HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 17 1998 PC MinutesM
2-17-98
FEBRUARY 17, 1998
1
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
February 17, 1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. David Tice; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -
Washington, Vice Chairman; Mr. Dennis Rooker; and Mr. Will Rieley. Other officials
present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Eric
Morrisette, Planner; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Ms. Susan Thomas, Planner;
and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners
Loewenstein and Finley.
A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The
minutes of February 3, 1998, were unanimously approved as amended.
SDP 98-0006 Midway Farm Site Plan Waiver Request - Proposal to convert existing
barn into a third dwelling on 80.875 acres. Access is served by an existing gravel
drive currently serving two existing dwellings. Property described as Tax Map 42,
Parcel 40 is located on the northwest side of State Route 678, approximately 1/2 mile
north of State Route 614 (Garth Road). Property is located within the White Hall
Magisterial District and is not located within a designated growth area.
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to one
condition.
The applicant was represented by Phil Speasmaker. He offered to answer questions.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
No concerns were identified by the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that the Midway Farm Site
Plan Waiver Request be approved subject to the following condition:
1. Approval shall not be deemed to preclude application of private road provisions of
the Subdivision Ordinance in effect at the time of any future subdivision.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP 97-65 Greenwood Farm Bridge - Request for special use permit approval, in
accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.1(2), for fill in the floodplain to construct a road and
bridge over Yellow Mountain Creek. The road and bridge will be to serve timbering
and recreational activities of the property owner and provide access to a future
P/O
2-17-98 2
"" homesite on the property. The property, described as Tax Map 71, parcel 2, is
located on the south side of Route 250, approximately 2400 feet from the intersection
with Route 690 and approximately 3000 feet from the intersection with Route 689. It
is zoned RA, Rural Area. The property is designated as rural areas in the
Comprehensive Plan. Deferred from the February 3, 1998 Commission meeting.
OR
The applicant was requesting deferral to March 3, 1998.
Public comment was invited. None was offered.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SP 97-65 be deferred to
March 3, 1998. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 97-59 Spring Hill Baptist Church - Proposal to remove the existing church building
and construct a new church building on one (1) acre zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC,
Entrance Corridor Overlay District. [10.2.2.35] Property, described as Tax Map 106,
Parcel 12A is located on the south side of Route 53, Thomas Jefferson Parkway,
approximately 900 feet west of the Fluvanna County line in the Scottsville Magisterial
District. This site is not located within a designated development area.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that SP 97-59 be indefinitely
deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 97-54 Totier Creek Vineyard - Request to expand the existing farm winery tasting
area from 600 square feet to 1,800 square feet, and to hold events, festivals and
similar activities. [Section 5.1.25e] Property, described as Tax Map 112, Parcels 18
and 18M 1, is located at the end of Route 720, Harris Creek Road, approximately 0.6
miles west of Route 20, Scottsville Road, in the Scottsville Magisterial District. Access
is also proposed from a private easement off Route 20. This site is designated Rural
Area in the Comprehensive Plan.
SDP 97-134 Totier Creek Vineyard Site Plan Waiver Request - Request to expand the
existing farm winery tasting area from 600 square feet to 1800 square feet, and to
hold events, festivals and similar activities. (Site plan waiver goes with Special Use
Permit 97-54)
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
141
2-17-98
3
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that SP 97-54 and SDP 97-
134 for Totier Creek Vineyard, be indefinitely deferred.
The motion passed unanimously.
ZTA 97-02 Jamie Lewis - Petition to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
Supplementary Regulations, Section 5.1.25 Farm Winery and Section 5.1.19 Wayside
Stand to allow farm winery festivals and larger sales/tasting floor area by right, to
delete the commercial entrance requirement for farm wineries and to delete other
requirements.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staffs recommendation was as follows:
Staff opinion is that a vineyard is an agricultural use which should be
encouraged in the Rural Area. A farm winery is a quasi -commercial use
which is appropriate in the Rural Area because it directly supports an
agricultural use. The existing farm wineries can support some revision of
the existing Supplementary Regulations to reflect the current operations
of the farm wineries in Albemarle. Staff cannot support the applicant's
request to delete the commercial entrance requirement.
Questions raised by the Commission were as follows:
--5.1.25(c), "...Special events with a maximum of 150 participants shall be
permitted up to twelve (12) times per year. Four of these events may be festivals
open to the general public...." Mr. Rooker thought the intent of these sentences was
unclear. He asked how a distinction is made between those events permitted 12
times vs. those permitted four times. He asked if the second sentence is also limited
to 150 participants. Ms. Scala agreed the wording was unclear. She said events
open to the public are those which are advertised and where the potential number of
participants is unknown (as opposed to a private event which is by invitation only).
Mr. Rooker said this section needs to be re -written. Mr. Tice asked if the 150
limitation is "at one time." Ms. Scala said it is envisioned that for private events
(weddings, dinners, corporate parties) the 150 would be all at one time. She said for
some events, such as the recent farm tour, participants come and go during the day.
Mr. Nitchmann asked how this would be monitored. Ms. Scala said the zoning
clearance will give details of the event, including how many participants are expected,
but the only way to actually monitor the events would be by site visit or a reliance on
citizen complaints. (The Zoning Department does not think there have been any
complaints registered about winery events.)
