Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA201200010 MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission June 26, 2012 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, June 26, 2012, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Richard Randolph, Bruce Dotson, Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Don Franco, Calvin Morris, Chair; and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present. Other officials present were Joanne Tu Purtsezova, Planner; Ron Lilly, Office of Facilities Management; Dan Eggleston, Fire Chief, Summer Frederick, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission; Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Stewart Wright, Permits Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator/ Director of Zoning; Ron White, Director of Housing; Margaret Maliszewski, Design Planner; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public: Mr. Morris invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none, the meeting moved to the next item. Consent Agenda Approval of Minutes: March 20, 2012 There being no requests to pull any item on the consent agenda, Mr. Morris asked for a motion. Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Smith seconded for approval of the consent agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Mr. Morris said the consent agenda had been approved unanimously. Regular Item: SDP - 2012 -00015 Ivy Fire Station at Kirtley Warehouse — Minor PROPOSAL: Parking space grade waiver associated with a request for a minor site plan amendment to convert the existing Kirtley Warehouse to a fire station. A critical slopes waiver (was approved at the May 2, 2012 Board of Supervisors meeting). Parking space grade waiver (is for grades greater than five percent in the parking area per Section 4.12.2(C)2 of the Zoning Ordinance ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 FINAL MINUTES ZONING: LI — Light Industrial — industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 1 - Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit /acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes SECTION: 18 -32 Site Plan; 18 -27 Light Industry; 18- 4.12.15C Maximum 5% Grade for Parking; 18- 4.12.2(C)2; 18 -1.4 Safety and Welfare LOCATION: 642 Kirtley Lane off of Ivy Rd. between the Volvo dealership and the Northridge medical complex TAX MAP /PARCEL: 05900- 00- 00 -023B1 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller (Joanne Tu Purtsezova) Ms. Purtsezova presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. The item before the Planning Commission is a parking space grade waiver associated with the proposed Ivy Station at the Kirtley Warehouse site just off of Ivy Road. The request is for seven (7) additional parking spaces extending from existing, nonconforming parking spaces in the travelway between the Volvo dealership and the Northridge medical complex, which is Kirtley Lane. Please note that the Ivy Fire Station minor site plan amendment is under ministerial review by staff and is NOT before the Planning Commission at this time. Request: • Seven (7) additional parking spaces with a 12.7% average grade • The existing nonconforming parking spaces range from 11% to 12% grade • The proposed parking spaces range about the same • A parking space grade waiver per 31.8, which allows the Board of Supervisors to approve modifications to the 5% maximum grade limit for parking areas under 4.12.15c. Because staff is recommending denial they are requesting Planning Commission review and provide a recommendation • Section 4.12.15c limits the maximum grade of parking areas to 5 %, but the request is for an average grade of 12.7 %. • Section 31.8 gives the Board of Supervisors sole authority to approve waivers. Staff has reviewed the request against 4.12.2(c)2 and 1.4, but the Board of Supervisors does not need to make specific findings in support of its final decision Staff reviewed slides showing views of the existing conditions on site. To either side of the travel way there are parking spaces that are nonconforming and have not been reviewed explicitly by staff. However, they were looked at as existing conditions with the site plan in 2008 for the North Ridge Complex. Staff displayed views of the warehouse proposed for the Ivy Fire Station. The addresses are 640, 642 and 644 Kirtley Lane. As a comparison the approved spaces that have been reviewed by staff are very flat, whereas the nonconforming ones go upward to Ivy Road. FACTORS FAVORABLE: 1. The proposed parking exceeding 5% would be for employees only associated with the hospital only. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 FINAL MINUTES 2. The seven additional spaces would be similar in character /grade to the existing, non- conforming spaces along the travelway. 3. A maximum grade of 13% has been approved administratively before for a driveway; however, conditions and expectations for the use of a driveway are different than for a parking. FACTORS UNFAVORABLE: 1. Engineering recommends denial 2. A finding that the waiver would better serve public safety, health, and welfare cannot be made. 3. Public safety and property damage concerns, particularly in inclement weather. 