The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008-05-21 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MAY 21,2008 12:00 Noon, ROOM 241 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 1. Ca I to Order. 2. Clc sed Meeting. Certify Closed Meeting. 3. 4. Recess. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD, PLANNING COMMISSION JOINT MEETING MAY 21,2008 1 :30 P.M., ROOM 241 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 5. Ca I to Order and Establish Quorum. 6. PrE sentation on Local Sustainability Initiatives - Sarah Temple 7. Re\..tiew of Roles and Responsibilities of each body - Greg Kamptner 8. Re\..tiew of Current Entrance Corridor (EC) processes - building permits, signs, SOP's, SPs/ZMA's; - Ma1rgaret Maliszewski 9. Review of Ministerial Process (SOPs and SUBs) - Mark Graham 10. Review of Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) process - Wayne Cilimberg 11. Discussion among ARB/PC/BOS members 12. Adjourn - 3:30 p.m. Page 1 of 1 Buttrick, Sherry (VOF) [sbuttrick@vofonline.org] Sen : Tuesday, May 20, 2008 3:56 PM To: Meagan Hoy; Bob Tucker Cc: dslutzky@e2inc.com; Sally Thomas Sub ect: RE: Tomorrow's Meeting '+old.v1 ~ 5<)10'6 eagan and Bob: We have just been told that Mr Zunka has a scheduling PIUUIt::IIIIt::ldLt::U LU d l,,;UUIL l,,;d~t:: had thought was settled or re-scheduled and he cannot come tomorrow after all. So we will have to re- Ie the meeting at a later date. Please apologize to the Bd for the inconvenience. Sherry From: Meagan Hoy [mailto:mhoy@albemarle.org] Sent: uesday, May 20,2008 12:08 PM To: 8u rick, Sherry (VOF) Subje : Tomorrow's Meeting Sherry When ou all come to meet with the Board tomorrow, come to the 4th floor conference room. (Pizza will be provid d for lunch.) Could you let the other people that are coming (Joe and the lawyer) know also? Thank ou, and see you tomorrow! Meag n R. Hay Senior Deputy Clerk Count of Albemarle 434-29 -5843 mhoy !albemarle.org 5/20/2 08 The meeting that was scheduled with a tarting time of 12 noon has been rescheduled for 1 :30 p.m. Room 241. ^ en ~. m (J) ..., s: (J) () ?""+- m CD ::::r Q) ::0 -I '< C -- CD N ......... a. 3 en '< a. ~ CD "'C r-+ - < CD N Q) 0 m 0 () a. ::J 0 -- ~ < ()) ::J m ..., 0 ::J 0 Q) < ::J C ..., 3 C- o ::J CD ::J 3 ::J -. I""+- - ......... CD m ;:+'< ::J s: ?""+- m m '< - )> ::J m C a. co - 3 CD ::J ::J ~..., ::J () -- (J) r-+ -. I""+- 0 ..., -. < m c: Q) I""+- ::J 0 I""+- CD ..., '< r-+ () 0 -- ., ~ < I""+- )> en '< 0 0- eo -- ~ CD ......... () 3 en '< ::::r m m ::l. ::l. CD 0 l""+- I""+- CD (J) < CD ... c: Q) E c: o ~ .- > c: W ...... c: Q) E Q) C) CO c: CO :E .- ... CJ Q) ...... o ~ c.. Q) ...... CO E .- - (.) c: o c: o .- ...... ~ CO CJ c: .- o c: .- ~ n; E CJ E ~ 0 ~(.) UJ E Q) ... UJ ~ en - CO ~ ~ ... CO Z c: o - CO ...... c: Q) E UJ c: E e Q) .- ... > UJ c: ~ wen c: o .- ...... CO ~ o c. UJ c: CO ~ I- .- ...... CO ~ Q) UJ c: o (.) ..... - .- ~ aJ ';}"'-0- =>~...-;~ "1 ~ "'0 :I -", h in' .'- I ::'<'""_0 '!l ~.--;~ '/ .~- :I ..,~ r~ ~'~ ~,. --- I L ~ go- ~ z """"'" >- -d ........ a:3 #lit.( Z """"'" >- I- Z '> I- """"'" << ...mm.. .. . . :: . .. ,.. . - !.., .- -- -- --- --- --- .:.=- 1 , ~ m i ...,,:@,...,'" -'t ....... ::;; . ;Ii ;;;.. L ':~ .~ m -- t- -- ~ ~ II :::J ,'-" r: . $.-- ..' ;:.~:- - -,:::', ' :-..",.., : '- <p . ,,; ;.,. f-i<f.....~'>'. tTl n ~ ~ - ~ b 8. ,.:' ~;;j( " ~ ~ 'II~.....~II' r-' tTl . -. (") m 3 0 :J "'C3< a "'C =;. < == 0 co 0) :J 3 ~ 3 co CD CD ::J~ :J I""+- '"P""'l l""+- . ...., 0) o _ c: s: =0) o ::J ::J 0) "'CCO ..., co co 3 < co co ::J ::J l""+- I""+- -. "'U g 0 ~ -. 0) ("). ::J co a.(J) (") (") o 0 3.3 :J' 3 c ;:::::;.: 0) I""+- -0 ~)a <- (3' cr ~ID lEi -If ~... ClI_ ;ID 1&' as: V\:s l~ . m 3 m ::J -. :J a. :J. (J) m 3 c (") -. ..., I""+-Nco -. -- < :J (") ;:::::;.: CO 0 co. CO 3- (J) :J -. < :J -. C ..., 0) o _ :J CO 3 :J CO <. :J ..., 1""+-0 0) :J =3 3 CD "'C :J 0) I""+- (") 0) I""+- (J) -. .....,3 ...,"'C o ..., 3 ~ o CD "'C 3 CO CO 03 :J I""+- I""+- o. 0- :J,< (J) m ::::J < -. .., o ::::J 3 (1) ::::J .... Q) - 3: Q) ::::J Q) (Q (1) 3 (1) ::::J .... (JJ '< tn .... (1) 3 .-. m 3: (JJ - (") - -I -< .. (") o c z ~ QO C < )> (JJ C (JJ -I )> - Z )> aJ - r- ~ -< - Z - -I - ~ <: m (JJ CD - - .> rn CD ...... ...... o "t: CO ..c (J 15 >. ...... U ftS .c -- OJ .... :> '0 >- ...... .:- UJ .... CD > .c :J c: o -- ~ s.... o ..0 ('j - - o U s.... ~ '" (J) .- ,4-J .- c: :J ~ o a.. a.. o 15 >. ...... c ::J o (J Q) +J .- (.) > en Q) Q) :t: +J ..c +J (.) Q) 0 L- "'t: "'t: <( co co Q) ..c E () ..c Q) +J '+- '+- ..c 0 0 <( ;e:- Q) '+- (.) 0 () &= ~ L... ~ 0 c: 0 ~ ::J +J 0 co L- () +J ::> .!!2 ~ c: ~ Q) .- Q) 0) E c: co "'C c: c: <( co co a... ~ co +J Q) c: co Q) en +J E ::> c: en Q) c: "'C E e c: co C c: .- ....J 0 > L- C L- a .- w .0 > c: c: -- W "'C Q) +-' 0 CJ) en Q) 2: ~ a. Q) ..c CD :t: E "'C Q) Q) "'C +J ::J 0:: c: ~ 0 0 ..c ~ ~ co co L- en co .~ .- CJ) ~ ::J J City of Charlottesville * University of Virginia * County of Albemarle ocal Sustainability Initiatives ay 21,2008 urther Information ity of Charlottesville Environmental Management htt ://www.charlottesville.or /environmentl ."'" . ~!.),. --' " j \ .. ounty of Albemarle Environmental Management htt ://www,albemarle.or /water htt ://schoolcenter.k 12albemarle.or /environmental ivanna Regional Stormwater Education Partnership (RRSEP) htt ://rivanna-stormwater.or / niversity of Virginia onnie Warnock ssistant University Architect 434.982.6019 c w7k vir inia.edu City of Charlottesville Kristel Riddervold Environmental Administrator 434.970.3631 riddervold@charlottesville.org County of Albemarle Sarah Temple Environmental Manager 434.296.5816 stemple@albemarle.QIg While being good to your car, don't forget the river. Ever wonder where all that dirty, soapy water goes after it runs off your driveway? The wastewater flows directly into local streams without treatment. Wash your car on your lawn or take it to a arwash facility that recycles its wash water. For more information, please visit w tv w.riva.nna-stormwater.org The Roles of the County's Key Public Bodies on Land Use Issues; Process Issues on Legislative Land Use Matters Greg Kamptner Deputy County Attorney May 21, 2008 Summary of the Task Force's Recommendations >- Clarify the sequence of the County's legislative review process to alleviate confusion for staff, applicants, the planning commission and the board of