--5.1.25(c), "...All food shall be prepared off -site.... Ms. Scala said there is no
intent to exclude catered events. The intent is that a commercial kitchen not be
operated by the winery. Mr. Nitchmann said this wording would prevent food booths
which sometimes are present at large events. He questioned how food provided by a
2-17-98
4
caterer could be kept fresh all day. Mr. Benish said he did not think the intent is to
exclude items as described by Mr. Nitchmann, but rather to prevent a permanent
kitchen facility. It was agreed this section should be reworded.
--5.1.25 (c), "...A zoning clearance shall be obtained...." The Zoning
Department asked that this be required so they can keep a record of temporary events
and be able to respond to questions which may come from the public. Mr. Rooker
said if the number of events is to be limited, then there must be some way of keeping
track of how many have been held. Mr. Nitchmann asked why there is a limitation of
12 times per year. Ms. Scala said the limitation is to protect adjoining property owners
and to limit activity so that it does not get to a point where it may "approximate a retail
use or a use that would better be located in a development area."
--5.1.25(c), "...In addition to the approval of a site development plan...." Mr.
Nitchmann asked: What site development plan?" Ms. Scala explained that 5.1.25(b)
requires a site development plan. Mr. Rooker thought this requirement should be in a
separate paragraph and it should be clear that a site development plan is required
only once. He said the way it is proposed here it sounds as though a site
development plan is required for each event. Ms. Scala said it is specifically required
in (b) and perhaps it is not necessary to repeat it in (c). Mr. Rooker agreed.
--5.1.19 Wayside Stand (a) ( This item generated a considerable amount of
discussion by the Commission. ) Mr. Nitchmann thought, as did some other
Commissioners, 1,500 square feet is a very large wayside stand for the sale of farm
produce. Ms. Scala said there are some wayside stands already in operation which
are this large. The Zoning Department believes 600 square feet is too small so there
is a need to increase the size. 1,500 square feet is the size of a Home Occupation
Class B and is the size of the farm sales structure allowed by special use permit. Mr.
Benish said at times the wayside stand activity can "drift" to other parts of the farm.
For example, during Halloween, a separate structure, such as a barn, may be used to
store pumpkins. Ms. Scala said the fact that a wayside stand is only for items
produced on the farm offers her some assurance that a large area could not be used
for other types of non -farm items. Mr. Nitchmann asked if wayside stands are
permanent structures. Mr. Benish said they can be either permanent or temporary.
Mr. Nitchmann was concerned because a 1,500 square foot structure could be built,
just 35 feet from the road, by -right. It could remain in existence year round, though it
may be used only 3 months per year. Expressing concern about the impact to
neighboring property owners, he said: "Just because it is in the sake of agriculture, I
could care less. I don't understand drawing this fine line between one kind of
entrepreneurship vs. another because it is good for agriculture. I don't know if we are
playing on a level field here.... Some of these stands are up forever, falling down, and
(neighbors cannot do anything about it)." He said he thinks this increase deserves
more thought. Mr. Rooker asked if there is any way to require that wayside stands be
maintained. Mr. Nitchmann asked if stands which are on an Entrance Corridor will
have to be reviewed by the ARB. Mr. Scala said she believes so because a request
for a Building Permit kicks in the ARB review. Mr. Nitchmann asked if that also
applies to agricultural uses. Ms. Scala replied: "Strictly speaking, it's permitted under
�/3
em
2-17-98 5
the Zoning Ordinance, so it's not like a farm building. The public visits it and it
requires our approval. A farm building does not require a building permit." Mr.
Nitchmann was skeptical. He said: "If I'm a farmer I can go out there and build this
1,500 square foot structure without asking anybody other than taking my sketch to the
Building Permit Department and saying 'I'm going to put this on the front of my piece
of property and I'm not going to have anybody in it so I don't need electricity, I don't
need water or a bathroom --I'm just going to build this structure,' and I would venture to
say that the Building Department will say 'That's fine" and sign it off." Mr. Rooker said
that is the way the system works presently and the difference is 600 vs. 1,500 square
feet." Mr. Nitchmann said this is 2 1/2 times as large. Mr. Rieley said if the structure
was a barn, it would not even require a building permit. Mr. Nitchmann responded:
Maybe we should change that too. Mr. Nitchmann said his point is "What is good for
the goose should be good for the gander. You can't say because it is agriculture it is
O.K. to put something which may be terrible for the neighborhood in front of this farm,
but another person cannot do that because he is not selling farm goods." Mr. Tice
said he agreed with many of Mr. Nitchmann's comments, but he pointed out there is a
difference in that the Comp Plan and the Zoning Ordinance does give special
exception to agriculture. That industry is singled out. Ms. Scala said this proposed
change supports something the County is trying to promote, i.e. "produce produced on
the farm and having a wayside stand available by -right is a way we see of
encouraging that use. Based on the Commission's comments, Mr. Benish said staff
hears there is a concern that 1,500 square feet may be too large for wayside stands.
Mr. Tice said he agrees and he has not been convinced that 600 square feet is too
small. Mr. Rooker noted that the proposed change to wayside stands was initiated by
staff, not this applicant. (Ms. Scala confirmed the proposed change to 1,500 square
feet was based on the Zoning Department's experience with existing stands, some of
which are already larger than 600 square feet.) Ms. Scala said the only way a stand
larger than 600 square feet would be permitted presently is through a special permit
for farm sales, which would allow up 1,500 square feet. However, a farm sales use
does allow the sale of "related items" not produced on the farm. Mr. Rooker said he
did not think stands larger than 600 square feet should be precluded, provided there is
a review process. Mr. Nitchmann agreed. Mr. Rooker pointed out that this wording
does not prevent someone from having numerous wayside stands. Mr. Benish said
he believes the Zoning Department interprets the provision as being a total of 600
square feet in floor area. Mr. Rooker said this should be made clearer. Mr. Rieley
found staffs comments about the existence of some of these stands within the farm
structure rather than on the highway surprising. He said that should be more clearly
defined also because he could not think of "how the public's interest would be served
by regulating how much of someone's barn they could sell pumpkins out of." But it
does matter how large a building is beside of a road. Mr. Rieley said: "It may be we
have a regulation where there is no positive side to the regulation."
