Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 14 1992 PC MinutesJANUARY 14, 1992 The Albemarle County Planning Gomm.iss.ion held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 14, 1992, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Thomas Blue, Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. William Nitchman; and Ms. Habs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Rich Tarbell, Senior Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator; Mr. John Brady, Deputy Zoning Administrator; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Johnson. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. ELECTION OF OFFICERS - Mr. Cilimberg chaired the meeting until after a new chairman had been elected. Chairman: Ms. Huckle nominated Mr. Tom Jenkins. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. (Mr. Jenkins thanked the Commission for its support, but stated that he was more comfortable as a support person.) Mr. Jenkins nominated Mr. Phil Grimm. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. Ms. Andersen moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that the nominations be closed. The Commission then voted on the nominations of both Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Grimm. The vote for Mr. Jenkins was 1 in favor, 5 opposed, with Ms. Huckle casting the supporting vote. The vote for Mr. Grimm was 6:0. Mr. Grimm was unanimously elected chairman. Mr. Grimm then assumed the position of Chairman of the Commission. Vice Chairman: Though Ms. Huckle again nominated Mr. Jenkins, he declined the nomination. Mr. Jenkins nominated Mr. Johnson to serve as Vice Chairman. Ms. Andersen seconded the nomination. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the nominations be closed. a 1-14-92 N Mr. Johnson was unanimously elected Vice Chairman (6:0). Secretary: Ms. Huckle nominated Mr. Cilimberg to serve as Secretary. Ms. Andersen seconded the nomination. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that the nominations be closed. Mr. Cilimberg was unanimously (6:0) elected Secretary of the Commission. Meeting Days and Time: Ms. Andersen moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the meeting day and time remain the same --Tuesdays, 7:00 p.m., Room 7, County Office Building. The motion passed unanimously. CONSENT AGENDA Earlysville Forest Commercial_ Plat - Proposal to create a 0.87 acre parcel with a 0.69 are residue to be served by an existing private road. Property, described as Tax Map 31B, Parcel -3,is located in the southeast quadrant of the Rt. 743 and Earlysville Forest Drive intersection. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development in the White Hall Magisterial District. This property is located in a designated growth area. and Review for C_omgliance with the Comprehensive Plan (15.10456 Review) - Proposal is to locate a new 3,054 square foot post office to replace the existing facility in Earlysville. The site is located on the corner of Rt. 743 and Earlysville Forest Drive, in the Village of Earlysville. The site is .88 ares in size and is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development in the White Hall Magisterial District. Mr. Tarbell and Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed the two items. There was a brief discussion about the future of the .6 acre residue. Mr. Tarbell explained that a site plan for an auto repair shop has been submitted but not yet reviewed. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchman, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. ZTA-91-09 Sign Ordinance - This proposed sign ordinance will modify the current Zoning Ordinance as follows: All 69 1-14-92 3 definitions relating to structures and to signs (in Section 3.0) shall be repealed and replaced within the proposed sign ordinance; all of Section 4.15 dealing with sign regulations shall be repealed and the new ordinance re-enacted in its place. Minor amendments shall be made to Sections 21.7.1, 21.7.2, 26.10.1 and 26.10.2. Sign regulations within Overlay Districts (Section 30.5 and 30.6) shall be amended comprehensively. Deferred from the December 3, 1991 Commission meeting. Ms. Patterson, Zoning Administrator, presented the staff report. She introduced her staff and others involoved in the development of the Ordinance; (John Grady, Deputy Zoning Administrator, Bill Haney, Intern, Tom Eaton and David Cook, Inspectors, Marsha Joseph, Agent to Architectural Review Hoard, Bett Thorpe, Zoning Assistant, Max Kennedy, Board of Zoning Appeals, Tim Lindstrom, Architectural Review Board) Her presentation included the following: --History of the proposed ordinance; --A slide presentation of existing signs on the Rt. 29N corridor; --A comparison of the current regulations to the proposed regulations; --The reasons for the development of a comprehensive sign ordinance. Ms. Patterson explained that the 4 primary reasons for the proposed ordinance are: (1) To consolidate regulations in one place; (2) To eliminate the large number of recurring variances that currently are taking place; (3) To update a 1961 ordinance; and (4) To address visual clutter and aesthetic issues. She also explained that the proposed regulations will apply one set of technical standards "across the Board". (In the EC District, additional design guidelines will apply.) Ms. Joseph reviewed revisions made to the previous proposal based on concerns that had been expressed by the business community. Ms. Patterson strongly urged the Commission to resolve any outstanding issues and pass the ordinance on to the Board. She asked that the proposed ordinance NOT be referred to committee. She noted that a committee had worked on a sign ordinance for several years and had never been able to reach 100% agreement so the ordinance had never been passed. Prior to opening of the public hearing, Commission questions and comments included the following: --How many of the variances requested would not have required a variance sunder the proposed ordinance? (blue) Ms. Patterson guessed that approximately 75% would not have required variances under the new regulations. 