Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA201200010 Staff Report 2.12.13FINAL ACTIONS Planning Commission Meeting of February 12, 2013 AGENDA ITEM /ACTION FOLLOW -UP ACTION 1. Call to Order. • Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mr. Morris, Chair. PC members present were Mr. Morris, Mr. Lafferty, Vice - Chair; Mr. Dotson, Mr. Loach, Mr. Smith and Mr. Franco. Mr. Franco arrived at 6 :19 p.m. Absent was Mr. Randolph. Ms. Monteith was present. • Staff present was Amelia McCulley, Amanda Burbage, Stewart Wright, Wayne Cilimberg, Andy Sorrell, Elaine Echols, Sharon Taylor, and Greg Kamptner. 2. From the Public: Matters Not Listed Clerk: for Public Hearing on the Agenda. No action required The following individuals spoke: • Nancy Carpenter, a member of the Transit Riders Association of Charlottesville, noted the CAT transit study currently underway and asked that the County plan for and commit to fully fund public transit routes in the County, Mr. Lafferty encouraged Ms. Carpenter to contact TJPDC to get on the agenda of the CHART Committee. • Lena Marie, a member of Transit Riders Association of Charlottesville, an advocate of environmental causes, and a user of public transportation, encouraged the county to provide public transit. 3. Review of Board of Supervisors Staff: Agenda — February 6, 2013 Schedule presentation on the Community Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the actions taken Development Work Program at a future by the Board of Supervisors on February Commission meeting. 6, 2013. Request made for staff to bring the Community Development Work Program to the Commission for discussion. 4. Work Sessions 5 [! 5 ZTA- 2012 -00010 Off -Site Signs Review and Discussion of Proposed Ordinance Changes to Provisions for Off -site Signs (Amanda Burbage /Amelia McCulley) The Commission held a work session to receive staff's presentation, take public comment, and comment on the information provided. Staff was asked to use the comments noted in Attachment 1 in developing ordinance amendments and set a future public hearing date. No formal action taken. Work Session CPA - 2013 -00001 Comprehensive Plan Update Review of Monticello Viewshed Recommendations Review of Neighborhood Model Design Guidelines Review of Priority Areas for Southern and Western Neighborhoods (Elaine Echols /Andy Sorrell) Staff presented information and recommended changes. The Commission received public comment, asked questions and provided comments. Staff was asked to use the comments noted in Attachment 2 in further developing the Comp Plan Update. No formal action taken. Old Business • None New Business • No meeting scheduled for February 19, 2013. • THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2013 AT 6:00 p.m. • Adjourn to FEBRUARY 26, 2013, 401 MCINTIRE ROAD, AUDITORIUM, 2 Staff: • Schedule public hearing — Staff to reference comments noted in Attachment 1 and bring draft ordinance amendments back to Planning Commission for public hearing. Staff: • Refer to comments and suggestions noted in Attachment 2 in further work on the Comp Plan Update. Staff: • None Staff: • None SECOND FLOOR, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA. • The meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m. Attachment 1 — ZTA- 2012 -00010 Off -Site Signs — Recommendations and Comments for Draft Ordinance Language Attachment 2 — CPA - 2013 -00001 Comp Plan Update - Comments and Recommendations ATTACHMENT 1 — ZTA- 2012 -00010 Off -Site Signs Work Session — Planning Commission Comments The Planning Commission held a work session to set general direction on the following issues: Off -Site Signs - Discussion of the criteria and reviewing process for applications for special use permits for off -site signs. (Amanda Burbage /Amelia McCulley) Amanda Burbage with the assistance of Amelia McCulley and Stewart Wright, presented a PowerPoint presentation entitled ZTA 2012 — 010 Off -Site Signs - Planning Commission Work Session (See PowerPoint Presentation) Public comment was taken from the following person: Morgan Butler, with the Southern Environmental Law Center, offered the following thoughts: Because of the impact that signs can have on the scenic values of the community they follow these sign ordinance proposed changes closely. Since they are early in the process he just wanted to offer some observations, questions, and suggestions, as follows: 1. Looking at the ordinance it appears that off -site directional signs are already exempted from a special use permit requirement. Section 4.15.5(d) has the exception for certain off -site signs, which says a special use permit shall not be required for off -site directional, political, subdivision, or temporary signs. It is confusing. It is a great idea to provide a definition of directional sign in the ordinance. It is great to bring those in and put some parameters on it. However, he thought it would be helpful just to clarify it up front. If the intention is that those should only be allowed by a special use permit then let's make sure the language reflects that. 2. Supported the idea of exhausting other options before being able to do an off -site sign. One of the other options mentioned is on -site signage. It is important to point out that on -site signage would include different locations on site where they could put their signs if someone can't intentionally put it in a spot where it is not visible and then say oh now I am entitled to off -site signage as well. 3. It sounds like there would be a limit on the number and the size of the off -site directional signs. Suggested it might be important to have a restriction on the height beyond the height restrictions that are already in the sign ordinance for freestanding signs so they don't have the taller signs on the sides of roads where they are not necessary. 