supervisors Clarify the roles of the planning commission and the ARB Provide training and guidance to the planning commission and the ARB on their roles Clarify the ARB's advisory role on legislative matters pending before the planning commission Develop a flow chart that guides staff and the applicant on the process for legislative matters 1 Summary of the Task Force's Recommendations >- Clarify the extent of review by the planning commission and the ARB prior to review of the application by the board of supervisors Establish policies regarding the information required to be submitted by an applicant on legislative matters Roles of the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board on Legislative Matters Land Use Board of Planning Matter Supervisors Commission ARB CPAs Final action Recommendation to Advisory on BaS matters in the ECOD ZTAs Final action Recommendation to Advisory on BaS matters in the ECOD ZMAs Final action Recommendation to Advisory on BaS matters in the ECOD SPs Final action (except Recommendation to Advisory on those delegated to BZA) BaS matters in the ECOD 2 Roles of the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board on Variances, Site Plans, Subdivision Plats and Certificates of Appropriateness Board of Planning Commission Land Use Matter Supervisors ARB Variances None None Advisory on matters in the ECOD Site Plans Final action if appealed Final action unless Advisory on matters appealed in the ECOD Subdivision Final action ifappealed Final action unless Advisory on matters Plats appealed in the ECOD Certs of Final action if appealed None Final action unless App'ness appealed Roles of the Board of Supervisors, the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board on Waivers, Modifications and Private Street Requests Land Use Matter Board of Planning Supervisors Commission ARB Waiyer or Final action if Final action unless Advisory on matters modification under appealed appealed in the ECOD Zoning Ordinance Waiver or Final action if Final action unless Advisory on matters modification under appealed appealed in the ECOD Subdivision Ordinance Pri vate street Final action if Final action unless Advisory on matters request appealed appealed in the ECOD 3 Revisiting the Task Force's Recommendations y Clarify the sequence of the County's legislative review process to alleviate confusion for staff, applicants, the planning commission and the board of supervisors y Clarify the extent of review by the planning commission and the ARB expected by the board of supervisors prior to review of the application by the board Clarifying the role of the ARB y The zoning regulations should be amended to: . Identify who may request advisory review by the ARB . Establish standards regarding when advisory review is required or recommended . Define the proper scope of advisory review by the ARB . Identify matters for which administrative review is permissible and establish applicable standards y The ARB's advisory review is limited to aesthetics issues Land use issues should be considered first so that the scope of the ARB's review is properly delineated and to assure that they are not trumped or circumscribed by aesthetics issues Acknowledge that in some cases, aesthetics issues may be paramount Comments on aesthetics issues should be clearly distinguished from other land use issues Communications between the ARB and the planning commission should be clear that the ARB has advised on aesthetics issues 4 I' Clarifying the role of the Planning Commission Y The planning commission's advisory review extends to all land use issues other than aesthetics issues Y The planning commission's consideration of various land use issues on legislative matters may overlap the ARB's consideration of aesthetics issues, such as: . Building height . Building orientation, configuration and location . Parking area configuration and location . Buffering requirements Y The planning commission should acknowledge that the ARB's comments are advisory and limited to aesthetics Issues Example: The ARB comments on the height of buildings proposed for a rezoning Y The ARB reviews and comments on the application Y The applicant amends the project to address the ARB's comments . Perception is that without addressing the ARB's comments, the commission will respond less favorably to the project Y The result is that the project is modified because of comments pertaining to aesthetics, sometimes before the commission has considered key land use issues . The comprehensive plan may call for a particular density range that can no longer be achieved by the modified project . The ARB's comments on aesthetics may have been shaped by the context of the existing area; the comprehensive plan is a statement of what the County wants the area to become 5 Clarifying the process >- The zoning regulations should clearly state: . The information required to be submitted in order for the application to be deemed complete for processing . The level of detail required in the information submitted >- The zoning regulations should delineate the legislative process from the time a complete application is submitted through its consideration by the board of supervisors . Processes are currently delineated for site plans and subdivision plats 6 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE MEMORANDUM TO: Albemarle County Board of Supervisors Albemarle County Planning Commission Albemarle County Architectural Review Board Larry W. Davis, County Attorney Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney May 21,2008 RE: The composition of the board of supervisors, the planning commission and the architectural review board, and their powers on land use matters; process issues This memorandum provides a summary of the composition of the board of supervisors, the planning co ission and the architectural review board, and their respective powers on land use matters. This mem randum also discusses process issues identified by the development review task force related to coordinating the r view process between the board of supervisors, the planning commission and the architectural review board. 