Ms. Scala reminded the Commission the main topic of tonight's discussion is the farm
winery. The Wayside Stand provisions were included only because Farm Winery
,V`f
2-17-98 6
refers to Wayside Stand regarding the entrance and the site plan. Mr. Nitchmann
suggested the proposed changes to the Wayside Stand section should be delayed
until staff can study the topic further and provide more information. Mr. Rooker said
he hopes if the Wayside Stand changes are redrafted it will be made clear that
"whatever square footage we are talking about is limited to one structure for the total
square footage, and multiple structures, if they have multiple structures."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if input had been invited from any other area wineries. Ms.
Scala said there is no requirement for notification of zoning text amendments because
they are not site specific. The item was advertised in the newspaper as required.
Mr. Rooker thought notifying individual property owners of proposed changes in the
Zoning Ordinance, with "general applicability," would be an undesirable precedent.
He said: "If we do it here, where do we draw the line?"
Applicant comment was invited.
Mr. Jamie Lewis addressed the Commission. His comments included the following:
--He objected to a farm winery being linked to a wayside stand. There are no
wineries which are located only 35 feet from the highway. All tasting and sales areas
are within a winery building which is, generally, 600 square feet or less.
--He objected to the requirement for a commercial entrance. He stressed that
farm wineries are not "quasi -commercial" operations. He explained: "We are a farm
operation that has been given the status from the Department of Agriculture to
produce a product that we are licensed by the State Department of Alcohol Beverage
Control to produce.
--At least 45% of the income of the winery is generated from farm operation
sales.
--He objected to the requirement for a commercial entrance. He said the road
which leads to his winery varies in width from 12 to 18 feet (up to 25 feet wide near
the entrance to his property) and is not a commercial road by any standards.
--The ABC license allows the designation of both a sales area and a tasting
area. 600 square feet is very restrictive, particularly for special events. He is not
aware of any other county which limits the size of a farm winery's tasting/sales area,
nor which limit the number of events.
--Wineries bring in additional tourist dollars to the community.
--He expressed concern about the requirement for a zoning clearance for each
event. He said he is unaware of any problems caused by farm wineries in the entire
state.
-- New state legislation is being considered which would create a new
classification for the farm industry, "to take it out of quasi -commercial operations."
Assistance is needed from local officials in redefining farm operations so that "we are
able to exist without having an extreme amount of unnecessary regulation that
prohibits us from being able to survive." A $780 special permit fee is a hardship for
most farm operations and the 90 day waiting period also presents a hardship. He said
On
7
2-17-98
' he would understand the need for regulations if complaints were being registered
against these operations, but that has not been the case.
--Approximately 9 people visit his facility each day. A couple of large events
are held each year.
--All the wineries in the County are committed to operating safely and properly.
To address Mr. Lewis' comments about the comparison of a farm winery to a wayside
stand, Mr. Nitchmann said he does not think the proposed language for wineries
makes that comparison. Ms. Scala confirmed the proposed amendments delete the
reference to wayside stands in the winery section. Mr. Lewis was concerned that the
word "commercial" is used in relation to the entrance to the site. Ms. Scala explained
that the language no longer references the wayside stand, but the proposed
amendments still require a commercial entrance for a farm winery. In response to
Mr. Rooker's questions about VDOT's recommendations, Mr. Scala said VDOT feels a
commercial access is required because of the concern about public visitation to the
site. VDOT has only two types of entrances --commercial or residential. A commercial
entrance is 30 feet in width, has a minimum sight distance of 10x the speed limit, and
may require a turn lane, depending on the public road. The Zoning Department
agreed with VDOT's recommendation on the entrance. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that
even a 3-lot subdivision requires a commercial entrance, "so it is not a real onerous
burden to satisfy." Mr. Lewis explained an alternative entrance location (off Rt. 20)
which is being explored which involves the purchase of some additional property. Ms.
Scala said if this ZTA is approved without the requirement for a commercial entrance,
the applicant would be able to use his easement without a commercial entrance." Mr.
Nitchmann was concerned about this possibility because it could result in an entrance
off Rt. 20 (a 55-60 mph road) without a commercial entrance. He concluded: "So
whatever we do tonight is going to control what happens for any winery on any major
high speed road. Mr. Rooker said: If we require a commercial entrance for a 3-lot
subdivision, I can't imagine we would not require a commercial entrance for a winery
that may have events with 200-300 people participating. If we are going to permit
these large events to take place at wineries, we certainly have to have an entrance
that at least meets the standards we would require for a 3-lot subdivision."
Mr. Lewis asked about the county's criteria for improving the roads so that they can
safely handle two-way traffic. He repeated: "The use of the word commercial
designates us to be a commercial entity." Mr. Rooker disagreed, saying: "That's not
the case. That is a term used by VDOT to described a certain kind of entrance to any
property. As Mr. Kamptner just said, that is the same kind of entrance used for a 3-lot
subdivision.... Mr. Lewis said he is not trying to circumvent the requirement for
construction of a commercial entrance. His concern is with wineries being considered
commercial operations.
