HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 27 90 PC MinutesSEPTEMBER 27, 1990
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a special work
session on Thursday, September 27, 1990, Meeting Room 7,
County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr_
Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Phil Grimm; Mr. Tom
Jenkins; Ms. Ellen -Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms.
Babs,Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development;
Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. James Bowling, Deputy
County Attorney; and Mr. Werner 5ensbach, representing the
University of Virginia.
The Chairman called_ the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present.
Entrance Corridor District - The Commission continued the
discussion begun at the September 25th meeting.
Specific changes agreed upon were as follows:
SECTION 30.Ia. J :
3rd line: The words "natural, scenic" are to remain_
5th line: Delete the words "Rural and Growth Areas,"
SECTION 30.6.2 and 30.6.4
To address the question of whether the district should apply
to the "full depth of a parcel," or to only that part of a
parcel which is visible, the following was added to the end
of Section 30.6.4: "...shall apply to any deyelQQMnt or
street..,
Staff, along with the applicant, would make the
determination as to visibility. Mr. heeler stated staff
would need some direction from the Commission and Board as
to their perceived meaning of the term "visible."
Commissioners Grimm and Wilkerson felt this deserved more
thought because both felt there should be a maximum depth.
It was determined the list of roads would include the
original 16 (from staff's original draft) plus Rt. 29
Business and Rt. 29/250 Bypass.
September 27, 1990 Page 2
Because both the EC District and the Scenic Highways
District would apply, Mr. Keeler suggested the following
language, which would prevent appeals of Zoning
Administrator decisions, be added as paragraph c. of Section
30.6.2: "Where this district overlaps an SA Highway
District, the parking and building setback regulations of
the SA Highway District shall apply. In all other regards,
the provisions of this section shall apply."
SECTION 30.13_3.2
Add to No. 2: "...pursuant to Sec. 30.6.3.1, any portion
thereof which would be visible from an FC strut, involving
outdoor storage, display,...."
SECTION 30.6.4
There was considerable discussion about visibility. It was
felt this was difficult to quantify because it is not just a
question of distance but also of scale. Mr. Wilkerson
stated he would not be willing to support "to the full depth
of the parcel" whether it was visible or not.
SECTION 30.6.4.1
Line 4: Delete the word "preliminary."
Line 7: Change the words "and structures" to "and
improvements."
Line 12: Add at the end of the line the word "consistent"
then delete entirely lines 13, 14, 15, and 16. Thus the
last part of the 1st paragraph of Section 30.6.4.1 would
read: "...issuance is consistent with the design guidelines
adopted by the Board of Supervisors for the specific EC
street."
Second Paragraph: Change to read: "In making such
determination aS to consistency With design guidelines the
architectural review board may specify ... and buffering
requirements to the extent such practices are authorized
tinder the adopted design guidelines without regard to the
regulations of the underlying...."
Regarding the relation of the Ordinance to historic
preservation, after considering Commission and public
comment, staff came to the conclusion that any requirement
as to consistency of design with historic structures should
199
September 27, 1990 Page 3
be deleted. Mr. Keeler explained that the Board can, in the
interim guidelines, for those roads in the immediate area of
historic situ, require that architecture, etc. be in
character with the historic sites. He went on to state that
until a Historic Preservation District is in place, staff is
very concerned about imposing historic guidelines "on Mr.
Smith when Mr. Jones owns a historic structure and we're not
imposing anything at all on Mr. Jones." He explained that
staff feels that would be irrational and possibly an
arbitrary situation. He added that regulating other
property to benefit historic sites, but not regulating the
historic site moves the Ordinance out of the realm of
serving public interest to purly serving the interests of
the owner of the historic site.
SECTION SO-6-4-2
First paragraph of Section a: Change to read: "_..that the
proposed development is gongiSteat with the design
guidelines adopted by the Board of Supervisors for the
specific EC street. (i.e. add the word "consistent" and
delete the last half of line 6, all of lines 7, B, 9, and
10).
Second paragraph of Section a: Change this entire section
to read: "Existing trees, wooded areas, and natural
features shall be preserved except as necessary for location
of improvements as described in 32.5.6.n, provided that the
ARB may authorize additional activity upon finding that such
activity will equally or better serve the purposes of this
Ordinance. Such improvements shall be located so as to
maximize the use of existing features in screening such
improvements from EC streets to the extent such practices
are authorized under the adopted design guidelines."
Add as Sections b., c., and d., those same sections b, c,
and d of PEC's memo dated September 22, 1990, page 4.
With the inclusion of these, Mr. Johnson cautioned that the
more detail that is put into the ordinance, the more
prerogative is taken out of the hands of the ARB and the
greater the chance it can be challenged in court.