1. Introduction The county is a subordinate agency of the State government, and is invested by the General Assembly with inate powers oflegislation and administration relative to local affairs within a prescribed area. Murray v. City Roanoke, 192 Va. 321 (1951). Under the Virginia Constitution, all county powers are delegations of autho .ty granted by the General Assembly and, unless otherwise indicated by statute or the constitution, are vested in the board of supervisors. Constitution of Virginia, Art. VII, S 3; Virginia Code S 15.2-1401; see discussion in secti n 2(B). With respect to the regulation ofland use, the General Assembly has granted the county numerous powe s to provide for comprehensive planning and to regulate the use and development of land by adopting zoning and s bdivision ordinances. Virginia Code S 15.2-2200 et seq. Of course, the county's powers are not unlimited. One limitation on the county is that the exercise of its powe s must not violate any constitutional principles including, but not limited to, due process and equal protection. Anot er limitation is that the exercise ofthe county's powers may not be inconsistent with the general laws of Virgi ia or of the United States. Virginia Code S 1-13.17. This means that the county's exercise of its powers may not b contrary to any supreme law, and may be preempted by a supreme law. Finally, the county's powers are limite by the rule of statutory construction known as the Dillon Rule. The Dillon Rule limits the county's powers to tho e that are expressly granted by the General Assembly and those that may be necessarily or fairly implied from ose powers expressly granted. 2. The board of supervisors The board of supervisors is the governing body of the county. Its members are elected by the residents of the county. A. Composition As noted above, the county is governed by the board of supervisors. Albemarle County's six-member boar is elected by the qualified voters of single-member magisterial districts. See, Virginia Code S 15.2-502; Albe arle County Code S 2-100 et seq. Board members are elected for four (4) year terms. Albemarle County Cod S 2-201. B. Powers, 2enerallv Unless expressly provided otherwise, all powers granted to localities are vested in their respective gove ing bodies. Virginia Code S 15.2-1401 (applicable to all counties); Miller v. Highland County, 274 Va. 355 (200 ) ("the governing body ofa locality is a distinct legal entity authorized in Title 15.2 to exercise the statutory pow rs of that locality"). The powers of the county as a body politic and corporate are vested in the board of supe isors. Virginia Code S 15.2-502 (applicable to counties such as the County of Albemarle that have adopted the c unty executive form of government). Albemarle County is one oftwo counties in Virginia that operates unde the county executive form of government. Virginia Code S 15.2-500 et seq. Under this form of government, the bard is the policy-making body of the county and is vested with all policy-making powers and responsibilities conti rred by general law upon county governing bodies. C. Powers on land use matters As the policy-making body of the county, the board of supervisors is empowered to make all of the legisl tive decisions pertaining to land use, and this power may not be delegated to other boards, commissions or empl yees unless expressly authorized by statute. The sole exception to this rule is that a board may authorize the boar of zoning appeals ("BZA") to review and approve special use permits. Virginia Code S 15.2-2309(6). In Albe arle County, the board has granted the BZA the authority to approve special use permits for off-premises and elect 'c message signs. Albemarle County Code S 18-4,15.5. Thus, the board of supervisors makes the final decision on those land use matters that are legislative in natur - comprehensive plan amendments, zoning text amendments, zoning map amendments, and special use perm'ts. Otherwise, the board may, and has, delegated the responsibility for non-legislative matters to other bodies and 0 flcers, although a right of appeal to the board is provided in several circumstances. See the table on page 7 for a ummary of the role of the board of supervisors on land use matters. 3. The plannin2 commission The planning commission is an administrative entity established by the board of supervisors pursuant to Virgi ia Code S 15.2-2210 et seq. A. Composition The planning commission is composed of eight members appointed by the board of supervisors. Virginia 15,2-2212; Albemarle County Code S 2-401 (A). The members of the commission must be residents of the coun , and are qualified by knowledge and experience to make decisions on questions of community growth and devel pment. Albemarle County Code S 2-401 (A). At least one-half of the members of the commission must be owne s of real property. Albemarle County Code S 2-401 (A). Seven members of the planning commission are voting members and of those seven, six come from each of the co nty's six magisterial districts and the other is appointed at-large. The eighth member is a non-voting memb r appointed by the board with the advice of the president of the University of Virginia. Albemarle Coun Code S 2-401 (B). The terms of the commissioners from each of the county's magisterial distric s are coterminous with the four-year terms of the board members in the district they serve; the term of the at- large ember is two years; the term of the non-voting member is one year. Albemarle County Code S 2-401 (B). 2 B. Powers The planning commission is a creature of statute and it possesses only those powers expressly conti rred by statute. See, Board of Zoning Appeals of Fairfax County v. Cedar Knoll, Inc., 217 Va. 740 (1977) (rule applied to a BZA); 1989 Va, Op. Atty. Gen. 113 (a planning commission has no powers other than those pow rs expressly conferred by statute). The commission has no implied powers. The commission has the following general powers and duties: · Advisory body to the board: Serves as an advisory body to the board of supervisors to promote the orderly development of the county and its environs and to accomplish the objectives set forth in Virginia Code ~ 15.2-2200. · Comprehensive plan: Prepares and recommends a comprehensive plan for the physical development of the county as provided in Virginia Code ~ 15.2-2223 et seq. · Official maps: At the direction of the board of supervisors, or on its own initiative, makes or causes to be made an official map as provided in Virginia Code ~ 15.2-2233 et seq. · Capital improvements