The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZTA200900009 Legacy Document 2009-12-09STAFF PERSON: Margaret Maliszewski PLANNING COMMISSION: December 15, 2009 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: TBD ZTA: ZTA2009 -00009 Entrance Corridor Process Improvements ORIGIN: Board of Supervisors Resolution of Intent (Attachment A) PROPOSAL: Amend the Zoning Ordinance to change Section 30.6 Entrance Corridor Overlay District (ECOD) and related sections to streamline procedural requirements and improve efficiency and effectiveness in Entrance Corridor (EC) review, and to address recommendations of the Development Review Task Force (DRTF). PUBLIC PURPOSE TO BE SERVED: This amendment will provide for greater efficiency and effectiveness in the review of applications for development proposals madc under section 30.6 of the Zoning Ordinance. BACKGROUND; Following recommendations in 2007 by the Development Review Task Force and joint meetings of the ARB, BOS and PC in 2008 and 2009, the Planning Commission held work sessions on this ZTA on May 12, 2009 and November 17, 7-009 and provided comments on the draft text. On October 5, 2009 the Architectural Review Board (ARB) also held a work session on the draft text and provided comments. The current draft of the text amendment (Attachment 13) addresses the comments made at the work sessions. STAFF COMMENT: Attachment C is a table that compares the current ordinance text with the proposed text, section by section. The far right column in the table provides comments about the changes that have been made since the Planning Commission's November work session. Please note that in this table the current text is provided in the order in which it appears in the current ordinance, and the proposed text is re- ordered in a few places to correspond to the current text. Attachment D is a flow chart that outlines the review process proposed in sections 30.6.6 and 30.6.7. It has been color coded to highlight the various track's through the process (for example, green identifies the quickest track from submittal to approval). Administration / Review Process: The proposed amendments would allow for staff review of sonic EC applications without the preparation of a staff report and review at an ARB meeting. This would save time in the review process. The proposed amendments also clearly outline the steps in the review process. This clarification allows for a better understanding of the review process and the costs /benefits associated with the various tracks of the process. Housing Affordability: N/A Implications to Staffing / Staffing Costs: The proposed amendments would not increase staffing/ staffing costs. The amendments provide the opportunity for streamlining the EC review process and increasing efficiencies in EC review. Applicant Costs; Zoning fees are currently under review by the Board of Supervisors. Although specific fees have not yet been drafted to reflect these proposed amendments, revised fees for EC applications would follow from this amendment and would be expected to be lower for those EC applications subject to staff review than those that are subject to ARB review. As an example, there would be the addition of fee for the county -wide Certificate of Appropriateness. The county -wide certificate fee would be lower than the fee for a standard, non- county -wide certificate. To maintain consistency with other similar applications, fees would also be required for: reinstatement of applications, re- submittal of revisions (after the first re- submittal), and for extending the period of validity of a Certificate of Appropriateness. It is anticipated that these fees would be comparable to, or less than, those fees for other similar applications such as: the reinstatement of a site development plan, extending the period of validity of a site development