Note: (These changes to Section 30.6.4.2 were primarily the
result of Ms. Huckle's concerns that there be some method of
preserving natural features and wooded areas.)
There was also considerable discussion about the use of the
word "may" vs. "shall. The above -stated changes addressed
this concern.
.197
September 27. 1990
Page 4
First line: Change to read: "No sign which would be
y-isiblg from any RC streat shall be erected,
established...."
Last sentence of third paragraph which begins "Sign
materials...": Delete the entire sentence and replace it
with: "Indirect lighting shall be encouraged."
Fourth paragraph: Delete the underlined phrase which begins
"or historic landmarks...."
Second paragraph of Section b.:
Ms. Huckle expressed objection to
requirement. She felt a "low sign
more attractive and easier to see
clutter like high signs."
Delete.
the 100 foot setback
close to the road is much
and does not create
First paragraph: Delete all the first sentence_ Second
sentence shall read: "R.provision of this section chi be
deemed to preclude the zoning administrator—."
SECTION 30.6.6.3
Delete entirely.
SECTION 30.6.7
Staff explained that the third -paragraph related to notice
of application submittal would be rewritten with the intent
that the Commission and Board would be notified of
applications submitted to the ARB and that no approval would
be granted within 10 days of mailing of notice.
Second paragraph: Beginning in the middle of line 9, with
the words "and one", delete the remainder of the sentence
which relates to a real estate professional. Delete the
last two words of the paragraph ("historic preservation")
and replace them with "...or knowledge in architecture
and/or site design."
September 27, 1990 Page 5
Mr. Rittenhouse again questioned what expertise a real
estate professional offers above other professions. Mr.
Johnson felt the real estate representative would be
qualified to deal with the economic issues of the proposals.
Mr. Pete Bradshaw, Senior Planner with the Engineering Firm
of McKee -Carson, addressed the Commission and took issue
with Mr. Rittenhouse's statements. He explained that as a
former real estate professional -turned professional planner,
he, and probably others in the real estate profession, have
a very strong sensitivity to architectural style and its
relation to the landscape of this community. He felt a
person with these interests and background would play an
important role on the ARB because real estate professionals
deal with all types of structures on a day-to-day basis and
have a good sense of the overall picture of the relationship
of a building to its environment. both economically and
aesthetically.
Mr. Rittenhouse concluded that Mr. Bradshaw's interest in
architecture was probably the result of his own personal
interests and education and was not the result of his real
estate experience, nor was it common to all real estate
professionals.
Though Ms. Huckle did not sobject to a real estate
professional, she stated she did not want to tie the Board's
hands any further than to require an architect and landscape
architect.
Referring to Mr. Bradshaw's comments, Mr. Wilkerson stated
that though he was willing to go along with Mr.
Rittenhouse's position, he would be inclined to favor a
person with the background described by Mr. Bradshaw, though
not necessarily a real estate person.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated his objection was to mandating any
profession which does not have an architectural or landscape
architectural background. He stressed that he was not
trying to exclude a profession, but rather was trying to
avoid singling out any one profession for inclusion as a
mandate.
Mr. Johnson did not share Mr. Rittenhouse's confidence in
architects having an "aesthetic appreciation." He cited as
an example Rt. 29 North.
MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS:
V0!
September 27, 1990
Page 6
Mr. Johnson read prepared comments and made a motion that
interim guidelines not be adopted. His comments and motion
are made a part of this record as ATTACHMENT A. His motion
failed for lack of a second.
Mr. Sensbach stated that giving the ARB the charge to
establish the guidelines is an ingenious way of admitting
that the ordinance is incomplete, He noted that guidelines
are established as requirements for whole areas and in this
case there need to be separate requirements for each
corridor.
Mr. Keeler stated it was staff's intent to submit a list'of
general guidelines to the Board on Wednesday, but "hopefully
they will refer them to the ARB and will not adopt them on
the spot."
Mr. Johnson felt that the sign and landscape "guidelines"
should not be included in this Ordinance.
There was some confusion as to whether or not the adoption
of guidelines was contemplated simultaneously with the
adoption of the Ordinance or if guidelines would not be
adopted but would be left to the ARB to establish.
Mr. Cilimberg asked the Commission for a'recommendation on
the following three issues: (1) Whether or not to
recommend the EC District as proposed (either the first
draft or the revised draft); (2) Whether or not to
recommend the creation of an ARB; and (3) Whether or not
interim guidelines should be adopted.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he felt that the action taken on the
first draft included the recommendation for the creation of
an ARB.
This issue generated more debate than any other. Several
possible ways to address this concern were considered
including the definitions of "visible" and "highly visible."
Mr. Wilkerson and Mr. Grimm favored a "500 feet or visible"
approach. Mr. Wilkerson expressed concern about the full
depth of the parcel because he felt it was too severe a
limitation of a person's rightful use of his property.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that it had been staff's original
recommendaiton that corridor studies be performed before the
drafting of an EC District Ordinance.