program: At the discretion of the board of supervisors, or on its own initiative, annually prepares and revises a capital improvement program based on the comprehensive plan of the county for a period not to exceed the ensuing five years as provided in Virginia Code ~ 15.2-2239. · Subdivision ordinance: At the request of the board of supervisors, or on its own initiative, prepares and recommends amendments to the subdivision ordinance, as authorized by Virginia Code ~ 15.2-2253. · Zoning ordinance: At the direction of the board of supervisors, or on its own initiative, prepares and recommends amendments to the zoning ordinance, including a map or maps showing the zoning districts of the county, as provided in Virginia Code ~ 15.2-2285. · Administration: Administers the subdivision ordinance and zoning ordinance to the extent provided in those ordinances. · Annual report: Makes recommendations and an annual report to the board of supervisors concerning its operation and the status of planning within the county. Virgi ia Code ~ 15.2-2221; Albemarle County Code ~ 2-406. The planning commission also has specific powers related to individual development applications. On legisl tive matters such as comprehensive plan amendments, zoning text amendments, zoning map amendments and s ecial use permits, the commission is advisory to the board of supervisors and makes recommendations to the board. (Virginia Code H 15.2-2223 (comprehensive plan), 15.2-2285 (rezonings), 15.2-2286 (rezonings and specia use permits); Albemarle County Code ~~ 2-406 (comprehensive plan and rezonings), 31.2.4.2 (special use permi ),33,5 (rezonings)) On ministerial matters such as subdivision plats and site plans, either the planning commission or the agent are th decision-makers (Albemarle County Code ~ 14-218 et seq. (subdivisions); Albemarle County Code ~~ 18- 32.4.2 and 18-32.4.3) (site plans). When the commission is acting on a subdivision plat or a site plan, it is acting in a mini terial capacity and its role is to determine whether the subdivision plat or site plan meets the minimum requir ments of the applicable regulations. In association with subdivision plats and site plans, the commission may al 0 be the decision-making body for a number of waivers and modifications (Albemarle County Code ~ 14- 225.1 subdivision ordinance); multiple sections in the Zoning Ordinance). When considering waivers and modifi ations, the commission has a limited amount of discretion in deciding whether the applicant has satisfied the 3 prer quisites stated in the regulations for granting the particular waiver or modification. See the table on page 7 for a su mary of the role of the planning commission on land use matters. 4. The architectural review board The architectural review board ("ARB") is an administrative entity established by the board of supervisors purs ant to Virginia Code S 15.2-2306. A. Composition The ARB consists of five members who are appointed by the board of supervisors to administer the Hist ric Districts Law. Virginia Code 9 15.2-2306. In Albemarle County, this enabling authority is impl mented through the entrance corridor overlay district. Albemarle County Code 99 18-30.6, 18-34A.1. The mem ers of the ARB must be residents of the county and must have a demonstrated interest, competence or kno ledge in architecture and/or site design. Albemarle County Code .9 18-34A,I. ARB members are appointed for four-year terms and serve at the pleasure of the board of supervisors. Zoni g Ordinance 9 34A.1. B. Powers The ARB is a creature of statute (Virginia Code S 15.2-2306) and it possesses only those powers expre sly conferred by statute. Norton v. City of Danville, 268 Va, 402 (2004), Like the planning commission, the ARB has no implied powers. The board of supervisors has granted the ARB the following express powers under Albemarle County Code S 18- 4A: · Administer the regulations of the overlay district: Administers the entrance corridor overlay district in accordance with the duties stated in Albemarle County Code S 18-30.6, including the promulgation of appropriate design guidelines that must be ratified by the board of supervisors. Albemarle County Code 9 18-34A.2 (a). · Consider requests for certificates of appropriateness: Considers requests for certificates of appropriateness by determining whether a proposed building or structure, including signs, is architecturally compatible with the historic landmarks, buildings or structures within the entrance corridor overlay district. Albemarle County Code 918-30.6.4.1. · Recommend areas to be included in an overlay district: Recommends areas to be included within an entrance corridor overlay district. Albemarle County Code 9 18-34A.2(b). · Act as an advisor to other bodies on land use matters: Acts as an advisor to the board of supervisors, the planning commission, and the board of zoning appeals on zoning map amendments, special use permits, site plans, subdivisions, variances and other matters pertaining to lands within the entrance corridor overlay district. Albemarle County Code 9 18-34A.2(c). The regulations do not identify which body or person should seek the advice of the ARB, or when. Under Albemarle County Code S 18-30.6, the scope of the ARB's authority may be defined by both the territo under the ARB's authority and the extent of its review: · Physical reach of the ARB: The entrance corridor overlay district exists along certain arterial streets in the county identified by the board of supervisors. Albemarle County Code 9 18-30.6.2. The ARB's authority extends to those parcels that are contiguous to those identified arterial streets, to the greater of: (1) the full depth of the parcel as it existed on October 3, 1990 (the date the entrance corridor overlay district was 4 established); or (2) 500 feet. Albemarle County Code j 18-30,6,2(b). · Regulatory reach of the ARB: Within those lands subject to regulation by the ARB, the ARB may issue a certificate of appropriateness for any development requiring a building permit or a site plan for that part of the development that is visible from a designated entrance corridor street. Albemarle County Code j j 18- 30.6.4, 18-30, 6,4. 