4. Supported emergency medical facilities by right. He was not quite as comfortable with the idea of by -right for different public uses because that opens the county up to charges of unfairness and that the county gets to have these signs but businesses can't. 4 5. If have an off -site sign it is not supposed to add to the signage allowed on the parcel where one is putting it. He wondered if there should be a similar restriction if there is a parcel and they are using an off -site sign somewhere else. Shouldn't that count against the signage one is allowed on the parcel so they are not getting two bites at the apple. The Commission commented on the information provided as follows and asked staff to take these comments into consideration in the continuing work regarding on -site signs. - "Effectively communicates" is vague. Troubled about "not clearly visible" because if he saw the edge of the sign it would be clearly visible but he still could not read it. Suggested saying where it is not legible or the sign face is not clearly visible. Otherwise, it was still not very clear. - Agreed with Mr. Butler's suggestion to exhaust all other possibilities. - Bundle signs are a special kind of directional sign. Instead of creating that as a new category it seems what they are saying is they encourage them to bundle their directional sign rather than thinking that is somehow something different than a directional sign. It seems to be the same thing. - The slides shown were real world examples and staff was encouraged to have more real world examples. The Independence has been mentioned. Suggestion made to include the shops in the back of Woodbrook as another example, or the Kegler's site, or Belvedere which has not been built yet. Suggested using a site with multiple ownerships along a common road, such as an LI area where there is a series of small businesses none of which is on the main road. Staff thinks through some more real world examples. - Other clarification — In a couple instances they talk about within a certain zoning district - is that the businesses in that zoning district or the signs in the zoning district or both? That should be clarified. - Interested in the comparison chart on different communities - however, Charlottesville was missing. Since they just approved sort of a joint goal on Entrance Corridors and striving for some consistency it is important to look at Charlottesville and let them look at what they are proposing, too, so that they have their input as well. - The definition that is used for bundle signs refers to businesses. If they are talking about some of the scenarios drawn up, what are they going to do with an empty lot? In other words, there is not a business there yet. The language ought to consider sites as well. Maybe they are not advertising it, but they are starting to have the right to bundle the sign or put the bigger sign there. - Questioned the effectiveness of signage. Is there a minimum size that is effective? That is the size they should go for rather than the maximum. Maybe bigger is not better in terms of data in reality. - Look at whether they need the two different classifications. If it is more confusing than helpful they can bundle it together into one term. Staff will come back in public hearing with the draft ordinance and get this resolved. 5 ATTACHMENT 2 — Work Session CPA - 2013 -00001 Comarehensive Plan Uadate Review of Monticello Viewshed Recommendations Review of Priority Areas for Southern and Western Neighborhoods — Neighborhoods 4 — 7 Review of Neighborhood Model Design Guidelines (Elaine Echols /Andy Sorrell) Topic: Monticello Viewshed Staff Presentation Andy Sorrell provided a PowerPoint presentation and staff from the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (TJF), Natashia Sienitsky, also provided background on the recommendations for the Monticello Viewshed Section of the Comprehensive Plan draft. Thomas Jefferson Foundation stressed the need to address viewshed concerns in the county's pre - application process with potential developers. After the presentation, the Commission opened the topic for public comments. Public Comments • None Commission Comments Commissioners made the following comments or asked the following questions: • How was the draft viewshed map done? Thomas Jefferson Foundation staff answered that a more thorough analysis was done using GIS to include the viewsheds of Mont Alto, Tufton and Monticello. • It was noted that the proposed viewshed map was done as if no trees existed in the viewshed. • It was questioned