Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff reviews PUD history and examples as commission weighs zoning-text amendments for flexibility in infill
Summary
Staff presented past PUD/PED approvals demonstrating how reduced setbacks, private streets and deed restrictions have been used to develop constrained lots; commissioners discussed a possible two-tier approach to distinguish small infill flexibility from larger-scale projects and asked for interim 2017 language and outside examples.
At the April 23 meeting staff presented a detailed staff report and maps showing earlier plan unit development (PUD/PED) approvals and asked the Planning Commission to consider how to revise the city’s PUD zoning text to balance flexibility and clarity.
Arie, the staff presenter, summarized prior approvals that used reduced lot sizes, setback reductions, private streets and zero-lot lines to enable development of parcels that lacked conventional street frontage or regular lot geometry. “That’s sort of the flexibility that is allowed through the PED process,” Arie said, describing how PUD/PED approvals have been used to unlock difficult parcels while also imposing conditions such as deed restrictions in some approvals.
Commissioners asked for examples and a brief history of the ordinance changes; staff agreed to provide the interim 2017 PUD language and comparative examples from Charlottesville, Blacksburg and Stanton for the commission’s next meeting. Commissioners debated whether a two-tiered approach would help — one set of provisions for small, fine-grain infill projects and a different set for larger-scale developments — and noted the need for clear minimum lot-area thresholds and objective criteria so the PUD is not used to simply avoid standard zoning requirements.
Participants also flagged implementation concerns: the fire department may object to private drives or narrow access in some infill examples, and one speaker noted that some prior PUD approvals included deed restrictions explicitly preventing future subdivision. A commissioner observed that, in Virginia, the variance criteria are difficult to meet, which helps explain why applicants sometimes pursue PUD/PED processes rather than variance relief.
Staff committed to return with the 2017 interim language, the requested comparative examples and additional draft criteria to help the commission craft objective standards to allow appropriate flexibility while protecting public safety and neighborhood character.