Public comment was invited.
OR
/Y_(el
8
2-17-98
Mr. Tony Champ, owner of Whitehall Vineyards, addressed the Commission. He said
he had received a special permit to build his tasting room larger than 600 square feet.
(1,700 square feet) At that time the Commission had expressed support for farm
wineries because of the belief that they help preserve the rural areas and farms. He
said the proposed amendments are an improvement over existing regulations, but the
existing regulations were not enforced because most wineries were not aware they
existed. Therefore, "the former state was better than the proposed state." He said his
concern is with the requirement for a zoning clearance for every event. He was
concerned about the paperwork and fees and the fact that a clearance would be
needed for every event. He supported a suggestion that an alternative would be for
the wineries to file with the County each year a list of events for the coming year, for
a one time fee. He said, however, there are events which arise which may not be
known a year in advance (e.g. weddings, charity picnics). He asked the County to
"delineate what you want from us --number of events, number of people, etc. --that you
are comfortable with, and then we will live with those regulations and not have to
come each time to get permission for an event." He suggested a letter could be sent
to the county describing each event, but asked that "permission" not be required from
the County for each individual event. In answer to Mr. Rooker's questions, Mr. Champ
estimated he holds approximately 11 events/year, 3 of which are held on the weekend
and are advertised for the public. Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Champ's opinion about
the requirement that all food be prepared off -site. Mr. Champ said he has no problem
with the restriction because he requires that all events be catered. He said he thinks
` NW most of the other local wineries also use catering. He said some wineries in other
areas hold very large festivals where food may be prepared on site, but none of the
local wineries hold such events.
OR
Mr. Peter Hallick, representing Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the
Commission. He expressed support for the proposed ZTA, with the exception of a
requirement for a zoning clearance. He said many of the issues about which the
Zoning Department is concerned are addressed during the review of the site
development plan. He suggested a letter to the Zoning Administrator describing the
activity could be used in place of a zoning clearance. (Mr. Hallick's statement is made
a part of this record as Attachment A.)
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann questioned the need for a Zoning Clearance if most issues, such as
parking, entrance, etc. will be addressed with the site development plan. Ms. Scala
assumed the Zoning Department's concern is with the fact that the events are not all
the same in terms of number of participants, duration, etc. Mr. Nitchmann said he
agrees with Mr. Champ's and PEC's suggestion that a letter would serve the same
purpose. He questioned how the Zoning Department would be able to handle the
additional workload created by the processing of dozens of additional zoning
IZ17
2-17-98
60]
clearances each year. (5 wineries x 12 events/year/each = 60 permits). Ms. Scala
said the only item which might change with each event is parking requirements, but
that could be addressed by the designation of an over -flow parking area. Mr.
Nitchmann said he thinks the requirement of a Zoning Clearance is "overkill."
Mr. Tice asked if one Zoning Clearance could cover an entire year's events (if those
were known in advance). Ms. Scala said Zoning staff said similar events, with similar
numbers of participants, could be lumped together, e.g. one permit could be issued for
eight weddings, but different permits would be needed for a wedding and a pig roast.
Mr. Rooker said it would be difficult to know in advance how many similar events were
going to occur in the course of a year. He did not think that was a realistic approach.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Zoning Department will visit the site each time a Clearance is
applied for. Ms. Scala responded: "I don't think so. I think they ask for the Zoning
Clearance so they don't have to visit the site each time. Mr. Nitchmann said the
staff must take into consideration that a site plan was approved which set the
parameters for the use. Mr. Nitchmann concluded: "Based on that, I don't see any
reason to do it. You are just charging someone $25 for someone to sit in an office
and say 'that looks O. K.'."
Mr. Rooker said the only justification he could see for a zoning clearance is to keep
track of the number of events. He asked if wineries could be asked to certify the
number of events planned each year. Ms. Scala said she could not speak for the
Zoning Department but she thought Mr. Rooker's suggestion "would work." Mr.
Rooker said: "I agree with Commissioner Nitchmann. It seems to me there should be
a way to simplify this thing so as to ensure compliance to a reasonable extent, while
not imposing the requirement to file an application and pay a $25 fee for every event."
Mr. Benish said Mr. Rooker's suggestion could be proposed to the Zoning Department
to see if it will satisfy their concerns. He noted that one of the issues which the
Zoning Department likes to address is whether or not the character of the activity will
require any public service agencies (such as police control for traffic, etc.), but he said
a list (or a letter) as has been discussed may be able to address that issue.
Mr. Rieley disclosed that he has done consulting work for the applicant on this
property, but it had no relationship to this issue.
Mr. Rieley said he supported staffs proposed changes, and he felt particularly strongly
that a commercial entrance is an important requirement given the fact that large
numbers of people may be attending some events. He agreed, however, that a
zoning clearance and fee for each event does not seem to be in anyone's best
interest, including the county's. He thought just a letter of notification to the county in
advance of each event should suffice.
Mr. Nitchmann again expressed concern about the proposed restriction against on -site
food preparation. He said some wineries..have dinners, so they must have kitchens on
10
2-17-98
site. (Staffs concern was that there be no restaurant operation on site. Restaurants
are not allowed in the Rural Areas, except in a historic structure which was used as
an inn in the past.) He asked if the restriction could be reworded. Mr. Tice
suggested: "No permanent food preparation facilities are allowed on -site for these
events." Mr. Nitchmann said Mr. Tice's proposed wording would satisfy his concern.
