HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 03 1991 PC MinutesDECEMBER 3, 1991
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, December 3, 1991, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Tom
Jenkins; Mr. Phil Grimm; Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter
Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were:
Mr. Richard Tarbell, Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of
Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Ken Baker,
Senior 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 19, 1991 were approved as submitted.
Review for Gam fiance with the Comprehensive Plan 15.1-456
Review): Installation of a Sewer Line to Serve the
University of Virginia's New Dormitory and Dining Hall
Located on Stadium Road
Mr. Baker presented the staff report. It was staff's
position that the installation of the proposed sewer line
"satisfies the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and
recommends favorable action be taken by the Commission
finding the sewer line in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan."
Mr. Johnson asked staff to comment on the fact that the
Comprehensive Plan uses the word "public" in relation to
such lines, but Attachment A indicates that "this line will
serve only UREF properties and will not be readily available
to any surrounding private properties." Mr. Bill Brent,
Albemarle County Service Authority, responded: "There are
no other abutting properties other than that belonging to
the UREF." Mr. Baker explained further that the "property
abutting to the east is in the City."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Brent stated the
construction of the line would be paid for by the
University.
Mr. Johnson asked why, "if this line runs exclusively
through University property...why is it stressed that it
will NOT be readily available to any surrounding private
properties (if) there are apparently no surrounding private
properties?" Mr. Brent responded: "There are no
surrounding private properties which are not presently
served by the City sewer system." Mr. Johnson asked if
2;2-..,
12-3-91
2
there was no "potential interchange between the City sewer
system and this system?" Mr. Brent explained that the
topography in the area would not allow any crossover and
there is no reason for it.
Mr. Rittenhouse summarized: "What we're talking about is
swapping this sewer line for a pump station."
Mr. Baker confirmed that the line will be sized to handle
all development anticipated in conjunction with the land use
designation in the Comprehensive Plan plus University
construction of the new dining hall and dorm facilities.
All lines downstream are sized adequately to handle any
wastewater generated from the installation of this new line.
Mr. Grimm moved that the proposed sewer line be found in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Jenkins
seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson asked if "these terms" would prohibit some
future owner of the UREF property (in the event of its sale)
from using this sewer line. Mr. Brent responded: "This
will be a public line; it will be dedicated to Albemarle
County Service Authority; accepted by the Service Authority
and available...to abutting property owners."
The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-91-09 Carlos Villar-Palasi - Staff was requesting
indefinite deferral.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Grimm, that the item be
indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-91-61 Minor Eager - Request to permit a stream crossing
in the floodplain of a tributary of Buck Mountain Creek
[30.3.5.2.11. Property described as Tax Map 7, Parcels 39,
40, and 40A, is located on the west side of Rt. 601
approximately 0.6 miles north of the intersection of Routes
671 and 601 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This
site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural
Area I).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report noted that
the stream crossing was already in place and had been
constructed without the approval. The report stated:
"Staff does not recommend that the existing crossing be
removed due to the amount of damage that would result during
-43
12-3-91 3
its removal. However, it is unlikely that staff would have
originally supported a request to construct this crossing
due to the existence of an access road that does not require
the crossing of a stream. ... Staff is recommending that the
crossing be approved due only to the fact that the crossing
is in place and its removal would likely result in more
degradation than permitting the crossing to remain. No
conditions are required to assure that the crossing is
constructed properly as the crossing is in place and the
Engineering Department has already approved the hydrologic
study."
Mr. Johnson asked if there were any alternatives to
approving the request other than having it removed, e.g. a
fine? Mr. Bowling responded that the choices were either to
approve the special permit or deny it. If it is denied,
then there is a process which can be instituted to have the
crossing removed. He did not think the permit could be
"granted with penalty."
There was some discussion about restricting the use of the
crossing to the applicant only so that it could serve no
other parcels. Mr. Fritz responded that he did not think
use by other parcels would effect the crossing's capability
in terms of a 100-year storm and effect on water quality.
Mss. Huckle asked how many acres were in the parcels on the
opposite side of the crossing. Mr. Fritz was not certain.
Mr. Jenkins asked if the Commission's action could have any
effect on future replacement of the crossing if it should be
washed out. Mr. Bowling stated that the Commission could
disallow replacement of the bridge; however, he noted this
could create problems if a dwelling is built on the other
side of the crossing.
Ms. Huckle asked if approval could include a condition
stating that any further division of property would require
access on the other road.
Mr. Bowling pointed out that the Commission should focus
this review on just the request for the stream crossing.
Mr. Rittenhouse added that the intensity of future use on
the crossing is not an issue before the Commission.
The applicant, Mr. Minor Eager, addressed the Commission.
He stated that he had been informed by a County employee
that he did not need a permit for construction of the
crossing if it was located entirely on his property. (He
thought he had called the Zoning office but did not know
,6A�
12-3-91
with whom he had spoken.) He stressed
to "sneak a bridge in." He explained
built to provide access from the house
the farm.
The Chairman invited public comment.
