HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA200900009 Legacy Document 2010-05-14FINAL ACTIONS
Planning Commission
Meeting of May 12, 2009
AGENDA ITEM /ACTION
FOLLOW -UP ACTION
1.
Call to Order.
• Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
by Eric Strucko. PC members present
were Mr. Franco, Mr. Morris, Mr.
Edgerton, Mr. Loach, Ms. Joseph and
Mr. Strucko. Absent was Ms.
Porterfield. Julia Monteith was present.
• Staff present were Margaret
Maliszewski, Brent Nelson, David
Benish, Wayne Cilimberg, Sharon
Taylor and Gre g Kam tner.
2.
From the Public: Matters Not Listed for
No action required.
Public Hearing on the Agenda.
• None
3.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting —
Staff
May 6, 2009.
• The slide presentation on VDOT's proposed plan
• Question brought up about significant
regarding the funding for maintenance to be
VDOT maintenance budget cut from 13
emailed to PC.
million to 7 million which was discussed
• No other action required.
at the Board meeting.
4.
Work Sessions
Staff:
ZTA- 2009 -00009 Entrance Corridor
Staff to address the Commission's comments and
Process Improvements - Amend the
bring back for Commission review at a future work
Zoning Ordinance to change Section 30.6
session. (Attachment 1)
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).
• The Planning Commission discussed
and asked questions about the
proposed amendment, took public
comment and provided input on the
draft ordinance language changes. No
formal action was taken.
4.
Places 29, Chapter 8 - Implementation -
Staff:
Follow up to the Commission's April 14
• Staff to further address the Commission's
work session on Places29 Chapter 8,
suggestions regarding the format and making the
Implementation Table Format - Review
information in the implementation table easier to
of sample entries for a list of
understand, including the way the project priorities
implementation projects and an appendix
are presented, and bring this back for Commission
with more detailed information about each
review at a future work session. (Attachment 2)
implementation project.
• The Commission discussed and asked
questions about the information, took
public comment and provided guidance
and feedback.
• No formal action was taken.
8. • Old Business
Schedule public hearing for June 9.
After the Commission's public hearing on
SP- 2008 -00058 Harris Garage Amendment
staff found that the public notice sign had
not been posted. While the lack of posting
a sign does not affect the Commission's
action, staff has heard from the public that
they did not have a chance to talk to the
Commission. Therefore, a second public
hearing will be held on June 9 to receive
additional public comment before this goes
to the Board of Supervisors meeting on
June 9.
9. 0 New Business
None
10. Adjourn to May 19, 2009, 6:00 p.m.,
Auditorium, Second Floor, County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:01 p.m.
Attachment 1 — ZTA- 2009 -09 Entrance Corridor Process Improvements Comments
Attachment 2 — Places 29 Draft Master Plan: Chapter 8 — Implementation Follow -up Comments
Attachment 1
ZTA- 2009 -09 Entrance Corridor Process Improvements — Work Session
In a work session on ZTA- 2009 -00009 Entrance Corridor Process Improvements the Planning
Commission asked staff to consider incorporating the following comments and suggestions into the draft
ordinance text.
• In 30.6.1, the question was raised how one defines a "quality development ". One commissioner
felt that "quality development" belongs in the guidelines (not the ordinance) because it is a very
subjective term. The Commission suggested changing the wording to "Ensure the development is
compatible with ".
• In 30.6.1, the question was raised why the references to historic resources have to be so specific
in the Code and not remain in the guidelines. Is there some other way that this could be done?
The concern was raised that some resources will be left out and some people will read this and
feel that these are the only resource they need to be concerned with.
• In 30.6.3.c, the Commission generally felt that the bonuses should stay the way they are. This is
an instance where the ARB would be making a land use decision rather than an aesthetics
decision. The Commission generally agreed that if a requirement of the ARB earned the applicant
the opportunity for a bonus, that would be okay.
• In 30.6.3.d after "(including trenching or tunneling)" add "designated on the site plan to remain" or
something like that so the scope of that provision is limited to what the applicant is actually
showing on the site plan as being protected.
