Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA201200009 Legacy Document 2012-06-25 (2)COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2012 -09 Site Plan Process Improvements S U BJ ECT /PROPOSAL /REQU EST: Work session to consider changes to the site plan review process. STAFF CONTACT(S): Bill Fritz AGENDA DATE: May 15, 2012 ACTION: X INFORMATION: CONSENT AGENDA: ACTION: INFORMATION: ATTACHMENTS: Yes BACKGROUND: In January 2010, the Board adopted an Action Plan calling for staff to bring forward recommendations for "...reducing unnecessary and burdensome regulations and shortening approval times" related to the County's review and approval of site plans and subdivisions. On June 2, 2010, the Board heard a presentation on possible changes to the site plan and subdivision review processes and directed staff to continue to work on these issues. On September 7, 2010, a work session was held with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and on September 14, 2010, a work session was held with the Planning Commission (PC). Ajoint Planning Commission /Board of Supervisors work session was held on August 3, 2011. DISCUSSION: Staff considered all of the comments received and considered how potential changes would advance the goals set out by the Board of Supervisors. Staff has prepared new ordinance language that is intended to address the comments of the Board of Supervisors, Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and the public. The most significant changes are: 1. Preapplication submittal with review in 10 days to determine main issues and required waivers This will allow applicants to quickly and easily identify major issues with a development proposal. This action should streamline the review process somewhat because formal applications, when made, will be more complete. This eliminates delays in the review process brought on by confusion over the request or lack of necessary information to review a proposal. 2. Allow the issuance of _grading permits with the approval of the initial (preliminary) site plan This is consistent with the current practice for subdivisions and planned developments. Construction of streets within a subdivision may occur currently after the approval of the preliminary plat and the road plans. Grading within planned developments may occur after the approval of an erosion and sediment control plan that is consistent with the application plan. Implementing this change will shorten the total time required to build out a development 3. Establish clearer submittal requirements for the final site plan The current ordinance and review process does not provide clear guidance for the final site plan approval process. Implementing this change will reduce the burden on the applicant and shorten the time required for final site plan approval. 4. Allows for significant reduction in level of detail required for minor site plan amendments. Minor changes to a site plan occur frequently. The proposed language allows the agent to reduce the level of detail required for a site plan amendment. Currently, a small change to a site plan affecting only a portion of the site still requires all the information for a full site plan showing the entire project. The proposed change will allow the revised site plan to focus only on the area of change and allow the agent to require sufficient information to review the change without requiring the submittal of information that is irrelevant to the proposal. 5. Provides for a purely administrative review process. With the exception of projects where waivers are requested the process will be administrative. This should allow for a reduction in the overall time required to process an application and reduces the Planning Commission workload. This will allow the Planning Commission to focus more on other issues such as additional text amendments, Comprehensive Plan, rezoning and special use permits. In particular staff believes that the additional time available to work on text amendments can be a great asset to the community as it will allow ordinances to be developed that reflect the level and quality of planning that County desires. 6. Incorporates the Architectural Review Board review earlier in the process. The Architectural Review Board is made a member of the site review committee. Comments from the Architectural Review Board are received early in the review process. By engaging the Architectural Review Board early in the process it is anticipated that this will reduce the number of site plan submissions that will have to be made and reduce re- engineering and redesign costs for applicants. 7. Establish that any comment not responded to within 6 months deems the proiect withdrawn When revisions are received long after comments have been made considerable staff time is spent on re- familiarizing with the project. In addition, the project may need to essentially be re- reviewed in order to insure that no ordinance changes have occurred. In addition, only a minimal fee is required for re- activating a project. A process for applicants to request an extension to the 6 month time limit is established. Implementing this change will allow staff to be more efficient in reviewing projects. 8. Improves organization which makes interpretation and administration easier for both applicants and staff. No significant effort has been made to reorganize the ordinance since its original adoption in 1980. With changes in state law and piecemeal text amendments the organizational structure has become awkward and disjointed. The proposed changes to the ordinance provide for a more logical and easier to understand flow. 9. Uses language similar to that contained in the Subdivision Ordinance. The language for: definitions, rules of construction, notice provisions, final submittal criteria, reservation and dedication of land, access for multiple units and access in event of storm, coordination of access, easements for stormwater facilities, dedication of water and sewer facilities and other utilities, completion and bonding of improvements is made similar to that contained in the Subdivision Ordinance. Commonality in the two ordinances makes understanding the ordinances easier for applicants, public and staff and reduces inconsistencies in processes and administration and design. 10. Updates language to match current state code language and court decisions. Variations and exceptions, period of validity, reservation of land are just some of the changes made. These changes are technical in nature and have no effect on how applications have or will be processed. 11. Minor changes to fees. The fee provisions are modified only to reflect new the new process. Two new terms are added to the fee schedule, preapplication plan and initial plan. References to preliminary plans are removed from the fee schedule. No change in the total fees for applicants. Only the titles change. In preparing this text amendment staff attempted to reduce plan content to the minimum necessary for review. Limited reduction in plan content is possible for initial or final site plans. Significant reduction in plan content could, in staff opinion, result in a reduction in the quality of the resulting developments. However, staff has included for minor site plan amendments the ability to significantly reduce the plan content. This will make the preparation and review of minor site plans much easier for applicants, staff and interested public as the plans will now focus on the changes and additional information which sometimes has a cluttering effect can be removed. Staff wants to clearly note that the changes maintain public notification of the Site Review Meeting and maintains the publics ability to provide comment on site plans. Notification to adjacent owners currently occurs. Re- evaluating when these meetings occur (day or evening) and stressing that these meetings are an opportunity to talk to the applicant and County staff may serve to improve public input and allow developers to respond to public comments. BUDGET IMPACT: The proposed changes to the review process will likely have limited budget impacts. No increased budget impacts will occur however, staff cannot quantify any reduced impact on the budget. The change in process should reduce the number of hours required to review a site plan and site plan amendments. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission identify any concerns they may have with the proposed amendments and direct staff to bring the text amendment forward for a Public Hearing as soon as possible. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A — Proposed text amendment.