Mr. Rooker proposed the addition of the following language change in 5.1.25(b)..
"...outdoor lighting, and signs, in protection of aggbing properties. ....(rest the
same)." He explained that though most wineries are well insulated from adjoining
properties, he feels the protection of adjoining properties should be a consideration in
the site plan. He also proposed a rewording of 5.1.25(c). He proposed to delete the
sentence beginning "Four of these events," and replace it with "... In addition to the
aforesaid events. there may be four festivals open to the eg neral public per dear. "
When asked if it was the intent to increase the number to 16 events, he explained that
his suggestion was based on the belief (after hearing Mr. Champ's comments) that
most of the local wineries are probably in the 12+ range of events. Ms. Scala said it
was staffs intent that the total number be limited to 12 events/yer. Mr. Rooker said he
understood staffs intent, but his proposal is that it be "12 plus 4." Mr. Nitchmann said
he would have no objection to the increase.
Mr. Tice asked if the maximum of 150 participants applies to festivals open to the
general public. Mr. Rooker said he thinks it was staffs intent that there could be 8
events with a maximum of 150 people and 4 events open to the general public where
the limitation would not apply. Mr. Tice asked: "If 150 were a problem for a private
event, why wouldn't it be for a public event?" Mr. Rooker said in a private event the
number of participants can be accurately predicted, but the participation for public
events cannot be predicted and would be difficult to limit. Mr. Rooker said: "I think
what we are saying here is you can have a certain number of private events and you
can have a certain number of events open to the general public for which there is no
numerical limitation. Mr. Tice wondered if a zoning clearance might be desirable for
the public events, given the uncertainty about the number of participants and the issue
of whether police services will be required and whether parking and restroom facilities
will be adequate. Mr. Rooker said he does not disagree with Mr. Tice, but he pointed
out that wineries are already having these types of events. Mr. Rieley asked if the
letter of notification would not address Mr. Tice's concern. Mr. Tice said the question
would be how far in advance the notice must be given to the County. Mr. Nitchmann
questioned the need for any notice for events with less than 150 participants. Mr.
Rooker said if there is going to be a limit on the number of events, then notice for all
events would provide a mechanism for keeping track of the number. Mr. Nitchmann
suggested that keeping track of the number should not be a concern unless
complaints are received.
Mr. Rooker asked if the applicant would have any objection to providing a notice to the
county about each event. Mr. Lewis responded: "Not at all." He asked if public and
/V9
2-17-98 11
" private events could be more clearly defined. Mr. Rooker noted that the proposed
languages makes a distinction between a "festival" and a "special event." He asked if
Mr. Lewis recognizes that distinction. Mr. Lewis viewed festivals as large events
where more than one winery may be involved and many people come and go
throughout the day. A special event is (a wine master dinner, an open house, a pig
roast) is something which occurs once a year on a very limited basis. He confirmed,
by his definition, that both a festival and a special event would be open to the public.
He agreed that a festival would attract more people. He had no objection to the
limitation to 150 for special events. Ms. Scala said staff views a special event as one
where the number of participants are controlled and can be accurately predicted in
advance, and a festival as one which happens only once a year and the number of
participants cannot be known in advance. Mr. Rooker said it sounds as though the
wineries do not make that distinction, but Mr. Lewis said he does take reservations
even for events which are open to the general public.
M
It was decided the requirement for a zoning clearance would be dropped and in its
place would be the following: "Written notice of special events shall be provided to the
County 14 days in advance of the event. Notice shall include a description of the
event and the anticipated number of participants. Written notice of —public events,
where more than 150 participants are expected, shall be provided to the County 30
days advance."
Mr. Tice summarized all the changes which had been discussed. Mr. Rooker added
one additional change: "There shall be no outside amplified sound system."
It was agreed that the requirement for a commercial entrance for farm wineries would
remain.
On the question of the proposed change in the square footage for wayside stands, it
was the consensus of the Commission that section 5.1.19 remain as it presently exists
and that no amendment be made until further study has taken place. Mr. Rooker
stressed that the Commission's recommendation to delay action on this part of the
ZTA was just to allow time for further study of the square footage question. It was not
a recommendation that the square footage should not be changed. Mr. Rooker said
he would like more information on how existing stands larger than 600 square feet
have come to exist. Mr. Rooker said 5.1.19 also needs to be clarified in terms of the
number of structures allowed. The way it presently reads it sounds as though there is
no limitation on the number of buildings.
In the event the Board may want to consider both amendments together, Mr.
Kamptner suggested that the Commission might want to take action on both 5.1.19
and 5.1.25, even if the recommendation is not to amend 5.1.19 at this time. Mr.
Nitchmann said: "They are two separate issues. Just because they happen to be on
/6-0
OR
2-17-98
12
the same piece of paper doesn't mean we have to send them to the Board at one
time."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that the part of ZTA 97-02
related to Farm Wineries, Section 5.1.25, be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval with the following suggested changes, and that a
recommendation on Section 5.1.19, related to Wayside Stands, be delayed and that
changes to 5.1.19 be studied further:
--Add underlined wording to 5.1.25(b): "...outdoor lighting, and signs, in
protection of adjoining properties. Virginia Department of Transportation .... (rest the
same)."
