HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 26 1991 PC MinutesNOVEMBER 26, 1991
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, November 26, 1991, Meeting Room 7,
County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr.
Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Phil
Grimm; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Mr. Walter Johnson. Other
officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Mr. Rich Tarbell,
Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator; and Mr.
Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of
November 12, 1991 were approved as submitted.
SDP-91-087 Church of the Latter Day Saints Major Site Plan -
Proposal to construct a 4,226 square foot addition and
reconstruction of the parking area resulting in the deletion
of one parking space on the 3.8 acre site. Property,
described as Tax Map 45, parcel 21A and Tax Map 61, parcel
11A, is located in the northwest quadrant of the
intersection of Rt. 743 (Hydraulic Road) and Rt. 631 (Rio
Road). Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Jack Jouett Magisterial
District. This site is not located in a designated growth
area.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The &pplicant was represented by Mr. Bernard Procter
(engineer for the project). He offered no additional
comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Church of the Latter Day Saints
Major Site Plan Amendment 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
stormwater detention plans and calculations;
C. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit;
-5�5-
11-26-91
2
d. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff
control permit;
e. Department of Engineering approval of
retaining wall design and calculations;
f. Department of Engineering approval, of
technical notes;
g. Staff approval of final landscape plan.
2. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the
following condition is met:
a. Fire Official final approval.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SDP-91-076 Moores Lumber Major Site Plan Amendment -
Proposal to construct two sheds of 4,375 and 5,250 square
feet, enclose an existing shed, and revise the parking areas
and travelways including the construction of a third
commercial entrance. Property, described as Tax Map 78,
parcel 15C (part) and Parcel 16 is located on the south side
of Rt. 250 approximately 400 feet east of Rt. 20N. Zoned
HC, Highway Commercial and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay
District in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is
located within a designated growth area.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Wilkerson expressed concern about 3 entrances onto Rt.
250 which will be in use until the median is constructed.
He also was concerned about two of the accesses (for
westbound traffic) being very close together. Mr. Tarbell
was not aware of any interim measures which could address
this concern. He noted, however, that the third entrance
will be for Large trucks and will not be used extensively.
In answer to Mr. Johnson's question regarding VDOT's
construction schedule for the 250 improvements, staff did
not know when the median was expected to be constructed.
Mr. Johnson asked for an explanation of condition 1(e)
[Staff approval of final landscape plan technical notes].
Mr. Tarbell explained that was to remind staff to review the
landscape plan for technical detail.
Mr. Tarbell noted that the regular customer traffic would be
separated from the heavy truck traffic as a result of this
site plan amendment.
Mr. Tarbell explained the traffic flow.
a241'
11-16-91
3
Mr. Wilkerson expressed concern about eastbound cars mixing
in with the truck traffic on the new travelway and at the
easternmost entrance. He felt the new road and the
easternmost entrance should be for tractor trailers only.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Dick Willet and Mr. Bob
Dempsey. Mr. Dempsey described how truck traffic would flow
on the site. Comments and responses to Commission questions
included the following:
--Delivery trucks (i.e. Moore's vendors) arrive and
depart via I-64, thus no tractor trailers will be making
left turns onto Rt. 250. Mr. Dempsey volunteered to erect a
NO LEFT TURN sign.
--Moore's "heavy" delivery trucks are few (4 were
mentioned) and are much smaller than tractor tailers. These
trucks leave before the store opens and thus will not cause
conflicts with customer traffic.
Mr. Wilkerson expressed concern about eastbound cars using
the new road and easternmost exit when traffic is backed up
at the other exits. He asked how the applicant planned to
prevent this. The applicant stated he would do all that is
possible to prevent this from happening, through the use of
a guard, but he could not close that route off because
tractor trailers would have no access to the back of the
building.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if an electronic, guard -controlled
gate, similar to the other one on the property, could be
installed to address Mr. Wilkerson's concerns. The
applicant agreed this was a good suggestion. (A condition
was added later in this regard.)
Regarding the third entrance, Mr. Dempsey asked staff if
VDOT had plans to install a commercial entrance. Mr.
Tarbell replied: "No. They had planned to replace the
existing 20-foot entrance, but not to make a commercial
entrance...."
Regarding the earlier offer from the applicant to erect a NO
LEFT TURN sign, there was a brief discussion about Moore's
delivery trucks making left turns onto Rt. 250 from the
easternmost access. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that was probably
preferable because it would maintain the separation of the
truck and car traffic. Mr. Jenkins noted that this was a
private entrance so the sign would not apply to their own
trucks.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
UFA
11-26-91
4
Regarding a waiver of Sec. 32.7.5.1 allowing the use of
private sewer, Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the Service
Authority has agreed with the applicant's contention that
Public sewer is not readily available.
The following condition was added related to the addition of
a second electronic gate: "Addition of gate to separate the
retail customer parking area from the new proposed travelway
to the rear of the site.,,
Mr. Jenkins asked if there should be a time frame
established for the eventual connection to public sewer, if
it should become more readily available in the future. Mr.