4. A maximum parking space grade greater than 10% has never been approved. Staff is concerned primarily with inclement weather conditions: slippery and slick conditions while passengers and drivers are getting in and out of their cars. Staff cannot find that the waiver would better serve public health and safety. In addition, engineering and planning have checked and a maximum parking space grade waiver has never been approved for more than 10 %. Mr. Morris invited questions. Mr. Loach asked how many compliant parking spaces are down at the bottom close to the warehouse. Ms. Purtsezova replied that she thought it was between 11 to 14 parking spaces. Mr. Loach said if they are going to have one engine down there, then they are talking about 3 to 5 persons. Therefore, they have enough parking spaces. Mr. Benish noted this is not parking that is required for the fire station. Mr. Loach said that was the one point he wanted to make. He has trouble with this only because of the engineering documentation. On page 5 it says since the Ivy Fire Station is proposed at this location at 13 percent maximum grade the travel lane may be potentially dangerous. The loss of health or property is a danger such as during inclement weather the hazardous parking conditions that otherwise could possibly be preventable accidents. Then it goes on to say the maximum parking grade space greater than 10 percent has never been approved. With that recommendation and those caveats he was not sure how he could feel comfortable in supporting it. Mr. Lafferty noted one of the concerns was it was perpendicular parking. He realized the slope was a problem. He asked could they go to diagonal parking and put dividers so that people could walk in between. Another thought is whether this is in any way grandfathered in. He knows it has been passed through several committees before and no action has been taken. Ms. Purtsezova said he believed he had two questions. One is whether this can be grandfathered in. The second question is whether perpendicular spaces or any other alternatives would be possible. The applicant has provided a little bit of information on that. They have said that it is not possible. They do propose on the site plan to use permeable pavers. She did not know if ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 FINAL MINUTES that makes a difference. As far as grandfathered in she did not know how they could grandfather something that was never explicitly authorized. Mr. Benish said they were asking for the new parking spaces. So the existing spaces will stay. The ones shown in the pictures will not change and will stay. The request is to add seven additional spaces. Any other configuration (parallel or diagonal) that would provide additional space, the applicant may best explain. However, one of the goals is just a need for more parking spaces in the general North Ridge area. They are only asking for seven parking spaces. So any reconfiguration that would reduce means they don't gain very much. There is probably some concern about the practicality of the request if they have to widen the spaces, resulting in only three or four parking spaces. He is sure that Ron Lilley has looked at some options and can answer the question. Mr. Lafferty said the actual fire department does not need additional spaces. Mr. Benish replied this is related to the site plan to approve the fire station, but this request is really from the Health Science Foundation to augment their parking. It is part of looking at the larger site there including North Ridge and LTECH. Mr. Dotson asked if Health Sciences itself is requesting this as a state agency would they be coming to us. Ms. Monteith noted that it was Health Services and it is a foundation and they are not an agency. Mr. Randolph asked if this was in fact just a business entity would they have come to a even more rapid conclusion understanding that this parking is to be used for employees for a fire station, which is a public service, that because of the critical slopes that this should absolutely be denied. He asked if they would have even greater degree of firmness about it or the same degree of firmness. Mr. Benish replied that staff would follow the same process. Mr. Randolph said he wanted that on the record that there is no differentiation between the two and that they coming to this conclusion based on the merits of the application. Mr. Benish said that is the way staff has reviewed it. They have looked at it as any other request. There being no further questions, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Ron Lilley, with the County's Office of Facilities Development representing the applicant in this case, said that in an agreement with the University of Virginia to use a portion of Kirtley Warehouse they agreed to take a site plan forward for the necessary site changes there, which are essentially parking configuration changes and to try to obtain additional parking spaces in this row of seven as part of an agreement. There was no hard and fast promise that this is going to be provided when it was discussed. Frankly, it was not realized that a waiver was necessary for those spaces. The spaces would be used by the University for employees at primarily LTECH and that then frees up some of the spaces that would be needed down at the lower end of the site ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 FINAL MINUTES for the fire station and other sort of site users. He hoped that clarifies that. That is why the County is taking forward something really on the University's behalf. Mr. Lilley noted that they do have a segment of parking down at the lower end that would be permeable pavers, which have a little better traction. However, the segment they are talking about here would just be regular asphalt just like the spaces that would be extended. He hoped there is no confusion about that. From an applicant's point of