4
that he did not intend
that the crossing was
to the remainder of
Mr. Donnie Dunn addressed the Commission. He explained some
of the history of the property which Mr. Eager had purchased
from his family. Mr. Eager had entered into a comprehensive
easement agreement with the Dunn family regarding access to
the property. He noted that before any development could
take place the road would have to be widened. He expressed
no opposition to the stream crossing and explained that it
could "compliment our travel from time to time." He noted
that the applicant had cleaned up the land and constructed a
nice gravel road. Regarding possible future subdivision of
the property, he stated he would have comment on such a
proposal because the existing easement is probably not
substantial enough for additional use.
There being no further applicant or public comment the
matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Johnson noted that though the situation is unfortunate,
the crossing is already in existence and the County Engineer
has confirmed that the engineering is acceptable. He felt
the applicant had acted in good faith but was given
incorrect information and should not be penalized.
Mr. Johnson moved that SP-91-61 for Minor Eager be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Mr. Gramm seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Huckle expressed concern about someone making "a mockery
of the Zoning Ordinance."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated that though he would support the
motion, he shared the same concern. He stressed that
nothing in the Commission's recommendation should give the
public the impression that this will be a normal type of
approval, "after the fact."
Mr. Jenkins noted that the "minutes of (this discussion) do
not go with the land," and therefore some future owner of
12-3-91
this property may not have the privilege
this bridge crossing. He felt there was
out —something not quite right, when you
before us, it's approved."
of the history of
"something left
just 'bang' it's
Mr. Rittenhouse stressed that if the Watershed Management
Official and the Engineering Department had made negative
recommendations, then the Commission's action would most
likely be different. He noted that though the existing
crossing meets the engineering requirements of the County,
"the issue is whether we would have ever recommended
constructing any kind of crossing there or not."
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed
that the Engineering Department had actually visited the
site.
The previously stated motion for approval passed (5:0:1)
with Commissioner Huckle abstaining.
Ms. Andersen asked that the minutes reflect that approval is
given "with reluctance and concern."
Mr. Johnson suggested that staff look into the possibility
of holding contractors responsible for performing without
appropriate authorization. He also asked that staff take
action an the Watershed Manager's note, i.e. "to develop a
policy on stream crossings which includes coordination with
the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, Virginia Water
Control Hoard and Army Corps of Engineers." (Mr. Keeler
pointed out that this is already a requirement and is
handled through the Engineering Department. He suggested
that perhaps better coordination between departments is
needed.)
SUB-91-110 Woodcreek Preliminary Plat - Proposal for a rural
preservation development to create thirteen development lots
and a 66.3 acre preservation tract from two existing parcels
totalling 132.9 acres. The development lots average 5.12
acres and the lots are to be served by public road.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Tarbell confirmed that the property in the preservation
tract could never be further divided.
Mr. Rittenhouse quoted the benefits of the proposal from the
applicant's statement (Attachment B of the staff report)-
-9(�
12-3-91
b
The applicant was represented by Mr. Katurah Roell. He
expressed pleasure that this option for development is now
available.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen that the
Woodcreek Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor
shall it 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 road and
drainage plans and calculations;
C. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of right-of-way improvements to include a commercial
entrance and a 100 foot right taper lane;
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of road and drainage plans and calculations to include
a commercial entrance for joint driveway relocation on
the new internal road;
f. Staff and Recreation Facilities Authority
approval of a rural preservation easement to include
language limiting the area to be cleared on the rural
preservation tract to the minimum necessary for the
road, driveway, and the building site including its
related appurtenances;
g. Staff approval of a road name.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Keeler informed the Commission that 2 years after the
development of the RPD option, there are 1,100 acres
committed to permanent easement and several hundred (300-
400) in open space.
ZTA-91-09 Sign ordinance - Proposal to amend Section 4.15
and other related sections of the Albemarle County Zoning
Ordinance to provide for a new Sign Ordinance.
J1
12-3-91 7
Ms. Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator, passed out a
letter of support from the Architectural Review Board and
also a list of proposed revisions to the proposed amendment.
She then presented the staff report. She explained, in
some detail, those issues which had been most recently
resolved by the Commission, including the following:
--Delete definition of window advertisement.
--Delete regulation of window ad coverage.
(These two items will be addressed by the
Architectural Review Board guidelines in the EC districts.)
---Delete regulation of patriotic flags in
Sign Ordinance. (Any regulation in EC districts will be
through the ARB's site plan review.)
--Include regulation of flags strung in series, as on a
streamer. Under definition of "penant", delete This shall
not include fla s."
--Remove regulation of holiday advertisement provided
they are removed within 7 days of the event.
Commission comments:
It was decided that a cross reference related to the ARB's
handling of window advertising was not necessary.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted the following concerns:
--pg. 10 (q): Needs to be re -warded.
--pg. 22 (4.15.7.3): Needs a diagram.
--pg. 13 (b): Needs to be clarified.
--pg. 14 (b.2): Needs to be clarified.
--pg. 16 (b): "Imminent" misspelled.
--Throughout document: Change "his" to "his/her"
whenever referring to Zoning Administrator.
--pg. 17 (f): Make reference to Code of Virginia in
relation to 2 yr. time limit.
--pg. 18 (e): Does this include "Construction by..."
signs?
