recommendation includes the Rural Areas because it was focused only on the development areas.) In addition to the specific waiver recommendations from the DRTF, staff suggested several more waivers to the Commission which are common requests. This item was discussed with the Commission on November 20, 2007 (see Attachment B). At that time, the Commission decided the following: 1. Amend the ordinance to exempt properties split by an existing public road from the requirement to share the same entrance /access. This is a current Section 14 -404 Subdivision Ordinance waiver requirement which is not physically possible to achieve when property is not contiguous and is located on two different sides of a public road. 2. Develop clear criteria for staff review of waiver requests for buffer disturbance, site plan waivers, open space dedication and disturbance of artificial critical slopes. Any provision for administrative waiver will include the staff option to refer the matter to the Commission. 3. Make provision for adjacent owner notice prior to staff action on a waiver request in order to not sacrifice public participation in an administrative decision. 4. Continue discussion of administrative review of critical slopes disturbance. Develop very specific criteria for administrative consideration of significant features and systems. Include criteria and use of remediation measures for certain circumstances. This was the single most complex issue and clear consensus was not reached about whether to pursue it further at this time. The Commission then passed resolutions of intent on February 5, 2008 for amendment of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances related to this issue (see Attachment A). Staff suggested that prior to drafting ordinance language and going to public hearing, we hold a work session to discuss waiver criteria. DISCUSSION The DRTF specifically recommended that the Board "adopt standards that allow staff to have clearly defined discretion and authority on ... items that would have a significant impact on streamlining the approval process..." The purpose of this work session is to discuss clear criteria which will guide staff in their review of administrative waiver requests. Questions for the Commission: 1. Are the proposed criteria appropriate for these administrative waivers? Are any additional criteria relevant? 2. With regards to critical slopes, should additional waivers beyond the two specific ones be undertaken at this time? Staff will individually address criteria for each of the four (4) areas proposed for the provision of an administrative waiver. 1. Disturbance of Buffers An undisturbed buffer is required for commercial development (20 feet wide) or industrial development (30 feet wide) which is adjacent to property zoned residential or rural areas (see Attachment C). No construction activity including grading or clearing of vegetation is allowed in this buffer without a waiver from the Planning Commission. Whether or not a buffer disturbance waiver is granted, screening is required to be established within this buffer in accordance with the landscape regulations in Section 32.7.9. Staff suggests that criteria for approval of buffer disturbance could include the following: A. Adequate landscape screening does not currently exist and installation of screening which meets or exceeds ordinance requirements would result in disturbance to the buffer; or B. An arborist or landscape architect certifies that trees in the buffer are dying, diseased or will constitute a fall hazard; or C. The County Engineer determines that disturbance of the buffer is necessary in order to address an existing drainage problem; or D. Disturbance of the buffer will result in improved screening through the use of a berm, a retaining wall or the like. In this case, the applicant shall illustrate the result of both the screening available without buffer disturbance and available with disturbance of the buffer. 2. Approval of Site Plan Waivers The Site Plan regulations currently allow the Commission to approve a waiver of the drawing of a full blown site plan "in a particular case upon a finding that the requirement of such plan would not forward the purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public interest (Section 32.2.2). The regulations also provide that the Commission's decision is made after consideration of the agent's recommendation. It further provides that the agent in formulating his /her recommendation shall consider the site review committee's recommendation as to what is necessary for their technical review. The requirements of a full blown site plan necessitates that an engineer, surveyor or landscape architect accurately locate all improvements and show all types of information about the subject property and adjacent property. (See Attachment D for Ordinance text for site plan waivers and site plan requirements.) Site plan waivers are either always or often utilized in the following circumstances: Site plan waivers are always utilized in the case of multiple (3 or more) single - family dwellings on the same parcel. In these cases, the site plan serves (as a preliminary subdivision plat) to show that the new dwelling can be located in such a way that the property could be lawfully divided and that access requirements (road and entrance standards) can be met. Existing development with a minor change to the site. Actual examples include: a) one additional parking space is proposed to serve a tenant in an existing commercial building; b) a new green house that is not open to the public and therefore does not generate additional parking needs, is proposed for a retail nursery; c) an older shopping