Mr. Jenkins suggested that the district apply to those
properties obviously visible from the highway and that
distance should be determined, parcel -by -parcel, by the ARB.
0n.2,
September 27,1990 Page 7
Ms. Andersen indicated her agreement_
Mr. Keeler pointed out that his suggested changes would
"limit the applicability of the Certificate of
Appropriateness only in cases where the development is
visible."
It was finally decided that the wording would remain as
suggested by staff,
PUBLIC COMMENT
Mr. Jim West, representing Amercon, had concerns about the
location of signs.
Mr. Steve Blain, representing McGuire, Moods, Battle and
Booth, raised questions of legality of implementing the
Ordinance and also raised the quesiton of whether or not
those property owners whose property will be effected by
this ordinance have received proper notificaiton. (Mr.
Bowling stated he was not prepared to answer this question.)
Mr. Pete Bradshaw, representing McKee -Carson, expressed his
concern about the adoption of the Ordinance prior to a
corridor study having been performed. He stressed the
importance of adequate studies being made of each corridor
and asked if the cost of such studies, including the added
workload on staff, had been considered.
Mr. Tim Lindstrom, representing Piedmont Environmental
Council, was present at the meeting and offered eomment from
time to time.
FINAL MOTION
Mr. Johnson moved that the EC Ordinance be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to those
changes suggested by staff and agreed upon by the Commission
(and stated at the beginning of this record) and
"recognizing that it will be re -defined by the ARB,
subsequently approved by the Board of Supervisors by zone,
applied by the ARB as they see fit and subject to appeal in
the normal course of events."
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Discussion.
It was clarified that no changes were proposed for Section
30.8.2 in relation to depth of the parcel.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he would not support the motion because
of the inclusion of the full depth, though he agreed with
all other aspects of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Grimm
agreed with Mr. Wilkerson.
Mr. Johnson stated he would support the ordinance with the
6.dn F
September 27. 1900 Page 8
following three comments: (1) "The Board has asked for it
and this is the best we can do at this time;" (2) He
called attention to his previously read comments (ATTACHMENT
A); and (3) He noted concern, from a public standpoint, as
to the fact that no consideration has been given to the
economic effect of the implementation of this Ordinance. He
felt this was a serious omission.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he would support the motion,
"tempering the threat that landowners may feel by thinking
that the full depth of the parcel will be covered by this
district with the faith that we must put in this ARB and the
Board and the appeal process and the requirement for
reasonableness in the application of this ordinance." He
stated he assumed that the Board would appoint an ARB which
will apply this Ordinance reasonably and if it is found that
that is not the case, they will take the appropriate action_
Ms. Andersen noted that she felt a study should have been
performed prior to the adoption of this Ordinance, but that
she would support the motion because the Board has asked the
Commission to pass it on.
The previously stated motion for approval passed (5:2) with
Commissioners Grimm and Wilkerson casting the dissenting
votes.
It was clarified that the motion included both the Ordinance
and the ARB.
Regarding the issue of guidelines, the Commission asked to
see a copy of the proposed guidelines before making a
recommendation as to whether they should be adopted by the
Board or passed on to the ARB for comment before adoption.
Staff was to get a copy of the Commissioners so that they
might comment, if they so desired, before the Wednesday
Board meeting. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that he did not
envision these guidelines as being "written in stone," but
rather they were intended to provide initial guidance and
their improvement would be an ongoing process.
ZMA-90-09 Cathcart/Turner Development Company - Revised
agreement of PRD .
Mr. Cilimberg presented a brief staff report. He explained
this proposal had been referred back to the Commission
because of a change in one of the agreements. He explained
that agreements 2 and 3 of the original approval had been
modified and clarified into one agreement which was actually
better than what was originally approved. He explained the
change involved the definition of the road system and stated
that the change pins down the public rnRd dedication.
September 27, 1990
Page 9
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the modifications to agreements for
ZMA-90-09 for Cathcart/Turner, as described by staff, be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which passed unanimously_
ahgnev's Site Plan - Administrative approval.
Mr. Keeler explained that staff had been granted
administrative approval of the site plan for the Rio Hills
Shopping Center (several years ago) and that plan had
included 3 out parcels, one of which is now being proposed
for a Shoney's Restaurant. He stated staff would approve
this administratively unless the Commission had concerns.
He stated the proposed building was roughly the same as had
been shown on a schematic at the time the plan was
originally submitted.
The Commission expressed no opposition to staff's approving
the plan administratively. No formal action was taken.
There being no further busin ss, the meeting adjourned at
10:45 p.m.
V. Wa
DS
Cil
ecretary