HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 14 1992 PC Minutes4-14-92
1
APRIL 14, 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, April 14, 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. Rich Tarbell,
Senior Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Amelia
Patterson, Zoning Administrator; Ms. Marsha Joseph, ARB
Planner; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioner Huckle.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of March
31, 1992 were approved as submitted.
Mr. Keeler presented a brief summary of the Board of
Supervisors April 8, 1992 meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA
oun-xz-uco - veacocx Hill section 3 Preliminary Plat
Proposal to divide 18.51 acres into 11 lots with an average
lot size of 1.67 acres to be served by a private road.
Property, described as Tax Map 73B Parcel 29 (part), is
located on the west side of Route 708, just north of I-64.
Zoned P.U.D., Planned Unit Development in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. This property is not located in a
designated growth area.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that the
Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
SDP-92-012 - Earl sville Post Office Preliminary Site Plan -
Proposal to construct a 3,818 square foot post office to be
served by 27 parking spaces on a 38,250 square foot site
with access restricted to Bent Oaks Drive. Property,
described as Tax Map 31B Parcel C-3 (part), is located in
the southeast quadrant of the Route 743/Earlysville Forest
Drive intersection. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development in
the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is located
in a designated growth area.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Johnson expressed concern about the fact that the
"building overlaps the electric right-of-way." Mr. Tarbell
17Y
4-14-92 2
explained that staff had received a letter (a copy of which
is in the file) which confirms that the applicant and VEPCO
have resolved that issue. Mr. Johnson felt that if such
issues were a "part of our business," then the letter should
be referenced in a condition of approval. Mr. Johnson
wondered how this right-of-way was different than a VDOT or
water and sewer right-of-way. Mr. Keeler pointed out that
VEPCO, in the letter referenced by Mr. Tarbell, acknowledges
that the building location is acceptable to VEPCO. Mr.
Keeler also noted that it is a staff policy not to bring
items to the Commission until possible easement conflicts
have been resolved.
Mr. Johnson also brought up the issue of the absence of any
signage on the preliminary plan. Mr. Tarbell explained that
sign approvals are handled through the Zoning Department,
with the exception of internal directional signs. Mr.
Johnson quoted the following from the Zoning Ordinance,
Section 32.5.6 (n): "The preliminary site plan shall
contain the following: Location and dimensions of all ...
signs." Mr. Johnson concluded that though he was willing to
"go ahead and ignor it here with the understanding it will
be included before the final site plan goes in, but I do
insist, unless overruled by the rest of the Commission, that
this provision of the Ordinance be complied with."
Mr. Blue wondered if the section cited by Mr. Johnson should
be deleted from the Ordinance. Mr. Johnson suggested that
it should be given serious consideration before being
deleted.
Mr. Keeler attempted to explain the site review process in
relation to signs: "Zoning is a member of the Site Review
Committee. They receive all plans that go through site
review and at any point in time in that process can make
comments to the applicant about any signs they have shown
and make them aware of the sign provisions. We
intentionally wrote into the Ordinance under 32.7.8.1 the
following language--'Signage shall be approved by the Zoning
Administrator in accordance with Section 4.15, Signs, of
this ordinance. Approval of a site development plan shall
in no fashion be deemed as approval of any signage except
such signs as may be specifically required by the Commission
to regulate traffic, prohibit parking or to serve some other
purpose of this ordinance. (5-1-87)1. We tried to separate
the site plan from the sign in terms of the approval
process. It is important, at the time of site review, to
make the applicant aware of the sign regulation provisions
so that in his revisions to the plan ... he can be aware of
the ordinance requirements and address setback and that sort
of thing." [NOTE: At the end of the meeting Ms. Thorpe,
Zoning Assistant, explained in detail how signs are dealt
with. See the end of these minutes for those comments.]
/79
4-14-92 3
The applicant was represented by Mr. Craig Berner, engineer
for the project. He explained that all the building's
identification signs would be affixed to the building itself
(bronze lettering on the face of a brick building).