why the city was cut out of the map. It would help to see how the City is related to the proposed viewshed especially since there is a connection between the site line from Monticello and the Rotunda. • It was suggested that Thomas Jefferson Foundation establish a volunteer group that could "certify" when a developer meets viewshed guidelines — something like a friend of Monticello's Viewshed group — maybe such a group could establish a relationship and they could issue certificates that could be hung on a wall for display to customers? • It was noted that any landowner in the viewshed area could impact it — not just developers — what about a landowner replacing a roof or something else like that? All landowners need to be aware of the guidelines. • What is being done now to preemptively protect views? Thomas Jefferson Foundation is working now to identify properties whose development could impact the viewshed. Thomas Jefferson Foundation plans to reach out to these 6 property owners to let them know about the design guidelines so they are aware of them. • Could the viewshed be prioritized such as areas that are just in Monticello's viewshed versus areas in the viewsheds of Tufton and Mont Alto? • Do Agricultural and Forestal Districts or properties being reviewed for ACE consider being in the viewshed in the ranking or review criteria? Should they if not? • As you get farther away from the viewshed — it would seem some aspects of the design guidelines would become less critical (such as native plantings and architectural articulation). Thomas Jefferson Foundation staff noted that is why it is important for developers to contact Thomas Jefferson Foundation early in the process so they can determine what may or may not be the higher design priorities for that particular project and site. • What happens when there is a conflict between the design guidelines and existing county regulations? When the Neighborhood Model and EC regulations are updated, they should work to incorporate the elements of the design guidelines so there is no potential for conflict. • How will the guidelines be applied? Are they really mandatory in special uses and rezoning? Is it fair that they are stricter for rezonings and with special use permits? • Some Commissioners felt that as guidelines it would not be a conflict because they were only guidelines and not regulation. • Some Commissioners felt that specific locations on the terrace of Monticello looking in the direction of the Rotunda should be the priority viewshed area and that other viewsheds (like Mont Alto and Tufton) be secondary. • Some Commissioners were okay with the larger viewshed map (that included Monticello, Mont Alto and Tufton) if the guidelines would only be voluntary for the whole area. If any aspect were to be mandatory (such as proposed in discretionary reviews) some felt the viewshed should be more precisely defined (such as only for Monticello) but that including other areas in the map makes things more complicated. • Some noted that they did not like the term "voluntary" and felt that it was a slippery slope to then becoming mandatory. It should be clear that the design guidelines are voluntary. • An idea was offered that the primary viewshed be defined as what is visible from the house and lawn and all other views are secondary. • Some agreed with staff's recommendation to keep the viewshed and guidelines as they are today. • The County should set a good example and comply with any guidelines, just as it wants other entities to comply with those guidelines. • The design guidelines should be revised to better reflect their intent — the language in the guidelines needs to be tightened up and priority areas be defined for the guidelines. Conclusions and Directions to Staff There is an interest in two levels of mapping. One is specific as to what can be seen from Monticello itself, and a second level would contain the larger area. However, all parcels identified on the maps would not actually be visible. Location of trees, buildings, and topography affect visibility. Nevertheless, the maps would provide a reference point and they could be put in the plan. Second, the level of expectation needs clarification. The guidelines aren't clear and they don't address the issue where a parcel is identified on the map but isn't really visible. The most desirable outcome is that the people who are developing property will consult with Monticello on what they are doing. Monticello can help them find a way to minimize visual impacts. Ultimately, the Commission will need to decide how far it wants to go with application of the guidelines. It is important that consideration be given to what is manageable for staff. Staff doesn't want the County to artificially impose an overlay district that is not really in existence. If the Commission thinks an overlay district is needed, it should be discussed at that level and the zoning ordinance should be amended. Staff will take their best shot based on what they have heard and then work with Monticello or the Thomas Jefferson Foundation staff on the guidelines. Whatever staff comes up with, it will be included in the full draft of the plan that will come for