• When the statement in 30.6.4.2.c was broken into 2 sentences, the meaning changed. The last
part of the old language, which qualified what it pertained to, was dropped out. It should be put
back in.
• Regarding the ARB's concern about "overbuilding" a site, it was noted that the ordinance could be
reviewed to determine if coverage requirements need to be revised. If the ARB thinks more green
is required, then maybe the ordinance could change to allow for less building and more green.
• Concern was expressed that the ordinance should be the standard. If there is an omission in one
section of the ordinance, and that contradicts another section of the ordinance, it will be a
problem.
• Regarding 30.6.4.d, a Commissioner asked if the "without regard" wording was too powerful. It
was recommended that "without regard" should be changed to "in addition ". It was also noted
that it should be made clear which types of requirements the ARB can /can't modify. This may
need to be dealt with in each individual regulation.
• The current regulations provide that if the ARB does not act within 60 days the application is
deemed approved, which is unclear. The Commission discussed several options for staff to look
at to simplify the process including denial of the request by the ARB or staff, ways to deal with an
incomplete application such as placing item on consent agenda, the starting and stopping of the
time clock, and consideration of modeling the City's denial letter procedure. A mechanism is
needed that gives the applicant the right to get a timely approval, but also parallels the state law
that applies to site plans and subdivision plats. Staff will work on addressing the issue
concerning the review time particularly when staff finds out that applicant has not addressed
guidelines in the way they need to.
• Discussion was held on the term "county -wide COA ". It was recommended that a definition be
provided in the ordinance.
3
Comments were provided by members of the public
Morgan Butler, SELC: asked if public comment would be accepted on the county -wide CofAs;
recommended time limits on the temporary construction headquarters; discussed appeals; asked for
clarification of "agent" in 30.6.8 and 9.
Neal Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum: recommended retaining the bonus factor provisions; stated that
only one item in this zta responded to the DRTF recommendations; questioned the need for an expiration
date; recommended that there was no need to "stop the clock" because an applicant can defer.
Discussion -
• In 30.6.5 f and g, "and site improvements" should be added after "structures ".
• The section on appeals, 30.6.8, should be expanded to include the ability of adjacent property
owners to appeal to the circuit court.
• Regarding 30.6.7.e/f the commission discussed incomplete applications and the timeframe of
review of applications that don't meet all the guidelines. The county should be given some
flexibility in stopping the clock based on circumstances, but the language must allow applicant to
move forward.
• Section 30.6.7.b should be further embellished.
• In 30.6.7.g, vesting requirements relative to CofAs may need to be clarified.
4
Attachment 2
Places 29 Draft Master Plan: Chapter 8 — Implementation Follow -up Comments
In a work session on Places29 Chapter 8, Implementation Table Format Review the Planning
Commission reviewed the form and discussed how they wanted the cost reported. There was a general
discussion about the presentation of funding options and what level of evaluation and recommendation
the Planning Commission should have. The Commission felt that the format of the simplified table and
description were going in the right direction and made the following comments and suggestions.
• The Planning Commission generally accepted the list and appendix format.
• Provide cost estimates in year of plan adoption dollars.
• Deemphasize /relocate UNJAM cost estimates in format of year of adoption dollars.
• Wanted total construction /right -of- way /utilities cost breakdown.
• Provided other general comments on form improvements
• The Commission wanted the list to have those cases when the right -of -way is not separated to
have a brief explanation and the reason why.
• Work on columns to make consistent dollar figure amount possibly by using the adopted year
figures in today's dollars and moving the UNJAM column figures and provide that information in a
footnote.
• Provide for cost estimates for projects recommended in plan through private means. A
suggestion was made that it be listed separately.
• Funding options were discussed with recognition that the Board of Supervisors has the power of
the purse. The Commission should explore different mechanisms that would provide funding.
• Discussion held about the need for a timeline when expenditures will occur in today's dollars.
Comments were provided by the following members of the public: Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environmental
Council and Neal Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum. (See minutes for specific comments)
5