--5.1.25(c): Delete the sentence beginning "Four of these events," and replace
it with "in addition to the aforesaid events there may be four (4) festivals open to the
general ug blic per year. "
--5.1.25(c): Delete the requirement for a zoning clearance and in its place add
the following: "Written notice of special events shall be provided to the County 14
days in advance of the event. Notice shall include a description of the event and the
anticipated number of participants. Written notice of up_ blic events, where more than
150 participants are expected, shall be provided to the County 30 days in advance."
--5.1.25(c): Delete "All food shall be prepared off site," and replace it with: "No
permanent food preparation facility is allowed on site for these events."
--5.1.25(c): Add the underlined word: "There shall be no outside amplified
sound system."
The motion passed unanimously.
WORK SESSION - Lighting Ordinance
Staff was seeking approval from the Commission to schedule the proposed ordinance
for public hearing.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. She was assisted by Ms. Thomas. Staff said
the County Attorney's office has identified two unresolved issues related to the
proposed ordinance:
--Will athletic field lighting be able to satisfy waiver criteria in the Ordinance if it
cannot comply with the standard; and
--How to treat multiple lamps in a luminaire.
Ms. Thomas described a new type of "soft lighting system" which has been used on
athletic fields in Washington. ( Mr. Phil lanna, an expert in the field, also answered
Commission questions about how the system works.) Ms. Thomas said this is one
/Si
13
2-17-98
particular system which will comply with the Ordinance, and there is a vendor (though
not in Virginia) which can supply the system. There are other vendors which can
provide shielded lighting, but whether or not those systems can meet the ordinance
will have to be determined on a case -by -case basis. Cost of the soft lighting system is
estimated to be "within 5-10% of a conventional lighting system."
Commission comments included the following:
--Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern about the fact that lighting fixtures
(particularly for home or farm security purposes) which meet the new ordinance may
not be readily available at local stores for consumers. Mr. Mark Schyler, a lighting
designer, talked about the availability of lighting products. He said that though they
may not be available from Lowe's or Wal-Mart, they are probably available from
standard electrical supply houses. Mr. Nitchmann was also concerned about the fact
that retail stores will still offer products which will not meet the ordinance and this will
lead county residents to erroneously believe anything available locally should meet
local ordinances. Mr. Schyler said the only way to address this is through a public
education program. Ms. Thomas said staff is already planning a program. Mr. Rooker
suggested that a copy of the ordinance be sent to retailers when it is adopted.
--Mr. Rooker wondered how often a private home owner will have lighting which
will exceed the ordinance. Ms. Thomas said the most likely item which will not
conform will be barn lighting. Presently, VEPCO will supply this barn lighting. An
action agenda item in the Comp Plan is for the Board to direct a letter to Virginia
Power asking that they discontinue the promotion of unshielded lighting which does
not meet ordinance regulations.
--Mr. Nitchmann asked if the University is going to have to meet these
requirements. Mr. Kamptner suspected the University, as a State agency, "will claim
they are supreme to our ordinance. Mr. lanna noted, however, that the University is
paying more attention to the lighting issue. They have recently installed some "full cut
off' fixtures. Mr. Rooker suggested that Mr. lanna, if he has any input into University
decisions on lighting, might suggest the soft lighting system for the new stadium. Mr.
lanna said the soft system could not light a very large stadium.
--Mr. Tice raised a question about section 4.18.5(b) related to an exemption for
temporary event lighting if the event does not exceed 15 days. Mr. Tice expressed
concern about the fact that some events may be less than 15 days in duration, but
may occur repeatedly during the year (such as the events just discussed at farm
wineries). Mr. Rooker questioned the need for the exemption. He asked: "Why can't
you provide shielded lighting on a temporary basis?" Mr. Schyler said the types of
lights used for temporary events can vary a great deal. He said high-pressure sodium
lights in a floodlight -type configuration (unshielded) are often used, but are generally
aimed down, and sometimes the standard parabolic floodlight is used, which,
generally, will fall under the 150. Mr. Rooker again asked: "So why do we need
this?" Mr. Tice said: "If it is something which would exceed 3,000 lumens, how much
of a burden would it be to require shielding?" He said: " I would be inclined to take
this out." Ms. Scala said the exemptions had been based on other ordinances and
1-6 A
OR
2-17-98 14
staff had made an effort to keep them to a minimum. She said, personally, she feels
"You don't need very many exemptions." Staff had tried to cover the potential extreme
cases. Mr. Tice suggested there could be a limit on the number of times a particular
temporary vent could be considered exempt (such as once a year). Mr. Rooker felt 15
days was a lot if there is going to be no limitation on the number of times per year.
He said he still questioned the need for the exemption because "nobody has
articulated a situation in which it would really be necessary to have lighting that
violated this ordinance on a temporary basis. Ms. Scala pointed out that there is a
waiver provision so if something really unusual is proposed a waiver could be applied
for. Mr. Rieley said he would support the waiver approach. Mr. Rooker said he
favored removal of the exemption for temporary events. He thought the waiver
process would be suffice.
--Mr. Tice raised a question about 4.18.15(e) related to the exemption for
replacement of an inoperable lamp. Staff confirmed that it means replacement of a
lamp which existed prior to the date of the ordinance. (Ms. Thomas agreed
clarification was needed.) Mr. Kamptner explained: This exception would allow the
lamp in the non -conforming luminaire, that is not shielded, that existed prior to this
ordinance, to be replaced time and again." Mr. Tice suggested a better wording would
be: "The replacement of an inoperable lamp in a luminaire that existed prior to the
effective date of the ordinance. Mr. Rooker asked if the ordinance will be retroactive.