--pg. 19 (4.c): Change "shall be" to "shall extend."
Mr. Rittenhouse also noted that the charts had several
typographical errors.
Mr. Johnson expressed concern about a lack of definition for
the term "highway frontage." He did not agree with staff
that this was a "universally understood" term. He did not
think this should be an interpretation to be made on a case -
by --case basis.
Ms. Andersen asked why uncovered neon signs require a
special permit. (Staff was uncertain.) She felt that if no
good reason could be defined them this type of sign should
be removed from the "prohibited" list and included in those
signs which are allowed by special permit.
M11
12-3-91 e
Public comment included the following:
Mr. Paul Holdren, owner of Shoneys: He was opposed to a 30-
foot setback and a 32-square foot maximum sign area. (NOTE:
It was later pointed out to Mr. Holdren that the Ordinance
setback was 10 feet not 30 feet.) He felt the 32-foot sign
was too restrictive. He was also opposed to any regulation
of inside advertizing. He felt that a 30-page ordinance was
"choking" businesses and making it difficult to meet their
payrolls. He emphasized the existing difficult business
climate.
Mr. Carter Myers, President of Colonial Auto Center: He
felt there was a feeling in the business community that the
County was conveying the impression that "Albemarle County
is negative to business." He cautioned the County against
creating an imbalance in tax revenue, i.e. less commercial
tax revenue will have to be made up by residential revenue.
He expressed concern about flag regulation and window
advertising simply being passed to the ARB. He stated:
"One way or another you've got it." He felt this was a way
of "not addressing an issue and having it handled in a way
that nobody will know how a ruling is going to come down."
He noted that the Temporary Signs section does not mention
signs for temporary sales. He expressed concern about
regulating Christmas lights. He felt a 32-foot sign was
'very restrictive." He asked if balloon restrictions
included placing balloons on car antennae.
Mr. Henry Weinschenk: He wondered why staff had not sought
comment from the Chamber of Commerce. (Staff explained that
the Chamber of Commerce and many other groups had been
notified about the impending changes to the Ordinance,
including the dates of the work sessions. (250 letters were
mailed to businesses and other groups. 28 press releases
were also mailed.) There was little response.
Mr. Ben Foster (owner of a sign company): He noted that fl-
inch letters are difficult to read. He also compared a 32-
foot sign to existing signs along Rt. 29. He estimated that
90% of the Rt. 29 signs are non -conforming. He also felt
that this type of ordinance would persuade owners of non-
conforming signs not to upgrade them. He also cautioned
against "legislating for things which cannot be enforced."
He felt that the proposed Ordinance would not do what the
County intended it would do.
Mr. Beverly Webb, Manager of Dunbarton Properties (Albemarle
Square): He was concerned about the regulations of "anchor
signs" for shopping centers. He felt a 6-square foot sign
12--3-91
9
was a "bandaid." He asked that consideration be given to a
larger "accessory anchor sign face." He also asked that
special considerations be considered for "pile on" signs in
hilly topography.
Ms. Patterson pointed out that the proposed amendments would
"liberalize (existing regulations) from an ie--square foot
free-standing sign to 32 and the wall signage from 35 square
feet to as much as 100, depending on the building frontage."
Corner buildings will also be allowed some additional
signage.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse interpreted that public concern is primarily
with the size of the signs.
(Mr. Holdren noted that the City sign regulations allow the
replacement of an existing non -conforming sign with a new
one that is "a 70% reduction from the old sign --three times
the variance that is allowed in the new ordinance.)
Mr. Jenkins felt the size issue could not be decided without
further study. He noted that the public has just begun to
offer comment and he felt their input was very important.
He was in favor of deferral to allow staff time to study the
issues of size and replacement of non --conforming signs and
also to seek further input from the public.
Ms. Huckle noted that the need for such an ordinance is
created by an "overwhelming supply of large signs, so much
so that they block the view of each other."
Ms. Andersen noted that these regulations would not change
those signs which already exist. She stated: "We have to
live with that and somehow take a middle-of-the-road"
approach. We can never achieve the ideal...."
Mr. Johnson felt the Commission had just "witnessed the
results of general public apathy with the performance of
government." He suggested that the businesses should meet
to prepare an overall evaluation of the proposed ordinance
and then present their comments to staff "as a whole." He
felt their comments were "valid but splintered."
(Mr. Myers volunteered to contact the Chamber of Commerce.)
Ms. Huckle noted that the public needs to be more informed.
She pointed out that the proposed amendments are a "trade--
off", i.e. smaller signs but they can be placed closer to
the road."
0
12-3-91
10
Mr. Rittenhouse explained that the issue should be deferred
Only if it was felt more could be learned from a delay.
Ms. Patterson felt a deferral would be beneficial.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the item be
deferred to a date specific.
A date of January 14th was selected for the next hearing.
Ms. Patterson advised those present that she would need
their comments two weeks prior to the hearing date.
Mr. Grimm moved that ZTA-91-09 be deferred to January 14,
1992 in order for staff to study the issues of size and
replacement of non -conforming signs and to accept further
public comment.
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:15 p.m.
DB
V. Wayne /ilimbe7T,---Qe retary
Al/