public hearing in March. Topic: Priority areas proposed for Neighborhoods 4 -7 (Southern and Western Neighborhoods) Staff Presentation Andy Sorrell provided a PowerPoint presentation on the recommendations for the Priority Areas for Neighborhoods 4 - 7. After the presentation, the Commission opened the topic for public comments. Public Comment • Nancy Carpenter, a member of the Transit Riders Association of Charlottesville, asked to pay attention to the proposed Route 3 alignment in the City Transit study and keep in mind the COB 5`" Street stop and ensure the necessary infrastructure is in place there for transit such as sidewalks. Commission Comments Commissioners made the following comments or asked the following questions: • It is important to show sidewalks to the City limits on Avon Street. • The future roads like the Sunset - Fontaine Connector should be in priority areas. • Describe the relationship of the priority areas to the framework of a master plan. • Do the priority areas relate to the CIP? It appears a little confusing. • Who would be responsible for maintaining the surfaces of the rights -of -way that contain future connector roads? • Check on a more recent study (than the referenced 1994 one) that UVA completed on the Ivy Road Corridor. The Planning Commission took a break at 8:29 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:34 p.m. Topic: Neighborhood Model Guidelines 3 Staff Presentation Elaine Echols provided a PowerPoint presentation on the recommendations for the Neighborhood Model Design Guidelines section of the Comprehensive Plan draft. After the presentation, the Commission opened the topic for public comments. Public Comments • Travis Pieleta, on behalf of Southern Environmental Law Center, stated that more diagrams were needed and that when other sections are referred to in the document there should be a vision of what that reference says and why it is important — not just a link without an explanation. Also preferred the existing wording for terrain and grading around streams on page 33. Commission Comments • Some Commissioners noted that relegated parking wasn't helpful to businesses today and that its inclusion in the neighborhood design guidelines should be reviewed again. Others noted the need for relegated parking with a focus on interconnected streets. Some noted that parking to the side of a building is better than the back. • It was said that there are many factors involved in how well relegated parking works and making an area a social place. When the example of the Luxor office building is used, having the parking in the back makes for a much more attractive building front. • It was noted that pedestrian activity may become more of a priority when there is less separation between low- volume vehicular roads in walkable places. Pedestrians should be given more of a priority in such places • Page 10 should reference the need for narrow streets. Fire and Rescue needs to be brought on -board with the concept. • Some Commissioners noted they liked the term principles vs. expectations — some noted that principles of design would be a better term. • Several Commissioners noted they liked the images used and diagrams. Tentative Schedule Discussed: Wayne Cilimberg said he knows there is an interest in making sure the public has an opportunity to review the document and provide comments up front. Staff understands that the Commission is not going to make the decision on the night of the hearing. A new public hearing schedule is being recommended which will allow for more public review of the documents as well as staff to work with county attorney's office on advertising to get prepared for the public process. The proposed tentative schedule was provided as follows: • March 26 — new proposed PUBLIC HEARING date • March 11 -- Document available • March 15 (tentative) -- Open House during day • March 19 -- Any written comments from public to be provided to Planning Commission • March 26 — Public Hearing • Planning Commission review opportunities in April 9 • Decision desired by end of April Commissioners would be expected to meet frequently during the month of April The Planning Commission agreed with the schedule. 10 ZTA- 2012 -00010 Off -Site Signs Review and Focused Discussion of Proposed Ordinance Changes to Off -site Signs Zoning Provisions (Amanda Burbage /Amelia McCulley) The Planning. Commission held a work session to set general direction and provide feedback on the following issues: Off -Site Signs - Discussion of the criteria and reviewing process for applications for off - site signs. Amanda Burbage with the assistance of Amelia McCulley and Stewart Wright, presented a PowerPoint presentation entitled ZTA 2012 — 010 Off -Site Signs - Planning Commission Work Session. Staff is requesting feedback on the qualifying criteria for directional signs and the by right permissions for bundle signs. Specifically: • Are the proposed qualifying criteria for directional signs clear and reasonable? • Is the Commission comfortable allowing bundle signs by right for businesses or properties in industrial, commercial and <R4 residential zoning districts? There was no public comment at this time. The Planning