plan, and extending a special use permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward the attached text amendment to the Board with a recommendation for adoption. Attachment A: Resolution of Intent Attachment B: Draft Ordinance Amendment 12/7109 Attachment C. Ordinance Text Comparison Table Attachment D: EC Application Review Process Flow Chart AI I ACIINIENT A It1:SOLUT10N OF INTEN'i WIIE.REAS, /.Lining l Ordinance k 3I16 "as mhpwd in 1990 for the pLirpose Of•inlplcmcilling [lie er)ahlin><; amhonty in VwWnia ('cA ` 15,2-230(9/%) h) VIC111iI' ing those artedaI sircus and h1h":q, round to he sin routes (if' tourist access to designatcd historic landln :irks, structut'es 01' Lllstl -IetS 11 ithin the CL7t1III1 .,t in COntiguc7us localities (licivinafier, "011tr[111cc L orridor ; "). recltriring 111,11 the cl'ectiun, reciillSULIL:tion, alteration or resforation ol'slructures. inchldins1_ signs, on paivels smi: 1ihws w tNoe mwds and highways, be architecturally com pat ill le \ti it 11 those 11isloric landmarks ur titrtlL:lnreti_ and e',MhIiShing the substantive and procedural rcquirenlcnts Ior approving developmcnt lly the .AI'Aitecturcll RCVie.1L [IO'Ll f 1%ithin the enlranceCorridor". and WtIEAVAS, the 1)= 01mscn; IN% iv" l isk Dove l llic -OR I r) "as charged by the Board or supervimw" in 2006 to t -L:% i :w and assess ctlrlelil RgidaMe land use pr11L•.l'sws to iduntily n"ded improvements in L'rfleicmC ' el'li:rtiVcrles,S. L11[101ily and ptlhlie 11.a•1icil)ali0I1: Lind WIII;I E AS, one or the 0R I F's r-cerrnirlendation,, tL7 tIic Board or' ,np •rlis„rs in 2007 41 as ILi clarify Ilw CNteIII ol'Archilectural Revicw Huard rclieL\ e\I -ec °tell l)y the Board 01'Nuper� isors wid de�elopinent prupusalti drat %, Mlld later he cunsWelmd by the Ihmrcl ul'Supen Owt and as a vallt of that recommundalirll- the Board Llf'SuperviSON. the Planning C omunksion aml the Arcllilectural AM" Bounl hilly' rcuenlly held w 1 hiu rllc0hWs ILA discuss issues pL:rtaining ki the 1)11!'11 Fs ruomnlcndation und. Mated divrL•a dISCUSsed recommendations presented by ('uLntty staff kir sIroanflhi1 ng Ilic Architceturid Itel ic%% Boind ro icy. in /LIIriln -1 (Ordinance § 30A ,1nd AI I I I•: U"As' in order to imllrm c the cf hC:14`ncL . cffecl11e11e", and qua!iy, in Zoning Ord WrIce 1$ 3ADS, substantive and pn}cedural rvquirer11L:W1 fiwhg ( Ord mce § 316 ;1rld related sections oi'the Zoning Ordinance should Ile 0111e11d1'l1 to ri:orgriniie, res A rlud Mrawllinc r117111baMe prnceduml re*iircmernts, to) rcl iSL. and arlleud applicable s0vantlle relltllremolt, to l'MS,claril'} the atrthoriq and the rule ofthc: Arehitecllrral Ro'iuw Board to laciIitale Ilse etcrcise ul -its po%kerti. and to make otllercllangcs Lleented appropriate in s,rLler tO IM M' iCIIic: C llle ptlr11s1"e of oning Ordinance § 3116 amt M addl'ess the recommendation ol'Ihe I)R'I I-, NOW, '11'111 FIiEFORE. 13E IT IiESOLVED TIIAT Ior purpose; of public necessity. contienivioc. genrral WeII'MV and g00Ll I 011 LIe1cIopincl11 practlecs. Ihe. linard or supl'11 i-01•ti IICI'chy adill)(, a re,nl tit ion 171' intent IL) r Ill l ell d Zoning Ordinance §§ 3A, Ali, 316 and am other regulaAms of the IoAng (lydinance deemed approlwhHe 1c) achieve IS I)rlrlu� yeti described herein. BE.. IT FURT11ER RESOLVED TIIAT the Planlring, 0,111111ission tiltall I101d 0 I)LIMiC 11011'illg Lul lhL: 1.Llning text an1LAnLlrlrent 111'01)OSCLI by 11liS res011,16011 of intent, and nrake its rccommcndalion to the Board Carliesl po "ible datL:. 1, l ",lla W, Jordan. do herebl Iha[ Ih� k1lUL -ping "Hung is a true, correct copy ora ltesoiution duly adopted by tilt Board ol'Supervisors ul' Alherilarle C'uanly, V irginirt, by a vtalc of In , as recanted beknq at a reguWr meeting held on _ Board o1'County 51Ipervis0l-s 11y:L; N M r. Boyd NI r. Dal -rir:r _ Ms. Mallek Mi'- Rooker till '-dutzk1' 1%1-�. I homas Clerk. 2