1 (a), (b). The certificate of appropriateness is a certification that the proposed development is consistent with the desi n guidelines. Albemarle County Code j 18-30,6,4,1 (b). The ARB may issue a certificate if the proposed deve opment satisfies the requirements for issuance and the design guidelines, with or without conditions or modi lcations deemed necessary. Albemarle County Code j 18-30.6.7. The following work related to buildings and structures is exempt from the requirement to obtain a certi cate of appropriateness: · Interior alterations: Interior alterations having no effect on the exterior appearance of the building or structure. · Ramps and modifications for the disabled: Ramps and other modifications required to comply with the minimum requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. · Repairs and maintenance of nonconforming structures or structures housing nonconforming uses: Repairs and maintenance of nonconforming structures or structures housing nonconforming uses if the zoning administrator determines that the work is not contrary to the entrance corridor overlay district regulations. · Residential, forestal and agricultural buildings: Primary and accessory residential, forestal and agricultural buildings for which a site plan is not required. · General maintenance: General maintenance, provided that there is no substantial change in design or materials. · Additions or modifications: Additions or modifications, provided that the zoning administrator determines that there is no substantial change in design or materials. Albe arle County Code j 18-30.6.6.3. See the table on page 7 for a summary of the role of the ARB on land use matte s. 5. Process issues identified bv the development review task force to improve the coordination of review and to clarify the role of the ARB The May 2,2007 executive summary for the design review task force's report identifies a need to "clarify the se uential review process to alleviate confusion for staff, applicants, Planning Commission and Board of Supe isors and clarify the extent of review by the PC and ARB expected by the Board, prior to BOS review." The task fi rce report itself identified five process issues related to this issue, and they have been distilled to two. This analys. s focuses primarily on the processing of zoning map amendments (rezonings). A. Clarifv the ARB's role in proiect review The role of the ARB in project review, when acting in an advisory capacity, needs to be clarified. Albe arle County Code S 18-34A.2( c) authorizes the ARB to be advisory to the board of supervisors and the planni g commission on rezonings, special use permits, site plans, subdivision plats and other development matters within the entrance corridor overlay district. However, the regulations do not state who may request ARB advisory revie , when advisory review is required or recommended, or what the proper scope of the advisory review should be. 5 The following example illustrates some of the uncertainty surrounding the scope of the ARB's advisory revi wand the effects that review may have. Example: Early in the rezoning process, a proposal for a planned development is referred to the ARB for review in its advisory capacity. The ARB comments that the proposed buildings are too high, and the project is redesigned before its next worksession before the planning commission. Although building height is an issue for the ARB to consider when reviewing a request for a certificate of appr priateness, its consideration of that issue is defined by the parameters of the established zoning regulations. If the z ning regulations establish minimum and maximum building heights, the ARB's role on the building height issue when it is considering a certificate of appropriateness is to determine the appropriate building height under the archi ectural guidelines within the building height requirements established by the applicable zoning regulations. In th example above, those parameters had not yet been established. Thus, if a developer responds to the ARB's co ents, the project is modified before the planning commission or the board of supervisors has an opportunity to consi er a number of land use issues that are fundamentally zoning, rather than aesthetics related, such as building heig t, density, and the provision of adequate air and light. Clear standards that identify when advisory review should be requested and by whom, and identify the subst ntive issues that should be considered by the ARB in its advisory role would benefit both the ARB and the devel pment community. The key substantive issue that must be clarified is that the ARB's advisory role should be limit d to aesthetics issues or, at the very least, its advice should clearly differentiate its aesthetics-based comments from 'ts zoning-based comments. The framework for this review should be established in the Zoning Ordinance, suppl mented by guidance and periodic training. B. Clarify the planninl! commission's role in proiect review The role of the planning commission in project review is advisory to the extent that on legislative matters, the c mmission is merely making a recommendation to the board of supervisors, However, where the ARB's advis ry capacity should be primarily limited to issues of aesthetics, the commission's role should be focused on the m ny zoning issues involved with a rezoning. The review process for zoning map amendments (rezonings) has been evolving over the past ten years or so. T e planning commission outlined the information it expects a developer to present as part of its rezoning appli ation. The process itself is evolving, in part as an offshoot of the board of supervisors' direction to imple ent various recommendations of the design review task force. At present, substantive and procedural requi ments for a rezoning exist in various memoranda, reports, and other documents. As the May 2, 2007 execu ive summary for the development review task force noted, there is confusion for staff, applicants, the co ission and the board of supervisors in the review process. The executive summary also noted the need to clarif the extent of review by the commission before the project goes to the board of supervisors. Some devel pers have been concerned about being required to provide detailed information about a project (such as speci c layout and building elevations) early in the process before the commission has had the opportunity to consi er whether the proposed use and density is appropriate in the project location. This issue has been resolved in pa by the two-step review process now being used by the commission for most rezonings, where the first works ssion is focused on overarching issues such as the appropriateness of the use and density and the details are consi ered in subsequent worksessions. The substantive and procedural requirements for the rezoning process need to be formalized, clarified and opted as a regulation in the zoning ordinance. 