Commission made the following comments /suggestions: • Having directional signs to community facility makes sense by right. • Clarify criteria - Suggestion that examples of signs be provided where the proposed language would work and would not work. • Staff should consider the possibility of including. other kinds of maybe privately owned but public facilities as part of that by right public use category for directional signs. • Clarify in which zoning districts - is it the sign or the business or both would constitute eligibility for a bundle sign. • Is the directional sign limited to the name of the business and the address? The bundle sign does not say anything about what information is allowed. • Clarify that the applicant before qualifying would have to exhaust all other signage both onsite and offsite signs as well as pursue a directional sign from VDOT. The Planning Commission agreed with staff's recommendation and suggested staff move forward with the draft and set a public hearing. Old Business: Mr. Morris asked if there was any old business. • Mr. Morris noted there would be an executive session early on next week's agenda. • Ms. Burbage noted as a follow up on the previous question that there were six state regulated county dams. • The Planning Commission would meet next week, April 30 to discuss the Comp Plan Update. There being no further old business, the meeting moved to the next item. New Business: Mr. Morris asked if there was any new business. THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2013 AT 6:00 P.M. Adjournment: With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 8:29 p.m. to the Tuesday, April 30, 2013 meeting at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Room #241, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 23, 2013 15 FINAL MINUTES ai�s1u�S �.u...:.:i,lA.J .. t� i „.i'��[S'L2E:iItJi'db' 311t dfroJ. i➢ 1dItlF. UFe4iN: 11YiIRJGJle .JbJ!•'aJU'u!<uuJw::WLYiA pJ -' :isi.i[r r...aa.. :': - s :. .y.:... : � '........ Y�.: w.[. r.:. �.+ w: v.. u�v..... r... w�w.s..... �r_ �. �..... a .— ...........— ....::.��....... ._ .....�.... _ .. _.. _ . ....... .......... ....._ .,...J ATTACHMENT C FINAL ACTIONS Planning Commission Meeting of February 12, 2013 AGENDA ITEM /ACTION FOLLOW -UP ACTION 1. Call to Order. • Meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mr. Morris, Chair. PC members present were Mr. Morris, Mr. Lafferty, Vice - Chair; Mr. Dotson, Mr. Loach, Mr. Smith and Mr. Franco. Mr. Franco arrived at 6:19 p.m. Absent was Mr. Randolph. Ms. Monteith was present. • Staff present was Amelia McCulley, Amanda Burbage, Stewart Wright, Wayne Cilimberg, Andy Sorrell, Elaine Echols, Sharon Taylor, and Greg Kamptner. 2. From the Public: Matters Not Listed Clerk: for Public Hearing on the Agenda. No action required The following individuals spoke: • Nancy Carpenter, a member of the Transit Riders Association of Charlottesville, noted the CAT transit study currently underway and asked that the County plan for and commit to fully fund public transit routes in the County, Mr. Lafferty encouraged Ms. Carpenter to contact TJPDC to get on the agenda of the CHART Committee. • Lena Marie, a member of Transit Riders Association of Charlottesville, an advocate of environmental causes, and a user of public transportation, encouraged the county to provide public transit. 3. Review of Board of Supervisors Staff: Agenda — February 6, 2013 Schedule presentation on the Community Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the actions taken Development Work Program at a future by the Board of Supervisors on February Commission meeting. 6, 2013. Request made for staff to bring the Community Development Work Program to the Commission for discussion. 4. Work Sessions Staff: 5 Im 5 12 ZTA- 2012 -00010 Off -Site Signs Review and Discussion of Proposed Ordinance Changes to Provisions for Off -site Signs (Amanda Burbage /Amelia McCulley) The Commission held a work session to receive staff's presentation, take public comment, and comment on the information provided. Staff was asked to use the comments noted in Attachment 1 in developing ordinance amendments and set a future public hearing date. No formal action taken. Work Session CPA - 2013 -00001 Comprehensive Plan Update - Review of Monticello Viewshed Recommendations - Review of Neighborhood Model Design Guidelines - Review of Priority Areas for Southern and Western Neighborhoods (Elaine Echols /Andy Sorrell) Staff presented information and recommended changes. The Commission received public comment, asked questions and provided comments. Staff was asked to use the comments noted in Attachment 2 in further developing the Comp Plan Update. No formal action taken. Old Business • None New Business • No meeting scheduled for February 19, 2013. • THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WILL BE ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2013 AT 6:00 p.m. • Adjourn to FEBRUARY 26, 2013, 401 2 ATTACHMENT C • Schedule public hearing — Staff to reference comments noted in Attachment 1 and bring draft ordinance amendments back to Planning Commission for public hearing. Staff: • Refer to comments and suggestions noted in Attachment 