view the concern for health, safety, welfare is certainly understood and he knows the University does as well. They would take the position that with the existing context of a row of 18 spaces it is pretty much like it in an existing lane that is going downhill. There is no change to the grade of the lane. Adding a segment of seven spaces is a fairly minor adjustment to an existing situation that is sensible in a case where parking is necessary. It is not to say that this would make it right, but when you look at the alternatives people may park in places that are less safe. He would take that into account. He thinks for the most part it is within the existing context with the understanding that the University is trying to do all they can to provide reasonable parking. He would ask for consideration of that. He would also say on the health safety thing that there is a bit of common sense for people who park there. As far as he knows there have been no incidents of people who park there getting up the grade or having any cross traffic concern there. They did look at alternatives of whether it would be angled or perhaps moving the proposed bay of spaces further back so they could transition to a flatter surface. But that brings its own set of problems, namely getting further into slopes and having a portion of the row of parking further inset and perhaps creating safety issues that are worse as a result of not being in line with the rest of the parking there. He appreciates the Commission's consideration in the context. Fire Chief Dan Eggleston is here for any questions. He might choose to speak to the need and the understanding with the University. To address technical questions Craig Kotarski is here from Timmons Engineering. Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant. Mr. Smith noted that he had answered one of his questions about any accidents. Today he called a gentleman from the University that is involved with this situation and asked him about any incidents or accidents and he said there was no record of anything in the last 4 years. He knew they have had one bad winter in the last four years. Mr. Lilley said he could understand where someone trying to make it up a lane of a substantial slope could have an issue. Although he knows it happens on lesser slopes as well. He has not been aware of any accidents that are posed here. Mr. Franco asked what the width of space is. Mr. Lilley replied that he believed the spaces were 9'. Mr. Franco asked if there is room enough to go to 10'. Craig Kotarski, with Timmons Group, replied that there is not room to go to 10 without reducing the number of spaces. Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Smith said as the representative of the Samuel Miller District he was in favor of the request. He realized the slopes do not meet county standards. History has proven that what is there has worked. He even questioned the gentleman this morning from the University why they even applied because nobody ever applied before. He asked why they did not go ahead and start using it. Are they going to tell them that they can't do it? He said they can do it since it has been done before. He has been up and down the road many times and he supports the request. He moved for approval of the request. Mr. Franco said since the parking spaces are not required again there is not the same situation as a shopping center where there would be shopping carts and they would be worried about things getting away and hitting cars. He would be more comfortable at 10' so there was a little bit more room for doors to swing. However, he was out there today and was able to open his car door without any problem and close the car door on the other side as well. He tends to support the request again mainly because it is not a required set of parking. He would probably be more in favor if they could label it "employees only" so that it is something they know is going to be used just by the employees. He knows it is separated as far as an entrance goes, but he can support this. He seconded the motion. Mr. Morris noted that there was a motion and second for approval. He invited further discussion. Mr. Lafferty pointed out he was for the fire department having a place there. However, they are being asked to go against the recommendation of the engineering department and the recommendation of our own planning division. If it were a 7/11 could we do this? Mr. Loach said what he was hearing as the conflict was they actually have two divisions of government presenting conflicting views and opinions. One is from the engineering department saying this is a safety and health issue. The one that they just heard was that common sense should allow us to overcome that, which is the problem. It may be right that there have not been any accidents. The problem is, and perhaps he spends too much time in court, is that all they need is one accident. Then the other problems they have are suppose they have an accident that is blocking the egress of the fire trucks. The language in the report from the engineering department is the reason he could not support it. Mr. Randolph agreed with Mr. Loach. Mr. Dotson said he visited the site today and it seemed workable. However, he worried about the precedent if they waive a standard to this extent how do they say no to the next request. Mr. Morris agreed that was a good point. That really sums up his feelings. It seems that they should not be recommending to the Board of Supervisors something that goes so far beyond our standard at this particular time. He