6 . ,.def~"t4e:P~., 'D~D~""""V *'. '. :-.....W.-.'W'..., .arJOQ.$ Board of Supervisors Final action Final action Final action Final action (except those delegated to the BZA) None Final action if appealed from PC decision (if disapproved by PC) Final action if appealed from PC decision (if disapproved by PC) Final action if appealed from ARB decision Final action if appealed from PC decision (if disapproved or approved with objectionable conditions) Final action if appealed from PC decision (if disapproved or approved with objectionable conditions) Final action if appealed from PC decision (if disapproved or approved with ob' ectionable conditions Planning Commission Recommendation to BOS Recommendation to BOS Recommendation to BOS Recommendation to BOS (except those delegated to the BZA) None Final action unless appealed to BOS (if disapproved by PC) Final action unless appealed to BOS (if disapproved by PC) None Final action unless appealed to BOS (if disapproved or approved with objectionable conditions) Final action unless appealed to BOS (if disapproved or approved with objectionable conditions) Final action unless appealed to BOS (if disapproved or approved with objectionable conditions) Architectural Review Board Advisory on matters within the ECOD Advisory on matters within the ECOD Advisory on matters within the ECOD Advisory on matters within the ECOD Advisory (to BZA) on matters within the ECOD Advisory on matters within the ECOD Advisory on matters within the ECOD Final action unless appealed to BOS Advisory on matters within the ECOD Advisory on matters within the ECOD Advisory on matters within the ECOD Note: orne site plans, subdivision plats, waivers, modifications and private streets may be approved admin'stratively. These items may either be called up to the planning commission (subdivisions and site plans) or may b appealed to the commission (subdivisions, site plans, waivers and modifications). 7 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PROCESS How does the ARB deal with applications that require Certificates of Appropriateness? May 2008 TYPES OF APPLICATIONS THAT REQUIRE a CofA o Site Development Plans . includes major & minor amendments o Building Permits . includes permits related to approved site plans . includes mechanical permits . includes sign permits OTHER APPLICATIONS FOR ARB REVIEW o Special Use Permits o Zoning Map Amendments ARB REVIEW OF SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS D ARB approval is required prior to final site plan approval. . This includes final approval of site plans, major amendments and minor amendments. D Applicants are encouraged to submit ARB applications when the preliminary site plan application is made. · But they are not required to do so. D ARB review is set up as a 2-step process: start with preliminary, return as final. . When does it take more than 2 visits to the ARB? o [fthe project is a large one (Examp[e: Albemarle Place) o [fthe ARB's comments/suggestions aren't followed (Example: original Oakleigh proposal) ARB REVIEW OF BUILDING PERMITS o Two types of projects: 1. Building permit applications that follow site plan approval; for example, new buildings. These do not go back to the ARB, but staff reviews them to make sure they match the ARB approved design. 2. Proposals that require a building permit but do not require a site plan or site plan amendment; for example, enclosing a porch. I. These go to the ARB & follow the 2-step process; if simple, may be done in 1 meeting. ARB REVIEW OF SIGNS o Signs visible from the EC require CofAs. - Includes wall, freestanding, and window signs. - Temporary signs are not reviewed. o 4. I 5.15 authorizes the agent to act on a CofA for a sign under certain circumstances. - This allows staff to review/approve most sign applications that are submitted, if they meet the EC guidelines. We still require an ARB application and submittal for these items, for tracking and review purposes. - Some sign applications still have to go to the ARB: o Signs that don't meet the guidelines & applicant won't revise (these sometimes end up as appeals to the BaS) o New illuminated sign for a building that doesn't have, or isn't eligible for, a Comprehensive Sign Reviews (Example: Old Dominion Bank signs) - ARB Display Ads list all applications received, even if staff review/approval is anticipated. ARB REVIEW OF MECHANICAL PERMITS o As a type of building permit, mechanical permits require a CofA. o There are generally 2 types of mechanical permits: . Permits for equipment associated with an ARB-approved building . Permits for replacement equipment o Unless there is a problem (i.e., equipment isn't what the ARB approved or new equipment is more visible than existing equipment), these permits are generally not forwarded to the ARB for review and are handled by staff. ARB REVIEW OF SPs and ZMAs o ARB review of SPs and ZMAs is advisory. o Until about a year ago, SPs and ZMAs were automatically forwarded to the ARB. o Staff now provides comments on SPs and ZMAs to the lead planner, unless an unusual situation warrants forwarding the application to the ARB. "ADMINIS TRA TIVE" REVIEW o Everyone like "administrative" review - Shorthand for "it needs review but it doesn't have to go the ARB" - Staff deals with it but we don't have to write a staff report . The applicant has a chance of getting through the process quicker o Which applications are available for "administrative" review? . Most signs - Additions or modifications to a building where no substantial change in design or material is proposed as determined by the zoning administrator. (30.6.6.3 Exemptions) . Not enough! WAYS TO SIMPLIFY REVIEW/APPROVAL in the ECs o Increase applications available for staff administrative review/approval o Process changes SIMPLIFY EC APPROVALS: PROCESS CHANGES o Combine Zoning and ARB applications for signs . (started but not completed) o Revise EC review of