2 in further work on the Comp Plan Update. Staff: • None Staff: • None ATTACHMENT C MCINTIRE ROAD, AUDITORIUM, SECOND FLOOR, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA. The meeting was adjourned at 9:14 M. Attachment 1 — ZTA- 2012 -00010 Off -Site Signs — Recommendations and Comments for Draft Ordinance Language Attachment 2 — CPA - 2013 -00001 Comp Plan Update - Comments and Recommendations ATTACHMENT C ATTACHMENT 1 — ZTA- 2012 -00010 Off -Site Signs Work Session — Planning Commission Comments The Planning Commission held a work session to set general direction on the following issues: Off -Site Signs - Discussion of the criteria and reviewing process for applications for special use permits for off -site signs. (Amanda Burbage /Amelia McCulley) Amanda Burbage with the assistance of Amelia McCulley and Stewart Wright, presented a PowerPoint presentation entitled ZTA 2012 — 010 Off -Site Signs - Planning Commission Work Session (See PowerPoint Presentation) Public comment was taken from the following person: Morgan Butler, with the Southern Environmental Law Center, offered the following thoughts: Because of the impact that signs can have on the scenic values of the community they follow these sign ordinance proposed changes closely. Since they are early in the process he just wanted to offer some observations, questions, and suggestions, as follows: 1. Looking at the ordinance it appears that off -site directional signs are already exempted from a special use permit requirement. Section 4.15.5(d) has the exception for certain off -site signs, which says a special use permit shall not be required for off -site directional, political, subdivision, or temporary signs. It is confusing. It is a great idea to provide a definition of directional sign in the ordinance. It is great to bring those in and put some parameters on it. However, he thought it would be helpful just to clarify it up front. If the intention is that those should only be allowed by a special use permit then let's make sure the language reflects that. 2. Supported the idea of exhausting other options before being able to do an off -site sign. One of the other options mentioned is on -site signage. It is important to point out that on -site signage would include different locations on site where they could put their signs if someone can't intentionally put it in a spot where it is not visible and then say oh now I am entitled to off -site signage as well. 3. It sounds like there would be a limit on the number and the size of the off -site directional signs. Suggested it might be important to have a restriction on the height beyond the height restrictions that are already in the sign ordinance for freestanding signs so they don't have the taller signs on the sides of roads where they are not necessary. 4. Supported emergency medical facilities by right. He was not quite as comfortable with the idea of by -right for different public uses because that opens the county up to charges of unfairness and that the county gets to have these signs but businesses can't. 4 ATTACHMENT C 5. If have an off -site sign it is not supposed to add to the signage allowed on the parcel where one is putting it. He wondered if there should be a similar restriction if there is a parcel and they are using an off -site sign somewhere else. Shouldn't that count against the signage one is allowed on the parcel so they are not getting two bites at the apple. The Commission commented on the information provided as follows and asked staff to take these comments into consideration in the continuing work regarding on -site signs. - "Effectively communicates" is vague. Troubled about "not clearly visible" because if he saw the edge of the sign it would be clearly visible but he still could not read it. Suggested saying where it is not legible or the sign face is not clearly visible. Otherwise, it was still not very clear. - Agreed with Mr. Butler's suggestion to exhaust all other possibilities. - Bundle signs are a special kind of directional sign. Instead of creating that as a new category it seems what they are saying is they encourage them to bundle their directional sign rather than thinking that is somehow something different than a directional sign. It seems to be the same thing. - The slides shown were real world examples and staff was encouraged to have more real world examples. The Independence has been mentioned. Suggestion made to include the shops in the back of Woodbrook as another example, or the Kegler's site, or Belvedere which has not been built yet. Suggested using a site with multiple ownerships along a common road, such as an LI area where there is a series of small businesses none of which is on the main road. Staff thinks through some more real world examples. - Other clarification — In a couple instances they talk about within a certain zoning district - is that the businesses in that zoning district or the signs in the zoning district or both? That should be clarified. - Interested in the comparison chart on different communities - however, Charlottesville was missing. Since they just approved sort of a joint goal on Entrance Corridors and striving for some consistency it