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Earlysville Post Office
Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals
for the following conditions have been obtained. The final
site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion
control plan;
c. Department of Engineering approval of technical
notes on the final site plan;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
right-of-way improvement plans to include a 100' x 12' right
turn lane with an 80' taper from Earlysville Forest Drive
onto Bent Oaks Drive;
e. Planning staff approval of a final landscape plan
and a conservation plan for the areas of trees to remain;
f. Planning staff approval of an easement plat to
provide access for the adjacent lot to the south.
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
3. Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the
following condition is met:
a. Fire Official final approval.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson stated that he would support the motion "with
reservation" because of his concern about the policy for not
including signs on preliminary plans.
The motion for approval passed unanimously.
ZTA-91-09 Sign Ordinance - This proposed sign ordinance
will modify the current Zoning Ordinance as follows: All
definitions relating to structures and to signs (in Section
IN
4-14-92 4
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 (Sections 30.5 and 30.6) shall be amended
comprehensively. Deferred from January 14, 1992 Commission
meeting.
Ms. Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator, presented a very
comprehensive staff report. She was assisted by Ms. Marsha
Joseph, staff member assigned to the Architectural Review
Board. The presentation included an explanation of existing
regulations, a description of revisions made subsequent to
the last public hearing and in response to community
comment, and visual aids including slides showing existing
signs and graphic illustrations comparing the existing
regulations to proposed regulations. Ms. Patterson
concluded that the major item still causing disagreement
between staff and the Chamber of Commerce committee was that
of size and height of freestanding signs.
The following persons addressed the Commission:
--Marshall Pryor (representing the Chamber of Commerce)
He explained that a survey had been made of the Chamber's
850+ members, and 159 written, and 60 oral, responses had
been received. He noted that there was still "a difference
of opinion on the square footage and a few other things."
He asked that, in the future, the Chamber be used as a
vehicle to disseminate information to the business
community.
--Mr. Carter Myers - He asked that a square footage of
40 to 100 square feet be considered. He also felt that a
height of 20 feet should be considered because he felt it
would prevent vandalism. He questioned the point of
measurement for wall signs and felt that it should be "at
least up to a certain level of the eve." He felt that
search lights should not be regulated as a sign. In
conclusion, he felt that the revised proposal was better
than the original one.
--Mr. Don Wagner - He distributed a letter which listed
several comments and also made the following specific
comments:
--That the words "except for temporary event
signs" be included in Section 4.15.6(k) related to
portable signs. [Ms. Patterson, later in the meeting,
explained problems that are associated with temporary
signs, e.g. often unsightly, lack of stability. She
concluded: "So we would not recommend allowing
Portable signs as temporary signs, but we are happy to
write the language if the Commission chooses to
recommend that." Mr. Nitchmann felt that there are
/8
4-14-92
A
times when portable signs are necessary.]
--He felt the wall signage regulations, for
buildings with multiple uses, was not reasonable. He
felt each business should be able to have a 200 square
foot sign, rather than a 600 square foot total for all
businesses.
--(Section 4.15.7.1) He felt the last sentence on
page 10 was unclear. He suggested that "the sign plus
the base be 250% of the maximum allowable size of the
sign."
--Section 4.15.9.4 He felt that if an "abandoned"
sign remains in good shape and is maintained well, it
should be allowed to remain. [Mr. Nitchmann expressed
his agreement with this position later in the meeting.
Ms. Patterson clarified that only when the sign
advertises an abandoned, non -conforming use and the use
is not re-established within the 2-year time period, is
the removal of the sign required. She also expressed
concern about making judgment calls in relation to
determining if a sign is "maintained and in good
repair." She also pointed out that this would be one
opportunity to achieve compliance.]
--Section 4.15.9.5 - He felt this would force
merchants to keep "ugly" signs.
--Section 4.15.10(a) - He felt this section was
"not fair and not necessary."
--He expressed concerns about enforcement
problems.
--Ms. Eleanor Santic, representing Citizens for
Albemarle - She read a statement supporting the Ordinance as
proposed by staff. (See Attachment A.)
--Mr. Paul Holdren - He agreed with Mr. Carter's
statements. He asked that the Ordinance be deferred to
allow time for the remaining items of contention to be
resolved.
--Mr. Frank Kessler (though a member of the ARB, Mr.