710 1-14-92 4 --Would this proposed ordinance be more or less restrictive than the Fredericksburg and Williamsburg ordinances? (Blue) Staff felt the ordinance was probably less restrictive than Williamsburg's but more restrictive than Fredericksburg's. --Are any changes to inspection and enforcement procedures proposed for the new regulations? (Blue) Ms. Patterson felt that slightly more staff time might be required for enforcement but she felt it would be managable. She felt it would be "easier to enforce in terms of manpower." --How was public comment solicited? How was the process advertized? (Nitchman) Staff described the process in some detail, including the dates, times and length of various work sessions and public hearings. Staff also stressed that very little public comment had been received even after 200 letters had been mailed to area businesses and developers, including the Chamber of Commerce, and press coverage. (Mr. Haney stated that he had hand - delivered a letter to the Chamber of Commerce, though the Chamber has no record of having received the letter.) Very little input from the public and business community was received. --How many of the existing signs pictured in the slides (on Rt. 29) would be in compliance with the new regulations? How long would it take the new regulations to have any impact on Rt. 29? (Jenkins) Staff stated that the majority would not comply with height regulations and 38 of 81 would comply with the size regulations. Staff stated it would be a long time before there would be any impact in relation to signs that already exist. The most significant impact will be on new signs and in the long term it will make a difference. Ms. Huckle felt the adoption of the new regulations was urgent because "we must start sometime." The Chairman invited public comment. The following persons addressed the Commission and asked that action on the proposed ordinance be deferred to allow time for the business community to provide more input. --Ben Foster (a local sign maker): He presented several different types of signs. He attempted to show that though most of the examples he presented would not comply with the new regulations, none were objectionable. He stated that the ordinance would address only 5% of signs that are requested. He pointed out that the ordinance does not state that if a sign is less than 1 sq. ft. it does not require a permit. (Staff noted that some of Mr. Foster's comments were not accurate because they did not take into account all of the aspects of the sign, such as its location, what it was advertising; etc.) 7/ 1-14-92 g --Marshall Pryor (representing the Chamber of Commerce): He asked that action be deferred for 60 - 90 days to allow time for more "organized" citizen input. He indicated Chamber members would be willing to work with staff to address concerns. He noted that a possible reason that little input had been received thus far was because of the increased workload in the business community during the holiday season. ---Paul Holdren (Shoney's Restaurants): He had worked with the "ad hoc committee" which had made comment to staff in the last few weeks. However, he noted that the committee had not received notice of the proposed changes as a result of those comments. He asked that action be deferred and a "15-member Blue Ribbon committee from county businesses, organizations, and residents be appointed to assist staff in re -writing and/or adding to the ordinance." He suggested the committee be composed of 50% non -business representation and 50% large and small business representation, in addition to county staff and a non -staff chairperson. He noted that every road in the community will be regulated by this ordinance, even though there are only 3 highways with scenic designation, and therefore there should be more community input than has taken place thus far. He noted that lowering the height of the sign would make it a perfect target for vandalism. He also expressed concern about further "restrictions" being imposed on businesses. He pointed out that it is area businesses which "pay the taxes which support the schools and pave the roads in this town." --Carter Myers (Colonial Auto): He, too, had served an the committee referred to by Mr. Holdren. He stated that there had not been enough time for the committee to cover all the issues. He stressed: "Businesses need signs and the County needs businesses." He asked that action be deferred. (In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Myers stated that 6 persons from the business community had attended the first meeting, and 4 had attended the second.) ----Don Wagner (developer): He felt there was no urgency in passing the ordinance because there are existing enforceable regulations. ---Chuck Lebo (Rio Hills): He felt the ordinance was too long and complicated. He suggested that the regulations be made "less complicated and less restrictive." --Henry Weinshink: He also felt it was long and complicated. He stated it made the Zoning Administrator a "gestapo." He described the proposed ordinance as "bureaucratic and anti -business." He felt the ordinance had been "drafted by staff who work for just certain elements of this community who have their own vision of what this community should be." Passage of this ordinance will give a "business asset" to existing businesses with large non- conforming signs. He suggested that the community be surveyed to find out exactly what type of sign is offensive. He stated he would like to see the County follow the City's precedent of "little or no variance." f� 1-14-92 6 The following persons spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance: Mr. Max Kennedy (BZA Chairman speaking as a private citizen); Mr. Tim Lindstrom (ARB Chairman speaking as a private citizen); Ms. Mary Bryant; Ms. Eleanor Santic (Citizens for Albemarle) See Attachment A; Ms. Sandy Snook (League of Women Voters) See Attachment B; Mr. Tim Michel: and Ms. Sherri Lewis. Their points included the following: --The issue cannot be viewed through the presentation of individual signs which are removed from their setting because when many signs are present in one area (as along a roadway) the effect is quite different. (Lindstrom) --The Architectural Review Board supports the proposed ordinance. (Lindstrom) --The County does not currently have an enforceable sign ordinance. (Lindstrom) --The public has been aware of the proposed ordinance for some time and has had time to provide input. (Lindstrom) --Though already developed areas will not be noticeably impacted, newly developing areas will. (Lindstrom) --The ordinance should NOT be referred to a committee. If further revision is needed, it should be left to staff. (Michel) --"Little substantive criticism of the ordinance itself" has been presented. Most criticism has been of the process. Public comment was actively sought on several occasions. Many business people have been aware of the work on the ordinance. It is a "tremendous improvement over the existing ordinance and over the preposterous overlay restrictions." There is time for further public input at the next level. It's time to move forward. (Lewis) Mr. Neil Gropen (owner of a sign business) addressed the Commission. Mr. Gropen's position was unclear. His comments seemed to emphasize the importance of signs to businesses. He commented on the aspects of some particular existing signs. He also commented on current sign techniques --coloring, size of lettering, etc. He offered to serve an any committee which might be formed. He felt there were questions which needed to be answered by the Commission, the business community and the public in terms of what types of signs are desirable. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Haney briefly explained how the proposed dimensions had been arrived at in terms of travel speed and reaction times. Mr. Grimm summarized the Commission's options: (1) Approval as proposed; (2) Deferral to a committee or another work session; or (3) Approval after some modification. 7'3 1-14-92 7 Ms. Huckle noted that all persons who had spoke "without financial interests" had expressed support for the ordinance. Ms. Andersen expressed concern about the possibility of another committee study considering the fact that the previous committee had worked for years and accomplished nothing. She suggested that if a committee is recommended, it should be required to meet specific deadlines. Mr. Jenkins felt both sides of the issue had a strong case. He said that if it were his decision he would "give the ball to the Chamber of Commerce." He noted that "staff has been diligent beyond the call of duty in developing where we are right now." He questioned whether staff's further work with the business community would be productive. He suggested that the Chamber of Commerce prepare a written report on the proposed ordinance and specifically address where it is felt to be deficient. He suggested a time limit be set. He stated he was not comfortable with passing on a document which is "less than complete based on inadequate input from the business community." Mr. Nitchman expressed understanding of a previous comment concerning the holiday season being a difficult time for a business owner to take time away for other projects. He complimented staff on their work on the ordinance. He concluded: "However, it took 11 years to get nowhere, I don't think we should base everything on 4 1/2 hours of meetings between the business community, the staff and whoever else was involved. I think it deserves the right to have at least, in my opinion, 60 days --I don't think it needs any longer than that. I agreed with Mr. Jenkins --I think we need to put some restrictions on what is to occur in that period of time. I don't want to see it come out of some committee and have one individual hold up all the progress that has been made after 50 or 60 hours of work. Guidelines need to be laid down as to what is expected to come out of the committee, if a committee is established. The ball for that should be thrown into the Chamber of Commerce's court. They represent, overall, the businesses in this community, the city and the county. It's unfortunate that they didn't get involved earlier. ... All different aspects of the community need to be heard. I think there does not need to be a major revision of the proposals put forth. I think they need to sit down and discuss it and come up with something that is going to be mutually beneficial to the business community as well as to the citizens of Albemarle County and as well as to the tourists who come into the county." Mr. Nitchman expressed surprise that a grandfathered sign goes with the property, so if a business is sold, that business could have an 74 1-14-92 8 advantage over a new business which would be subject to the new regulations. He concluded that he felt a committee of no more than 10 individuals should be formed, including representation from the business community and concerned citizens. He felt a time limit should be set and "x" number of meetings established. There was some discussion as to the proper process for formation of a committee. Mr. Nitchman suggested that the Chamber and interested citizens groups submit a list of possible representatives. Mr. Jenkins questioned whether the Commission had the authority to appoint a committee. Mr. Cilimberg explained that, traditionally, the Board of Supervisors has appointed committees. He further explained that "if this committee is being formally recognized for its work, it's the Hoard that has to accept that that work was legitimate from their standpoint." Mr. Cilimberg suggested that, in this instance, there may be a way to work more informally without the formal appointment of a committee. Mr. Blue stated he felt it was important for the Chamber of Commerce to provide input and even though they had not commented previously they are now willing to do so. He did not think a formal committee was necessary. Mr. Blue stated that the only reason he had heard for speeding up the matter is because there are certain community groups which think the business community is likely to delay or change the ordinance and they want to get it passed before there is time to do that. He did not think that was right. Mr. Blue moved that action on the proposed sign ordinance be deferred to April 14, 1992 (90 days), with the business community, through the Chamber of Commerce, and any other interested groups, being given fair notice to provide very specific written comments, including recommended language, to the zoning staff no later than March 14, 1992 (60 days). Mr. Blue pointed out that it was not his intention that the Chamber of Commerce, nor anyone else, draft a new ordinance, but rather to address directly the proposed ordinance as developed by staff with specific objections and recommendations. (There was a brief discussion about time deadlines. Mr. Nitchman felt dates and times should be specific. Ms. Patterson stated that staff would need the comments at least 30 days prior to public hearing. The dates stated in the motion were the result of that discussion.) 1-14-92 9 Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Mr. Nitchman indicated he would be very chagrined if the public comes back with very "vague, open-ended statements." He stressed that the comments and recommendations needed to be very specific. The motion for deferral to April 14th passed (5:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 PM. V. kraynejfilimterA, Se"Xketary DB 74