Mr. Scala responded: "Not at this point. The Board expressed interest in doing a
retroactive ordinance, but it will be addressed at a later date and will be based on a
committee's recommendations. A lot of people are interested in that, but it is more
controversial. It would have to be phased in if we do it at all."
--Mr. Rooker questioned the need for an exemption for seasonal decorative
lighting. He asked how many instances are there when this type of lighting will
exceed the limit. Staff agreed that instances would be infrequent. He said the way
the language is proposed a shopping center could put up huge lighting displays which
are lite until midnight and say they are seasonal." Mr. Rooker thought a waiver would
be a better way to handle this.
Ms. Scala said staff had discussed the issue of multiple lamps in a luminaire. The
question is whether or not the lumens for each lamp should be added together. Ms.
Scala said: "I'm not even sure that works --whether you can add them. I don't think
that works. We talked about all commercial applications. Essentially, any light they
are going to use is probably going to require shielding, so we don't think there will be
a case where a commercial place has multiple lights, each one under 3,000. We don't
think that will happen. In a residential application, the most common place where you
would have multiple bulbs would be a corner floodlight (2 floodlights on the corner of a
house attached to one luminaire). Each bulb, separately, would not exceed 3,000.
But usually, when those are present, not only are they aimed down, they are also
aimed in two separate directions. It just didn't seem to be an issue. We thought,
rather than getting to adding lumens, it would easier to say that the brightest bulb in
one luminaire will be looked at, and if that exceeds 3,000, then it needs to be
15-3
OR
2-17-98 15
shielded." Mr. Rieley said he thinks that is a good way to deal with it, because
otherwise it gets too complicated.
There was discussion about lighting on telecommunications towers, which the County
has no authority to regulate. Mr. Schyler described FCC requirements for lighting of
towers. He said some of the "high intensity obstruction lighting" is not regulated and is
often over one million lumens each. Ms. Thomas said strobe lights are not required
by the FCC, though they are sometimes used, and staff has been trying to find a way
to get rid of strobe lighting. Mr. Rooker suggested: "One thing you might want to do
here is not exempt those situations altogether, but say 'we will not regulate where we
can't', in effect. But to the extent that we can regulate, I don't think we want to give up
the entire right to regulate lighting on a tower because there may be some
requirement for lighting with respect to that tower. If we are not preempted, then we
shouldn't give it away." Mr. Rooker suggested wording: "it shall not apply where
application is prohibited by Federal law," so any place where it is not specifically
prohibited it will apply.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Bob Watson, representing Blue Ridge Homebuilders and the Charlottesville Area
Association of Realtors, addressed the Commission. He asked for clarification of
Section 4.18.4. Staff confirmed that "Commission" refers to Planning Commission.
He asked if the Architectural Review Board (ARB) requirements can exceed this
ordinance. Mr. Kamptner replied: The ARB, in considering a Certificate of
Appropriateness, and on certain things, they can impose requirements dealing with
height, and all those other things that are listed, in the Entrance Corridor District, to
effectuate the purposes of the Overlay District." Ms. Scala added: "Up to this point,
even without the Ordinance in place, they have been asking for shielded lighting for
quite some time. I think they have also addressed the color of the lighting. So in that
sense, it could go beyond this ordinance, because this ordinance does not address
color." Ms. Thomas added that this ordinance also does not address pole height or
luminaire style. The ordinance deals primarily with the shielding issue. Mr. Kamptner
said the ARB can address pole height. Mr. Rooker understood the question to be:
"Could they be stricter in the specific areas that this ordinance does address?" Mr.
Rieley said: The question is do they have that right already? Is there anything in this
ordinance that changes that?" Mr. Watson concluded: "It's food for thought. It's a
work session."
Mr. Nitchmann asked what gives the ARB the right to require more than the ordinance
requires. Using pole height as an example, Mr. Kamptner said the ARB is trying to
"find a design that is harmonious with what is there --what's historical. So, under their
charge, they do have some latitude to impose some standards consistent with the
design guidelines, the general and the specific, to achieve the purposes of the
Entrance Corridor Overlay District."
/5�
2-17-98 16
Ms. Linda McRaven, representing the Chamber of Commerce Legislative Action Sub -
Committee on Local Ordinances, addressed the Commission. She expressed
displeasure with the way this Ordinance has been developed. She said it evolved out
of the proposed Mountaintop Protection Ordinance has been done in a "piecemeal"
fashion. She suggested the proposed ordinance needs to be simplified so that it is
more understandable to the general public. She said some terms, such as "luminaire"
and "the horizontal", need to be more clearly defined. She questioned the concern
about athletic field lighting, given the fact that it is only turned on for a brief period of
time, and then is turned off. She asked if there will be any attempt to control the
lighting on 164. She feels the entire issue of lighting should be addressed in a more
formal way. She objected to the fact that the ordinance has been drafted by staff,
without the opportunity for the public to be involved in the process.
No further public comment was offered.
Addressing some of Ms. McRaven's comments about the process having been
"piecemeal,", Mr. Rooker said this is an ordinance of "general applicability" for the
entire county. Mr. Kamptner added: "The only difference in this and the other
ordinance that is forthcoming is that this is going to apply from the date it is adopted,
into the future."
Regarding the lights on 164, Mr. Kamptner said he assumes they are in VDOT's right-
of-way and "are beyond our ability to control in any mandatory sense." Mr. Rooker
asked: "Does this ordinance control all aspects of lighting that we have the power to
control?" Staff responded affirmatively.