Kessler stated that he was speaking for himself) - He
expressed his support for the proposed Ordinance.
--Mr. Neil Gropen (a
expressed his support for
stressed that he felt the
adequate.
local sign designer) - He
the ordinance as proposed. He
proposed size of the signs was
--Mr. Max Kennedy (representing the Board of Zoning
Appeals) - He stated that he felt the proposed Ordinance was
"workable and would be a great asset" though he could not
say for certain how many requests for variances it would
eliminate. (He declined to "venture an estimate" as to
exactly how many variances might be eliminated as requested
by Mr. Johnson.) He felt that the proposed ordinance would
i9;P
C: PE,mlra
C
probably eliminate a lot of setback variance requests. Mr.
Nitchmann asked if the BZA would "take a harder stance in
regards to complying with the Sign Ordinance" if these
amendments are passed. Mr. Kennedy responded that each case
would be decided on its own merit.
--(Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ARB Chairman, was present to
answer questions but offered no comment.)
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Johnson expressed the following opinions and concerns:
--Section 4.15.7.1 - He felt "a more enforceable way of
measuring the sign area would be relative to the overall
dimensions of the sign, rather than internally just that
which is written."
--Section 4.15.9.4(b) - He wondered i,to what extent
this unprecedented, at least as far as signs go, the
assumption of administrative authority might lead to a
recognition of responsibility on the part of the County and
thus a new potential exposure to liability?" (Mr. St. John
commented: "In my opinion there is absolutely no liability
exposure either to the Zoning Administrator or to the County
as the employer of the Zoning Administrator. ... It would
take a major change in State law for that to take place."]
--Referring to his previous comments regarding the
Zoning Ordinance requirement that sign location and size be
identified on site plans, he stated: "I would like
consideration be given to using that as a vehicle for the
permit. If the Zoning office needs to get involved in the
site plan, fine, but that would reduce, in my estimation, a
significant amount of paperwork and time, from both the
applicant's and county's standpoint, and consequently,
expenses with respect to signs."
--He felt this Ordinance "may change very little"
because it would not change any of the already
"contaminated" areas. He stated: "The only way to get our
County into a really aesthetically acceptable area is to
have some provision of mandating changes of non -conforming
signs into conforming signs."
--He called attention to a letter from Mr. Timothy
Lindstrom, dated April 13, 1992, (See Attachment B). He
quoted the following paragraph from the letter: "Therefore,
Albemarle could enact a sign ordinance requiring that signs
along interstates and primary federal aid highways be made
to conform to the provisions of the new ordinance, or be
removed, provided that just compensation for the fair market
value of the sign is provided to its owner.
Mr. Blue asked if staff would have time, before Board review
of the proposed ordinance, to consider Mr. Wagner's
comments, some of which he felt were appropriate. Ms.
Patterson stated she had had time to review Mr. Wagner's
/ zdt
4-14-92
h]
comments only briefly. However, she stated she supported
the proposed ordinance as presented.
Noting that staff had seriously entertained suggestions from
the business community, Ms. Andersen moved that ZTA-91-09 be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as
presented by staff (Revised Draft dated 4-6-92). (She
acknowledged that it may be necessary to make adjustments
later.)
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson stated he could not support the motion as stated
because he felt there were still outstanding issues which
should be resolved before passing the document on to the
Board of Supervisors. He referred to "numerous very minor
errors and a few significant omissions."
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's questions about the next step
in the process, staff confirmed that there would be work
sessions with the Board before final public hearing. Mr.
Nitchmann concluded that there would be opportunity for any
outstanding issues to be addressed and thus he stated he
would support the motion. Regarding the issue of search
lights, Mr. Nitchmann felt that these should not be treated
as signs. He noted that they are rarely used but sometimes
are useful for the temporary promotion of some event.
Mr. Nitchmann noted that significant changes have been made
in the proposed ordinance since the first January meeting.
Mr. Grimm agreed with Mr. Nitchmann. He felt the current
document was much improved from that which was presented in
January. Mr. Blue agreed and pointed out that all the
comments from the business community in January had been
negative. He noted that it would be impossible to write an
ordinance which would please everyone.
The motion for approval passed (5:1) with commissioner
Johnson casting the dissenting vote.
