HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 25 90 PC MinutesSEPTEMBER 25, 1990
The Albemarle County Planning,.Commission.held a work session
on Tuesday; September 25, 1990, Meeting Room 7;:County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were:-M.r.'Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman;,Mr. Harry.
Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr: Phil Grimm; Mr. Tom`Jenkins
Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. ,Walter .J,ohnson;. and Ms:, Babs-Huckle.
Other officials present were.: Mr,, Ron,,Keeler, .Chief of
Planning; Mr. Layne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County
Attorney; and Mr. Werner Sensbach, representing the
University of Virginia.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.and
established that'a'quorum was present. The minutes of
September 11, 1990 were approved as submitted.
WORK SESSION
Review Board (ARB) - Referred back to the Planning
Commission'from the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Keeler introduced the topic and explained the:new draft
of the ordinance.
(NOTE: BECAUSE THIS MEETING WAS.CONTINUED SEPTEMBER 27 AND
THESE SAME ISSUES WERE DISCUSSED'AGAIN, THIS RECORD WILL NOT
BE A DETAILED TRANSCRIPTION.)
The Commission discussed the proposed ordinance section -by -
section but did not arrive at a consensus as to any changes
discussed,
Mr. Johnson read prepare'&!'bomments which ;are attached to
these minutes`as ATTACHMENT A.
Topics which generated the most discussion or debate are
listed below.
(1) Duties of the Architectural Review Board and its
relation to the Planning Commission's role in the review
process.
a. Should there be overlapping responsibility or two
distinct reviews by the ARB and Commission?
b. "Should the EC Ordinance primarily address issues of
building and sign design by the ARB or should it be a
3?z
September 25, 1990
Page 2
holistic type of ordinance that includes in the aesthetic
design site features?" (Keeler)
C. Can natural and scenic review be separated from
architectural and historic review? (Some commissioners felt
the two could not be separated.)
d. Will the ARB be advisory to the site review
committee or will it issue a Certificate of Appropriateness?
e. Should the ARB be responsible to the Commission or
the Board?
(2) Section 30.6.1
Mr. Johnson felt the words "Rural and Growth areas"
should be striken.
Should the words "natural and scenic" be removed?
(3) Section 30.6.2
Mr. Wilkerson expressed real concern about application
of the regulations "to the full depth" of parcels. He felt
this was too stringent. He expressed no opposition to "a
depth of 500 feet [30.6.2(b)]. Mr. Grimm agreed with Mr.
Wilkerson. (NOTE: This was one of the primary issues
discussed at the September 27th meeting and because no
changes were recommended to this section, Commissioners
Grimm and Wilkerson did not support the Ordinance.)
Mr. Johnson felt the list of roads should include all
16 as listed in staff "s original draft-
(4) Section 30.6.4.1
Mr. Rittenhouse was in favor of any reference to the
National Register of Historic Places being changed to the
Virginia Landmarks Register.
A comma was to be inserted between the words
"landmarks" and "buildings,"
(5) Section 30.6.5.1
Mr. Rittenhouse felt there was some confusion between
the 4th paragraph on page 6 and those items listed under
paragraph (d) on page 7.
September 25, 1990
(5) Section 30.6.6.2
Page 3
Mr. Rittenhouse felt the ARB should have the authority
to review, but not preclude, handicapped ramps-
(6) Section 30.6.6.3
Several Commissioners were in favor of deleting this
section entirely.
(7) Section 30.6.8
Last paragraph: Mr. Rittenhouse felt the Commission
should be referred to by its full title, not just as the
"commission."
(8) Section 34A1.0 - Architectural Review Board
Mr. Rittenhouse had real concern about the inclusion of
a real estate representative on the ARB. He felt this
representative would not have the type of expertise needed
for this type of review. He was concerned about only one
member of the ARB being a licensed architect. Mr. Johnson
disagreed. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he would not support the
ordinance if a real estate person were included. Mr.
Rittenhouse felt that a majority of the Board should be
architecturally trained.
After the Commission had completed its initial comments, the
Chairman invited comment from Mr. Sensbach.
Mr. Sensbach stated he felt it would be unusual to let the
ARB set its own standards. He felt guidelines should be
clearly spelled out for the ARB. He noted that because
architectural styles change regularly, the ARB's review
should be general and deal with issues of shape, bulk, and
fitting with the landscape. Referring to section 36.4.1, he
cautioned that the term "visible from" could be open to
interpretation and therefore should be more clearly defined.
He stated that though the University supports the concept of
reviewing what is bieng built, it would prefer that the
regulations be worked out under the Three -Party Agreement
between the City, County and University.
Mr. Rittenhouse read a letter from Vice President Haas (UVA)
which is made a part of this record as ATTACHMENT B.
The Chairman invited public commment.
IRW
September 25. 1990 Page 5
landmarks would require a significant study be performed.
He expressed concern about the depth of parcel issue and
pointed out that the provisions, as presented, ignor
variations in elevation, vegetation and terrain. He
stressed that corridor analyses need to be performed prior
to the adoption of an ordinance. He felt there should be a
distinction between urban and rural corridors. He cautioned
against being too specific with some of the sign guidelines.
(He noted, for example, that the Pantops sign is bronze and
is certainly not objectionable.)
Mr. Steven Blain, representing McGuire, Woods, Battle and
Booth, addressed the Commission. He felt the Ordinance
required further study before adoption. He raised questions
as to the legality of the proposed provisions. He noted
that localities only have those powers which are expressly
stated in the enabling legislation and a problem with the
proposed ordinance is the "proposed viewshed standard with
the ARB." He stated those standards do not include those
set forth in the enabling legislation. He felt what is
proposed may go well beyond the enabling legislation and
merits further study because it is desirable to have an
ordinance which will withstand attack. He noted also that a
Zoning Ordinance "must bear a rational relationship to its
stated purpose and the problem here is in trypi.ng to impose
those broad standards to the full depth of all parcels of
land in existence at the time of adoption of the ordinance_"
He felt that an Historic Distict must be established first
and that guidelines must be developed for each individual
corridor.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Staff asked the Commission to go over the Ordinance again in
an effort to reach a consensus as to recommended changes.
After a 15 minute recess, it was decided that the meeting
would adjourn and reconvene again at 7:00 p.m. on September
27th.
There being no further busine s, the meeting adjourned at
11:30 P.M. ., _ .
V. Wayn�Cilimw,lSecretary
DS