mechanical permit applications for existing buildings to include information required for ARB review . (previously discussed but not implemented) o Eliminate EC review of sub-permits for new buildings/additions . (must find a way to ensure that equipment won't be visible and other aspects of approved design haven't changed) o Revise ordinance to: . Allow rejection of incomplete ARB applications . Put an expiration date on ARB approvals . Establish deadlines for ARB resubmittals . Not allow re-submittal of denied proposals, at least for a period of time SIMPLIFY EC APPROVALS: INCREASE ADMIN REVIEW o New buildings/additions located 2000' or more from the EC . Example: Old Trail o All telecommunications applications . Do these like SPs and ZMAs o "2nd tier" buildings . A building stands between the EC and the proposed site . Example: University Tire at Pantops SIMPLIFY EC APPROVALS: INCREASE ADMIN REVIEW o Minor amendments - both site plan and architectural . For minor changes, but the "doesn't constitute a substantial change in design" exemption doesn't apply . Example: Holiday Inn drop-off canopy o Any building permit that doesn't require a site plan/site plan amendment . Example: R E Lee on Hydraulic o All signs JOINT MEETING OF BaS/PC/ARB May 21,2008 ARB Comments and Selected Discussion Topics /, 1.) Boards need to be careful when making decisions based on idealistic, but often unrealistic, images and presentations. Some of those presentations can actually misrepresent what will be built. (Hollymeade Town Center fountain is Target mud-hole; mountains illustrated as backdrop will actually be obscured by development at Crozet Station.) 2.) Boards should be careful in approving projects that exceed the maximum capacity of the site to include not only building and parking, but all required landscaping, clear of utilities and other easements. Frequently ARB comments have had to indicate that the building, and thus the required parking, are too big for the site to accommodate the landscaping required to make the project appropriate for the Entrance Corridor. JOINT MEETING OF BaS/PC/ARB May 21, 2008 - Page 2 ~:-_~'E ''-~- 1I~:''''=i;::- ]ljU,PCi;-;.rD j JL'\;.~:( JP\11:~ r pj ,A;-..: II kj,:"':kJI>t;! ~ VW!tw north across site (exisbngl THE GAINES GROUP, PLe . 3.) Some decisions that are made are made for general terms, and when translated into motions or action memos can result in restrictions to the ARB that may have not been intended. (Leyland cypress were required to be part of screening tree mix per special use permit/rezoning drawings, even though that species was preferred to be excluded by ARB. Likewise, the two, tall evergreen trees that were required to be preserved after new project developed at Luxor could have benefited from alternative plantings at that location). 4.) Regulations without adequate and effective enforcement will be disregarded, and violated, by those most likely to have the worst impact. Ineffective enforcement also makes Boards' efforts meaningless (e.g., ARB has had to initiate actions regarding chain link fences and signs installed without review; other site issues include grading or building first and "asking forgiveness later" sadly negates efforts for any tree preservation). JOINT MEETING OF BOS/PC/ARB May 21, 2008 - Page 3 jJ)"", \&,', -,eel, ,> ....... . ,'. ..~\.1-~~; ,0' -,': I ~~,;>;""~,I:.\ ..,.. ,', -_.....~C-~Fll7-:'f '~:-.. "~': _" . ~l~~r-"::~./ ,II,S Uu II ~j;." ....,~'.., ~"'" .... ,":' ::,,: ,,,,. / " ,.~- ~. " ...~..,... ..f' 01 '0'4,,' i~~r 'Ai.... p~,~"""" D......P~.^. R..o~.... . '-1> "(::','-\1, .\1> 'IV'.,. ;~, ,\ ., i "\i< 5.) Should the ARB purview extend to buildings that will transform the county's skyline, even when those properties are beyond the 500' or contiguous boundaries established for the EC review? (e.g., at Hollymeade Town Center, Area A2, 3/07, only C2 and D2 were in ARB boundaries, while adjacent zones of C 1 and D 1 were outside that review process, even though those zones originally had also applied for 84' and 100' tall buildings). Also, should the ARB's review extend to all Albemarle County building projects? Regardless, any ARB review should be initiated earlier in the process (e.g., North Fork Firestation). _._ ,.....c...., _ _,_ ~~--"---.-.. rnJH""~.\ 'l"n~ r, A' ...."',.("~I"'..!~:"".::>'..:~ A!.-,R.~.:l\-~A~LIE ,P~19~ ".. . 11II 6.) Fees for review should correspond to review time required. Why should a 17- or 20-building project that requires significantly more board review time and staff allocation be the same as for a single, small building? Ministerial Processes Site Plans, Subdivisions, Waivers May 21,2008 Joint Board / PC / ARB Worksession Ministerial Reviews PC / ARB Coordination · Site Plans - Agent or Planning Commission Approval Req'd - ARB Certificate of Appropriateness Req'd - Limited interaction between PC and ARB (usually limited to Special Use Permits associated with site plans, such as drive-through windows and outdoor display) · Subdivisions - Agent or Planning Commission Approval Req'd - No ARB Approvals Req'd - No interaction between PC and ARB 1 Issues with Ministerial Reviews · Workload impacts - Number of Planning Commission meetings - Number of ministerial reviews by Planning Commission - Level of detail required with reviews - Staff retention · Differences in expectations between Board and Planning Commission - Appeals - Administrative waivers Frequency of Planning Commission Meetings · 1 Regular meeting I month: Hanover, Henrico, James City, Augusta, Charlottesville, Greene (Subdivision and Site Plans almost always administrative) · 2 Regular meetings I month: Chesterfield, Loudoun, Stafford (Subdivisions and Site Plans usually administrative) · Weekly meetings: Albemarle (Subdivisions and Site Plans reviewed by the Planning Commission upon request of adjoining property owners or commission members) 2 Trend on Ministerial Reviews by Planning Commission Planning Commission - Ministerial Reviews 80 70 I i 60 50 c: 0 40 ~ 30 '5 'II: 20 10 0 I'. Subdivision Wai\ers II . Site Plan Wai\ers 1 o Final Plats o Prelim Plats . Final Site Plans . Prelim Site Plans 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Note: 2008 data extrapolated to annual by multiplying first four months data by three Level of Detail with Ministerial Processes BENEFIT (Development Quality, Natural Resource Protection, Community Values) COSTS (Staff Time, Lost Opportunities, Applicant/Housing Costs) 3 Level of Detail in Reviews Critical Slqpes Waivers Dunlora Gates; 2008 Est. 120 hours staff time Dunlora Section 38; 2002 Est. 24 hours staff time Dunlora Section 3A; 1998 Est. 8 hours staff time Staff Retention and Work Processes 30% 25% 20% f 15% ~ ~ 10% 5% 0% ,6l' ,/' J" ,,~ cl' t'<:-\ ~ Annual Turnover 2006.2007 ,/' ~ 1) - if> q.