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Nitchmann raised a question about how agenda items are
scheduled. In particular, he was concerned because often
very controversial items are scheduled along with simple,
non -controversial items and also because he felt one week is
often not long enough to allow a thorough study of some
items. (it was explained that the scheduling of many items
is determined by submittal dates and legal requirements.)
Mr. Jenkins wondered if it might be possible to receive
/0Al
4-14-92 8
particularly complex items (such as ordinance amendments and
new ordinances) two weeks in advance. Mr. St. John
suggested that staff (at an upcoming meeting) give a brief
explanation of the process and a description of other
projects currently being worked on by staff.
There was a brief discussion about the Commission's policy
for consideration of newly received information from
applicants, i.e. new information which is distributed on the
night of the public hearing. Ms. Andersen pointed out that
the Commission adopted a policy, some years back, that it
would not consider such information, nor information that
staff has not had a chance to evaluate.
Mr. Johnson made the following statement: "It bothers me to
no end that we --including the staff, in my opinion---ignor
the zoning Ordinance in many cases. One is on the sign --the
Zoning Ordinance says clearly it's on the site plan. The
Board of Zoning Appeals has stated several times that they
have run into problems because it hasn't been on there and
it comes up after the fact. It's not compatible with it.
If it's not supposed to be on the site plan, let's change
the Ordinance. Another one is that the Ordinance says
specifically that the ARB will issue a Certificate of
Appropriateness prior to the final site plan approval. In
the case of Michie Tavern they never saw a site plan after
the preliminary and we thought the preliminary was so
defective that we wanted it reviewed and updated. They
never saw that and finally, because I had alerted the staff
that I was going to ask a question, that day they got a
letter in from the ARB staff saying they approved it. It's
says it supposed to be done; if it says it's supposed to be
done, it ought to be done or we ought to get it out of the
Ordinance. I'm tired of ... giving a lick and a promise,
including the staff...."
Mr. Blue agreed with Mr. Johnson's concern though he noted
that he had a different recollection of the Michie Tavern
plan. He stated that it was his understanding that the ARB
had given their staff the responsibility of looking at that
plan and approving it.
Ms. Joseph, ARB staff member, explained the ARB's handling
of the Michie Tavern site plan, i.e. after reviewing a
revised "sketch" plan, the ARB decided it would give staff
administrative approval and when the revised plan adhered to
that "sketch" plan, in terms of final grading and final
layout, staff approved the plan. She stressed that the ARB
had seen the plan (in the form of a sketch plan) but not in
a "final state." Mr. Johnson continued to argue about the
sequence of events based on the dates of certain letters.
He was skeptical that any substantial revisions could have
/95-
4-14-92
9
been made to the plan 5 days after the Commission's review
(as indicated by the date on Ms. Joseph's letter).
Ms. Babette Thorpe, Zoning Department's representative on
the Site Review Committee, commented on Mr. Johnson's
concerns related to the review of signs: "I review site
plans, before you see them, for compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance. By the time you see a site plan I have usually
made a comment concerning the sign. My comment invariably
is 'The signage does not meet the setbacks in the Zoning
Ordinance; you need to get a variance; we can't recommend
approval of the site plan.' No sooner has that comment been
made than that sign is deleted from the site plan. That is
an option we have to give the applicant. I can't hold up a
site plan until they get a variance, but we are commenting
very early in the site plan review stage on sign locations
and if they are not showing them we ask to see them." She
also noted that applicants are advised that if they design
their sites in such a way that they cannot possibly meet the
sign regulations then the Zoning Department considers that a
"self-imposed hardship" and it is noted as such in staff
reports to the BZA.
Mr. Johnson suggested that such comments should be included
in the staff reports received by the Commission. He
concluded: "I think we need to have more people supporting
the Code (Ordinance) when we go before the Board of Zoning
Appeals for change. ...give them some ammunition to say
'this is a prior hardship.' It is very difficult for me to
visualize a harship on somebody that purchases a piece of
property and there is no change in the Ordinance involved.
They come up and say they can't meet that setback --that was
there the whole time --where is the hardship?"
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
9:50 p.m.
DB
%e6