Tarbell stated that was not feasible; however, the applicant
has indicated they are anxious to connect to public sewer
when it is reasonably available. He also pointed out that
no interior rennovations to the building are included with
this amendment so their water usage will not be effected.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Moore's Lumber Major Site Plan
Amendment 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
stormwater detention plans and calculations, or
calculations relative to the adequate capacities of the
Pantops storm sewer system;
C. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of right-of-way improvements to include a new commecial
entrance;
e. Staff approval of final landscape plan
technical notes;
f. Staff approval of appropriate on -site signage
for traffic circulation;
g. Addition of gate to separate the retail
customer parking area from the new proposed travelway
to the rear of the site.
2. The existing storage, display and/or sales materials
located on the west side of the building and those materials
on the east side of the building located outside the fenced
area shall be removed or relocated to approved storage
areas.
Y
11-26-91
5
3. The site shall connect to public water within six months
of the Route 250 water line extension being operational and
located in front of the Moore's property. The water line
plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Albemarle County
Service Authority.
4. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the
following condition is met:
a. Fire Official final approval.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
Further Discussion of ZTA-91-09 Si n Ordinance - Ms.
Patterson called the Commission's attention to their copies
Of the proposed ordinance (scheduled for
Public
December 3rd). She noted those issues which had beening
discussed.by the Commission, explained how they had been
resolved, and noted their reference in the ordinance. She
then reviewed some unresolved issues which the Commission
had discussed at the last work session.
The following unresolved issues were discussed:
WINDOW ADVERTISING (anything visible from the outside of the
building): Mr. Wilkerson was opposed to a " "
application for this type of advertising becauseeheafelt
this would be unfair to small businesses, i.e. 25% of window
area for a large business is far greater than 25% of window
space for a small business. Mr. Jenkins did not think this
type regulation should be included in the ordinance without
first having received comment from area merchants. Mr.
Grimm expressed concern about "over -regulation." The
Commission did not feel that this type advertising was a
distraction (and therefore a safety concern) to drive -by
traffic. Ms. Patterson confirmed that this has not been a
"Significant, wide -spread problem." It was the consensus of
the Commission that window advertising should NOT be
regulated. Ms. Patterson noted that during the public
hearing for adoption of the Ordinance, the Commission would
need to recommend the deletion of Sub -Section No. 2, page
19.
WALL SIGNS ON CORNER LOTS: The Ordinance was written to
allow a smaller sign than the primary sign. The Commission
did not discuss this issue further. No objections were
I1-26-91
0
raised to staff's proposed wordin to provide examples of sites where.
Patterson offered
ere
be requested. type of sign might
FLAGS (including streamers and banners): (Sec. 4JF
This issue was discussed at some len th. Page 8)
g
noted that there was no intent to reMs. Patterson
(national, state or local 9ulate patriotic flags
tt
there needed to be a better def nitioneofo"lo suggested that
McDonald's flag was discussed at length. "local flag Patterson The
explained that the Ordinance proposes to treat flags with
the name of an organization as a sign and therefore the
will be subject to the same re
proposed for flags regulations. No regulationisrightsed f greater than 30 feet from the
Y. Mr. Wilkerson stated he has never been aware
of any flags which were distracting.
indicated he felt flags whienhouse
ch are artMof the tadvertisin
for the site are no different than signs.
expressed concern about enforcement feasibility.Wilkerson
g
expressed agreement with staff rMr- Grimm
in the staff report. {and ARB) support of Option B
examples for the December.3 atrsooffered to provide
better definition of '+local+' fla hearing and also to prepare a
the issue of maximum size (for flags) should behouse felt
addressed
He noted that an extremely Large flag could be farther than
30 feet from the right-of-way and therefore not regulated.
but could have much more visual significance than a small
flag close to the right-of-wa
y.
issue of numerous American flags Mr.
.aGsimm brought upthewas not the purpose of the American flag.
asked the Commission: �� this
Is there a desire toregulatePatriotic flags?'+ responded; Commissioners Johnson and Wilkerson
"No." No other Commissioners responded. Mr.
Wilkerson stated he did not think of the American flag i
relation to advertising. Mr. Rittenhouse felt streamer -like
flags and flags used as advertising should be regulated.
HOLIDAY ADVERTISING:
hadvOertising was proposing to treat
this as other temporary
Of 30 days before, to be removed 7da�seafwithter, a time limit
Ms. Patterson stated she had received no citizenncomplaint
about Christmas lights but had received a complaint about
Fourth of July advertising. Mr. Rittenhouse suggested
more specificity about displays might be called for ndhthat
the time limit might need to be adjusted. Mr. Bowling
cautioned against creating many problems in an effort to
regulate just one problem. Mr. Rittenhouse felt the key was
"when does it stop being a decoration and start bein a
g
11-26-91
6
sign." Ms. Patterson stated she would meet with Mr. Bowling
to determine if the pro posed definition
defensible position.'' of sign will allow a
Commission did not take a
be regulated. Position owhether or not this type of advertising should
Mr. Johnson noted that he felt a sign should identify a
location rather than services found at a location. He gave
as an example the Pantops Shopping Center Sign. He felt
this type of sign was a "nuisance."
There being no further business 8:50 p.m, , the meeting adjourned at
Mfl
-�3I