Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 07 1992 PC Minutes4-7-92 1 APRIL 7, 1992 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 7, 1992, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; and Ms. Ellen Andersen. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Huckle. The Chairman called the meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of March 24, 1992 were approved as amended. Mr. Johnson expressed dissatisfaction that a Board Action Summary had not been included on the agenda. He was adamant that this be included every week. Regarding the Board's next meeting (dealing with the Budget), Mr. Johnson felt the Commission would be interested in the Board's discussion on some items. However, the Chairman stressed that the Commission's primary interest was in those items on which the Board takes a different position than the Commission. Mr. Fritz presented a brief preview of the April 14th Consent Agenda (Peacock Hill Section 3, Preliminary Plat) No action was required. SP-92-10 David & Mary Spradlin - Petition to permit an existing single wide mobile home to remain on 7.514 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 104, Parcel 14F1, is located on the north side of Rt. 620 approximately 1.6 miles south of Rt. 795 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 4). Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Referring to condition 1(a)--The mobile home shall be relocated ... in such manner that a portion... shall be within fifty (50) feet of the garage building.... --Mr. Johnson asked about the significance of the 50 feet. Mr. Keeler explained that the figure had no particular significance other than to provide some flexibility in the location of the mobile home. He confirmed that the applicant would still be required to meet setback requirements, etc. f7a 4-7-92 The applicant, Mr. David Spradlin, addressed the Commission. He was in agreement with the staff's report. He stated that the mobile home would be occupied by his brother. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined the mobile home is currently occupied. Mr. Keeler confirmed that the conditions of approval would have to be complied with within 60 days of Board approval of the permit. He also confirmed that once the mobile home has been moved, it will comply with all setback requirements. He added that once the unit has been moved, the Zoning Inspector should check to make sure that the location complies with all easements. It was determined the mobile home will use the septic system which previously served the garage and will have to meet Health Department approval. Ms. Andersen moved that SP-92-10 for David & Mary Spradlin be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions shall be met within sixty (60) days of Board of Supervisors approval of this petition or this special use permit shall be referred to the Board of Supervisors for revocation in accordance with Section 31.2.4.4 of the Zoning Ordinance: a. The mobile home shall be relocated to any area behind the rear wall plane of the garage building in such manner that a portion of the mobile home shall be within fifty (50) feet of the garage building while maintaining setback and yard requirements specified for the Rural Area zone; b. Albemarle County Building Official approval; C. Virginia Department of Health approval of well and septic system. 2. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 3. The mobile home shall be occupied only by the family of David and Mary Spradlin. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Nitchmann asked about the status of the 2 abandoned mobile homes which are currently on the property. Mr. 173 4-7-92 3 Spradlin indicated he planned to remove those within 1160 days or something like that after I get approval." The motion for approval passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS Open Space Plan - In response to Mr. Jenkins' question, Mr. Keeler explained that the Board is holding work sessions on this item and a public hearing will probably take place in June. Sign Ordinance - Mr. Johnson questioned whether the ordinance would "have the optimum effectiveness that we foresee." He expressed the feeling that the proposed new ordinance would be "ineffective, particularly in the entry corridors and everywhere where there are existing non -conforming signs" because a new merchant can claim a hardship (because new signs will have to be much smaller) and receive a variance from the BZA. He felt another aspect of the ordinance should be a "phasing in so that we eventually get conforming signs." [The County Attorney has stated that there is currently no way to accomplish this because there is no enabling legislation. He made reference to a presentation given by Ed McMahon (sponsored by PEC) during which Mr. McMahon showed evidence (through "before and after" slides) that some places in the United States have found a way to phase out non -conforming signs. Mr. Johnson was in favor of holding a joint work session on the proposed sign ordinance with the Commission, the ARB, the BZA, the Zoning Department, and the County Attorney before going to public hearing. He described the purpose of this work session as follows: "To review the 'implementation' and 'enforcement' provisions of the proposed Sign Ordinance Amendment in order to optimize its effectiveness. In recognition of the other considerable efforts expended to date, except as related to the above, specific conditions of the proposed ordinance will not be subject to review during this session." He had spoken with Mr. Lindstrom (ARB) and Mr. Kennedy (BZA) and had determined that they were in favor of a joint meeting. He felt it was important that the BZA and ARB "realize and recognize and appreciate that they are part of the act and involved in writing this ordinance." Mr. Johnson suggested that the BZA and ARB be invited to participate