center built under a minimal site plan from the 1970s is proposing a minor change in the parking lot; and d) a commercial building which predates zoning and therefore the requirement of a site plan, proposes a small addition. Proposed agribusinesses such as a winery or produce stand. Without a site plan waiver, the entire property (often this involves large acreage properties) must be shown with topographic and all other required information. Staff suggests the criteria for approval of a site plan waiver could include the following: A. The Site Review Committee finds that all of the information required by Sections 32.5 and 32.6 is not necessary for their review of the proposed development; and B. The Zoning Administrator finds that a full blown site plan is not necessary for staff to properly inspect and enforce the development of the site under the County's Development Code. This decision would be made in consultation with the County Engineer and the Manager of Zoning Enforcement. 3. Open Space Dedication 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). Appropriateness of open space is now being considered even earlier in the development process, such as during rezoning. The neighborhood model district includes additional provisions about the use and creation of open space. The open space regulations (Section 4.7) currently provide fairly clear criteria for the various types of Commission approval of open space (see Attachment E for the full ordinance text). The dedication and use of open space is relatively routine; there are rarely issues requiring Commission resolution. Staff's proposal to provide adjacent owner notice will allow us to consider that input prior to making these decisions. The Ordinance criteria for consideration of two of the four open space provisions are listed below: A. Open Space Intent (Section 4.7.1) Open space is intended to serve varied comprehensive plan objectives such as: ■ Provision of active /passive recreation; ■ Protection of areas sensitive to development; ■ Buffering between dissimilar uses; and ■ Preservation of agricultural activity. The Commission shall consider the appropriateness of such areas for the intended usage in terms of such factors as location, size, shape and topographic characteristics. B. Permitted Uses (Section 4.7.2) Unless permitted by the commission in a particular case, open space shall be maintained in a natural state and shall not be developed with any man -made feature. Where deemed appropriate, open space may be used for one or more of the following uses: • Agriculture, forestry and fisheries; • Game preserves and the like; • Noncommercial recreational structures and uses; • Public utilities; • Wells and septic systems for emergency use only; • Storm water detention and flood control devices 4. Disturbance of Critical Slopes This issue is the most complex and challenging of these four topics (see Attachment F for current regulations). The Commission has endorsed staff's recommendation that we codify our longstanding administrative practice to exempt critical slope disturbance when those slopes were artificially created through a site plan approved by the County. As a second possible waiver provision, a Commissioner has suggested that a subdivision waiver heard in December is an example of a case that could qualify for administrative approval. It included these components: • Replacement of an existing structure already located on critical slopes; • Minimal disturbance of critical slopes to install new structure; • Mitigation plan The Commission will need to determine if we should consider any further provisions beyond these two (artificial slopes and replacement of an existing structure) at this time. In the future when more detailed field work has been completed to establish digitized parcel -based Open Space mapping, critical slopes waivers may be more easily handled as an administrative waiver process. Additional Critical Slopes Waiver Provisions Critical slopes disturbance may be permitted in those cases in which the following findings can be made: A. The property is not identified as including any protected resources within the open space plan. After field inspection, staff confirms there are no significant features or critical features as identified for protection in the Open Space plan; B. There is no reasonable alternative that would eliminate or reduce the disturbance of critical slopes. C. A mitigation plan is proposed to address erosion during construction and long -term stabilization of the site. RECOMMENDATION The provision of additional administrative waivers is a recommendation from the Development Review Task Force endorsed by the Board of Supervisors in order to streamline development review in the Development Areas. Staff recommends that the Commission provide recommendations on criteria for these four administrative waivers. If the Commission is not ready to move the additional critical slopes waiver provisions forward at this time, we suggest that we move forward at this time with the four that are outlined. As the next step, staff will draft ordinance language and we can move to public hearings with the necessary text amendments. ATTACHMENTS: A — ZTA and STA Resolutions of intent dated February 5, 2008 B — Final Action Memo Planning Commission Meeting November 20, 2007 C — Current Zoning Ordinance provisions for Buffers D — Current Zoning Ordinance provisions for Site Plan requirements and for Site Plan waivers E — Current Zoning Ordinance provisions for Open Space F — Current Zoning Ordinance provisions for Critical Slopes Administrative Waivers and Modifications in the Development Areas Planning Commission Work Session March 25, 2008