Mr. Tice explained how the ordinance had evolved out of the Mountaintop Protection
Committee, i.e. "because the research observatories at UVA are located on
mountaintops ... and it was very much appropriate for the committee to look at the issue
of lighting and we very quickly decided that, for something like this to be effective, it
was going to have to be applied county -wide, not only on the mountaintops, and so
we recommended to the Board that they look at this as a county -wide issue and the
Board, in fact, adopted that." He said the process has in no way been "piecemeal."
Mr. Benish said this ordinance addresses shielding provisions, but there are plans to
look at lighting more comprehensively, including the retroactive question, in the future.
The Board will appoint a committee to conduct that study.
Mr. Rooker pointed out that this ordinance is still at a stage where public input is
invited and welcomed.
There was discussion about the next step in the process for this proposed ordinance.
The Commission was being asked to authorize staff to schedule a public hearing. It
was noted that public comment will be taken at the public hearing, and there is no
requirement that the Commission take action to pass the ordinance on to the Board at
2-17-98 17
' that time. If a lot of public concerns are raised, more work sessions could be held.
Mr. Tice stressed, however, that if the Commission feels the Ordinance is ready to be
acted upon at the public hearing, then action will be taken at that time. He did not
want there to be the implication that action cannot be taken to pass the ordinance on
to the Board at the Commission's first public hearing.
Regarding further study and the possibility of the ordinance becoming retroactive at
some future time, Mr. Nitchmann asked if this ordinance will be expanded, or is the
only future issue to be addressed whether or not it will be retroactive. Mr. Kamptner
said there is now enabling authority which allows the regulation of outdoor lighting
"outside the Zoning Ordinance, which would allow us to impose an outdoor lighting
standard that would simply apply --unlike a zoning regulation which applies
prospectively from the time adopted so that we have non -conforming uses. We have
enabling authority to adopt an outdoor lighting regulation that would simply be a
standard everyone would have to comply with." Mr. Rooker said it is his
understanding that the Board expected this to take place in a two-step procedure, first
a zoning ordinance proposal that was prospective only and, at some later time there
may be an ordinance passed which is retrospective.
Based on all the discussion which had taken place, Mr. Nitchmann said he is not in
favor of removing any of the proposed exemptions until after the public has had a
chance to comment. He repeated one of his main concerns for the general public is
"if I can go buy it, what makes it wrong --and how is that going to be enforced?" Mr.
Rooker said that situation is possible with any lighting ordinance and "that is why,
perhaps, it makes more sense to have a prospective ordinance that is in effect for
some period of time before you do something that is retrospective." As an example,
Mr. Tice pointed out that it is possible to easily purchase many items which would
violate the Noise Ordinance. Mr. Tice said he would not be opposed to leaving the
exemptions in until after the public hearing, but two clarifications should be made
before the public hearing: (1) Add Mr. Rooker's suggested wording that the
Ordinance shall not apply where the application is prohibited by Federal law; if not
prohibited, it shall apply;" and (2) In the replacement of an inoperable lamp, add a
clarification that it is "in a luminar that existed prior to the effective date of the
ordinance. Mr. Rooker said he preferred that the other exemptions be removed if the
object is to come up with something that is as close to what the Commission would
recommend as possible prior to the public hearing. He thought it would be confusing
to include items which are likely to be deleted later. Mr. Nitchmann responded: "Do
what you like."
In response to Ms. McRaven's recommendation that more familiar terms be used, Ms.
Thomas suggested the phrase "also referred to as a bulb" could be inserted . Mr.
Tice supported this suggestion.
09
Oil
2-17-98
18
Mr. Rieley thanked Mr. lanna for his assistance in the preparation of the proposed
ordinance.
It was the consensus of the Commission that staff be directed to schedule a public
hearing on the proposed Lighting Ordinance. Staff said a March date may be
possible.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT (Re: Penalties Imposed for Zoning Violations )
Mr. Kamptner asked the Commission to adopt a Resolution of Intent to consider the
amendment of Section 37.0 of the Zoning Ordinance as related to penalties which
may be imposed for zoning violations, in order to make the section conform to new
enabling authority.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that the Commission adopt a
Resolution of Intent to consider amending Section 37.0 of the Albemarle County
Zoning Ordinance as related to penalties imposed for zoning violations.
The motion passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Tice suggested that a work session be held on the topic of the Bonus Provisions
in the near future, with the intent being (1) to gain a better understanding of the
concept of bonuses, and (2) to try to determine if the existing language in the
Ordinance is going to accomplish what the County thinks it will accomplish. He
thought it would be helpful if this could take place before this issue comes up again..
Mr. Benish said staff could hold a work session to educate the Commission on the
Bonus Provisions and could include a history of how the provisions have been used in
the past. He said the provisions have not been used often.
Mr. Tice asked if the Commission will play any role in the selection of a site for the
new elementary school. Given problems which occurred with the Monticello High
School site, related to site limitations, he thought it would be helpful for the
Commission to be involved. Mr. Benish said the Planning Department is sometimes
involved in a "site selection analysis" which is done with an appointed committee
composed of School Board and Board of Supervisor members. In other instances, it
has been handled primarily by the School Board and the Board. He was not aware of
the status of the pre -planning for this project to date. A 2232 Review (formerly a 456
Review) to find the site in compliance with the Comp Plan must be done by the
/-5-7
2-17-98
19
Commissibn after the site is selected. Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that if potential sites
are matte public before a final decision is made, then the price of those sites
escalates immediately.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
M
Om