in the work session scheduled for 5:15, April 14. [NOTE: This topic of this work session was to be the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments, NOT the Sign Ordinance.] Mr. Johnson indicated that staff has expressed a reluctance to change the scheduling of this item given the fact that it 4-7-92 4 has been deferred several times and required advertising has already taken place. Mr. Johnson felt the issue of enabling legislation should be given consideration with a recommendation to be made to the Board to pursue such legislation. Mr. Keeler pointed out that staff seldom refers anything to the BZA because they are not involved in the County's policy making process, i.e. "they are a quasi-judicial group that is probably best left in that function and not brought into the decision -making and ordinance writing." He pointed out that the BZA, at some point, had recommended that a new sign ordinance was needed because so many variances were being requested. Ms. Patterson was in favor of proceeding with the public hearing on April 14th. She pointed out that "a lot of people have been planning to make that date and working towards that date since January" and it would be difficult to notify them of a change. She explained that Zoning has been working with the Chamber of Commerce and has made many of the suggested changes, with the only significant point of disagreement remaining being the "size and height" recommendations (for free-standing signs). She explained that the proposed amendments were distributed to the BZA but they had been "uncomfortable" with holding a work session. She stated that multiple work sessions have been held with the ARB. She felt it would be difficult, as suggested by Mr. Johnson, to focus on administration and enforcement without getting involved in specific requirements such as sign size, non -conforming signs, etc. In response to Mr. Jenkins' question about how the new regulations are expected to effect the number of variances being requested, Ms. Patterson felt that variance requests would only be "a small fraction" of what is currently being requested. Ms. Andersen asked if staff could present some slides showing sign conditions in other localities, i.e. those areas which have found a way to deal with non -conforming signs. Mr. Bowling emphasized the legal issues associated with non -conforming signs, i.e. "individuals have private rights under the U.S. and Virginia Constitution which restrict what a government can do as far as just taking someone's property." He explained that the only Virginia law dealing with sign restrictions is found in the Highway Beautification Act (Title 33) which allows localities to buy (at full market value) signs on Intersta_tes and Federal highways. Mr. Bowling explained the process of amortization but stressed that currently there is no Virginia law which /is' 4-7-92 5 allows for the amortization of signs, though there have been some unsuccessful attempts to pass such legislation. He also pointed out that it is the Attorney General's position that "except for the situation which is addressed in Title 33... there is no authority for counties in Virginia not only to amortize signs but also to take signs." Regarding the BZA's role in the process, Mr. Bowling explained: "They are narrowly circumscribed in what they can do. The big problem (in the past) has been that the sign ordinance has been defective —and the BZA has essentially been legislating the sign ordinance because of an absence of activity on the part of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors." He stated that if, after the adoption of the new Sign Ordinance, the Commission and Board feel there are no legal grounds to justify the BZA's rulings, there is a procedure to follow which will allow the Board to challenge the BZA in court (which has been done on the past). He noted, however, that it was his "perspective" that the new ordinance would result in far fewer variances being granted (and this perspective is shared by the Zoning Administrator). Ms. Patterson could not recall any instance where the BZA has granted a variance based on the claim that a smaller sign was a hardship because adjoining properties had larger signs. Ms. Patterson pointed out the following aspects of the proposed ordinance: --As changes are made to non -conforming signs a schedule for compliance will have to be followed so "over time those non -conforming signs will completely comply. (Mr. Johnson questioned this. He did not feel there was any provision in the new ordinance which would prevent the replacement of a non -conforming sign. Mr. Bowling agreed though he stated that staff has attempted to place incentives in the ordinance to encourage gradual conformance.) --The setback has been decreased which will allow signs to be closer to the highway though they will have to be smaller and lower in height. Mr. Johnson conceded that Mr. Bowling's explanation of the situation was correct; however, he felt that the Commission's concern should be passed along to the Board along with the Ordinance and with a recommendation to pursue enabling legislation. Regarding the possibility of a joint work session on the 14th, Ms. Patterson pointed out that the BZA will be meeting up until 5:00 and possibly later and the ARB may also be meeting on that day. Mr. Johnson recommended that the BZA and ARB be provided copies of the proposed ordinance no later than "tomorrow" (April 8). / %6, C3IA2'l+% 6 It was finally decided that the members of the ARB and BZA would receive special invitations to attend the regular public hearing on the 14th and would be encouraged to comment at that time. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Johnson briefly commented on a City meeting he had attended on the development of the Main Street area. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m. DB V. Wayn V Cilimberg 7retary /77