~ $' ,'" qil' .-'>- ~~ q.~ ""'.? #~, """ ~<fI v if' ~..'>- I' q.~~ d' Work Group (# Resigned) 4 Expectations of Board versus Planning Commission · 7 Planning Commission decisions have been appealed to Board from June 2007 through May 2008 · All 7 appeals have been reversed by the Board Administrative Waivers · Administrative waivers recommended by the Board's Development Review Task Force · Board accepted the task force's recommendation in May 2007 with no changes and directed staff to proceed with implementation · Planning Commission held 2 work sessions and scaled back administrative waivers. Requested staff bring a draft ordinance back for a 3rd work session before scheduling a public hearing 5 Questions to Consider · Is there the appropriate level of detail with reviews? · Do the Board and Planning Commission have common expectations with respect to development processes? 6 Ordinance Amendment Process Amendments Since 2000 43, Including: . Entrance Corridor - Additional Roads . Noise . Wireless Policy . Cluster Development . Groundwater . Neighborhood Model Subdivision . Alleys/Setbacks . Parking . Signs . Lighting . Historic Center & Community Center . Airport Master Plan Amendments . Monticello Historic District and Montalto . Rural Areas Special Events . Zoning Civil Penalties . Seasonal farm worker housing . Affordable Housing . Safe and Convenient Access . Family Divisions . Stream Buffers and Crossings 1 Amendments In Process . Downtown Crozet . Neighborhood Model Zoning . Zero Lot Line . Country Stores . Housekeeping (Phase I) . Fee Study (Phase I) . Light Pole Height . Heavy Contractors' Storage Yard . Admin. Waivers - DRTF . 2-lot Road Standard/Single Point of Access . Frontage for Lot at End of Cul-de-sac . Wind Turbines . Planned Development Districts Amendments Pending or Possible . Flood Hazard Overlay Amendments . Lighting - Public/Phase II . Temporary Events . Home Occupations . Building Site . Adult Businesses . Crossroads/RA Uses . Critical Slopes/Grading . Overlot Grading . Housekeeping (Other) . Fee Study (Other) · Grass Ordinance . Asphalt Burying . # Dogs in House . Construction Debris Burying . Entrance Corridors - 250 West . Private Roads 2 Amendments Dead · Mountain Overlay · Rural Areas Phasing · Rural Areas Clustering Amendm~nl Pr\..........-.:d- staff. PC Dr 80S SlUlt review l~n ~~blis.b:d .. (Cul~nl De\' '. P1uonin8. Co. Attonle\'. Engi~rl Swft.,h..'l\ inilUl re"~IoI.' ~lt merit..nf p""",,", Stull rel.:ol11menl1ation lVld Rel"<)lutjuQ ul Int~nt kl PC ~<lr 80S I -u- Stan l"t"V i,"'A' Warn ~dopt; C<<lI."lepb 10 be Cnuu;.UaIe;j inlo ora. llmendment 1lhU>~ll:pmay~ sht.1f1 or lollt:. iiepeDoJingon the il>SU().i I.rl__.. \I"....:rr\J...T\ IJRtW 'F..., ~~ ~-~ SWf report ~'t'I(Jfi'edfor I'(' 3 Ilbhtl) IIr ....iXbhurhuucl \lu,.....1 'r""l .\n..ndu.'nh . IW7 - HI""" app:tinlled: Nei~hho(hlJnd ~h>del work l'1e~n 2000 - "PMkingw :lJ1ltnd~lb to zonin~ on1m:I.na begun . 'I;I~ .!J1.l,. - 80S lId"pt) ~i~htlochr...\d Mrul (NMI (OOlpunent,of COO'{l Plan . 'Ia~ lOll- Alleys; andsbartd dtiv..:\o\'ays amend.lJll!nb begun . Ft'hrual) 2M! - 80S 3dopt" lllk:y:. and shllred drh..:\o\'",ys .:unendtllr..:nlS . !002 - Neill:bborhood Model Disu'kt (NMDl bepn ~pil. 2002. NM ,;ubJivj)ilXl k'UIUTk'udmenl:;. hegun .Ia"'la..~' !(IB. 80S ,1uupt:. NMD t't'hruilr;t 1H.' - 80S ",dopb wPW"kiog" 1U~Ikl~Oh !(ll..~ - NM )U~ivisiuo ~~t <Itllr..:!ldrn.lnl Worbol~ioos wilh PC t":aIl.!IXi4 - PC re(OmmollKh NM subdi\"ision IeXt ~ndm~nl tCo 80S l(urNguucrlside-4'.1!.kslstlt'(t trees.. irUeroonne,;tio,::asi JUI1il" 21104_ BOS!ilfnd/;; N'M subdivision ~XI aIn<.'I1dment to DISC n ~~"Ulie.:-at' .:onctrns of del:..:loper:>: lssu< ofFroOl Setbadll major ':ooc~rn with Jle\o\' street ~(Ii.:ll1i \lluomhr..l0tU - DlSC n rt't"ommends uppnwul of modif~d NM sutx.1i\ision leX t :unr: ndmi: at U.'fl'IQht-r .!Ou,a. DISC re(omn..-lkh that Frnn! S<1t\1~1:~ tie modif~d "-~ make NM fUnne.hle... t',-':Idlii'\'t" ~'ilh ~ subd.i"i~ion requirelTk'nb .\pril J.l)S -80S oU.--.pb NM sutW'I.'i.,jon ~kl.ulll:'!ndrnent~ t'ft~l'ti"~ Juta', .!l),):- ~pj, .!(I" . Sluff lTin,s loning Wkt Ul1ll.'nd~R(S lI.lf tmOl yards; 10 PC. PC a.'-ks suit (I) iJ1:itead bring ba.d; U (omprehenii'we proposllJ for front. sid(- and rearylU'ds. 11I11t .1.IMl rel.1ks III F.ntran~'~ Corridol1o Oct..ht-r .!~ to Jall.......~ .!007 - ~ll1ff works on drlJJ1':ln1eoomcnb. but h.i,h vOlwnc ...,f lDlljOC rc.zorUnp t.:&kC'~ priori!)' J.nua..~ .!OO?' - Applil:"llnt R~uests 1,,:1\.">lollinc lor R-ta lJiMri..1 Ju... .!tlI7 - Staff brin~) lUll l(llli~ opti,~l:'o Il.l PC and r~olmmends lhe~ be in(,Jtporated into the o\'entll tWill :o.i~.:uld teat ~".'lJ'd w."d.; PC .1t~lo Jul~ .!007 - Staff brinp. full.:onvcpo. for zero 101linc for 1111 resi~Qtia1 disu'j.;:t:i ,1~ Wl:1I a:. utl~r $elba.:k.) to PC: PC r3i:;e:. II number..1i qUl:stj(lllI> iUld suif ~)'S it \lo'iU liet Up.:ulNbt'r _'O(kSJ:'s~i{'II11I j'utt~r ~unsider Ilh"...hl.'r.!tlli - SWt brinp~rolot lin<' and 'l.ltberstlb.\.x:i 10 PC: PC ~(t:i l'l:df to :!iI:pr&r.:lle 1:<'1'0 lotliJl() fl\.om other lJler.bal;b and prlXet"d lo publu: be<ll'iog \pril..!OOti - PC publi.: hearing ("Cluro lot hnes; PC re(omm.:nlb .1pprovlll to Be<; Amendment Issues · Commitment/Political Will · NumberNolume · Time it takes to process · Tendency to "morph" · Difficulty getting decisions · Demand on staff time · III Will/Frustration 4 Suggestions · Consider will to implement in setting Comprehensive Plan policy, creating committee to study or passing resolution of intent · Set priorities for project expectations as they relate to resources before adding on new amendments · Stay focused in amendment review - consider breaking down complicated amendments into fundamental elements and addressing incrementally to more quickly achieve · Realize no amendment will be perfect and full-proof - be willing to let go for now · The more controversial, the lower the likelihood of consensus - avoid repeated delay expecting consensus 5