is important to look at Charlottesville and let them look at what they are proposing, too, so that they have their input as well. - The definition that is used for bundle signs refers to businesses. If they are talking about some of the scenarios drawn up, what are they going to do with an empty lot? In other words, there is not a business there yet. The language ought to consider sites as well. Maybe they are not advertising it, but they are starting to have the right to bundle the sign or put the bigger sign there. - Questioned the effectiveness of signage. Is there a minimum size that is effective? That is the size they should go for rather than the maximum. Maybe bigger is not better in terms of data in reality. - Look at whether they need the two different classifications. If it is more confusing than helpful they can bundle it together into one term. Staff will come back in public hearing with the draft ordinance and get this resolved. s ATTACHMENT E Current vs Proposed Off -site Sign Regulations sniff •••G Off -site signs — signs that Directional - a freestanding off -site sign that Bundle - a freestanding off -site sign that are not located on the lot to directs traffic to a business or property and identifies at least two businesses or properties which the use pertains whose message display is limited to the sharing a common entrance or access road that Definition following: the business name, distance, or are not part of a planned development an arrow providing direction to its location SP By- Right: 24 hr emergency medical or public By- Right: IND, COM, >R4 Approval method use SP: :5114 SP: all other On -site sign ineffective to 1) a. Exhaust all possible on -site signs ; Property is located within a commercial, communicate its message and residential or industrial district and shares a off -site because of b. No on -site sign face visible within common entrance or access road Qualifying criteria topography or vegetation 100' of the property entrance; or 2) Necessary to direct traffic to an entrance that conforms to VDOT safety standards Counts toward on -site limit Counts toward on -site limit Counts toward on -site limit Size restriction Unrestricted 1) Within % mile of property entrance, or On any lot with frontage on an access road only if unable to obtain a landowner's serving all businesses or properties listed on the permission for a sign location in option 1: sign 2) within % mile of turning decision onto a Sign location road with access to property entrance, or only if unable to obtain a landowner's permission for a sign location in option 1 or 2: 3) another location with BZA approval Zoning district Unrestricted Unrestricted Commercial, residential ( >R4) or industrial ATTACHMENT E Existing definitions Driveway: A form of vehicular access from a public street, private road or alley to the interior of a lot or parcel of land. Proposed definitions Access road — a public or private road that is not a through street or that provides frontage to fewer than ten lots Entrance — the intersection of a driveway with a street or roadway RESOLUTION OF .INTENT WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance includes regulaticrns pertaining to the criteria for approving special use permiit for off-site signs by tho Albemarle Ccun�y Board of Zoning Appeals; and W 0 EREAS, the oritorion uniq uc to off"sitc signs is stated in County Codt.§ 19415.5(c)(l whi -ch requires that the Board of Zoning Appeals find -that the issuanco of a spuiM use permit is weawry bemse an on -site sign would be ineffec.tivc to communicate its message off-site, bwa,use of topography or vegetation ", and WHEREAS, it may be desirable to 4meW this criterion to clarify t iat an onAite sign would be &e. r ed to be inef fm ive if topography, vogetabon or any other rcicvant factors delineated in the COIN= provcnt the sign from communicating its message to the prirn amass to the properly seeking the sign, and IEREAS, it also may be deli ruble to amend the Zoning Otdinar,ce to have applications for SpWiaJ use permits for off-site signs reviewed and acted upon by the planning Cornmiss ion and the Board of Supervisors, radi -ar than the Board of Zoning Appeals, NOW, TFIE'RF'FORF, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public -necessity, convfflienw, generai wellf= and good zoning praei -ccs,, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to consider emending County de § 13-4,15.' 5, Signs Aothorizcd by $pee i al. I Use Pffmit, and any other sections of tl'ic Zoning Ordinance dccmcd to be appropriate to achieve the purposes described herein; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will I hold a pub] is hmai rig on the zoning text amendment pnopose4 pursuant Co Oi S resolution of intent, and make i[s rowmmmdAons to the Hoary) of S upc rvisors at the car] icst possible date_ * * * * 1, Ella W. Jordui, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, conwt copy of a Resolution duly adoptcxl by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia; by a vote of to as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on Clerk, Board of County Supervisors Nov Mr. }ioyd Mr. Dumlcr Ms. ldlallek Mr. Rooker Mr. Snow ?qtr. Thomas