invited further discussion. Mr. Franco suggested that they better understand the concern about the accidents and blocking. They are adding a couple more spaces, but they are not changing the travel way. So there may be a little bit more activity there. In his mind as far as health and safety goes they already have people walking up and down that slope. Again, maybe they are adding some more people to that slope with the extra parking spaces. However, if the driveway in general is in this 12% to 13% range and people are parking at the bottom and walking up it he was not sure he sees a whole lot of difference of having a couple more spaces other than the fact that they would have a couple ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 6 FINAL MINUTES more opportunities to have problems there. Again, he goes with the fact that it has been sitting there and has been working. It is not really being required for the required parking spaces. They have the ability to control it with signage. It is on the opposite side of the building from the patient parking. He was not sure he sees the same consequence as a 7/11 where they might be asking for additional parking. Mr. Loach said that Mr. Franco may very well be right. If the language was not such in the report he would probably go along and may be use the common sense scenario as presented tonight. That said that is not the case that is before us now with the recommendation for denial from engineering. He questioned if the county wants to take the position that they will assume the increased liability because of this. That was the other thing; too, that he was not sure what he was hearing from the position of the county and the assumption of such liability. Not only as Mr. Dotson pointed out to us that we break precedent but if the language was such that it gave him some feeling that it has more of a grade but they don't see it as being problematic even though there is the potential. But, the language is fairly clear in the report. Mr. Smith said he had a question for staff. What happens if somebody parks there on the grass? Mr. Benish replied he was not sure he would park there given its existing condition there. That is at someone's risk. Mr. Franco said he thought they would have to regrade the site to make it accessible because it is coming up from the back of pavement. It is not really going to work. Mr. Lafferty said it was mentioned before that Volvo dealership uses parking in there. In one of the photographs there is parking on both sides. He asked if there is any way to take the Volvo parking and have it serve the purpose. Ms. Purtsezova replied she was not sure whether the Volvo dealership is inclined to do that. However, she did know there may be a shared parking agreement with the Korean Community Church, which is also listed as a minor request. However, it was recently withdrawn, but the project is still in process. Mr. Benish noted that they were not aware of the arrangement. As far as staff can tell, the county has never approved those sites. In the LTECH site plan it did recognize that existing travel way, Kirtley Lane, and the spaces on it. There was never an actual approval of those. Any arrangement that have been made with Volvo and the other property owners is probably a private agreement. So he does not know if that is possible or not. Mr. Franco said there was one other thing that puts it in context for him. When he was on site he had his wife drive him over there. When he opened the passenger side and his wife opened the driver's side he asked her what she thought about it. Her comment was that it was not nearly as bad as some of the spaces downtown in the parking lots. An example is where they have the farmer's market and things like that. So these spaces exist in places and for the limited number that it is it helped him feel more comfortable. Mr. Randolph pointed out that this is the county and not the city. Mr. Morris asked that the role be called. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 7 FINAL MINUTES Restated Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of the parking space grade waiver associated with SDP - 2012 -015 Ivy Fire Station at Kirtley Warehouse. The motion failed by a vote of 2:5. (Franco, Smith voted aye) (Lafferty, Loach, Morris, Dotson and Randolph voted nay.) Mr. Lafferty voted nay because of the recommendation of the engineering department. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that the Commission actually needs to take another motion because to make the recommendation they need something affirmative to go on to the Board. Motion: Mr. Dotson moved and Mr. Loach seconded to recommend denial of the parking space grade waiver associated with SDP - 2012 -015 Ivy Fire Station at Kirtley Warehouse based on the staff report recommendation. The motion passed by a vote of 5:2. (Franco, Smith voted nay) Mr. Morris noted that a recommendation for denial of the parking space grade waiver associated with SDP - 2012 -015 Ivy Fire Station at Kirtley Warehouse will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors to be heard on July l 11h Work Sessions: Off -Site Sins Discussion of the criteria and reviewing process for applications for special use permits for off - site signs. (Amelia McCulley) 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. (Amelia McCulley) Ms. McCulley, with the assistance of Steward Wright, presented a PowerPoint presentation entitled ZTA 2012 — 010 Off -Site Signs - Planning Commission Work Session Ms. McCulley noted in July, 1992 they first did a comprehensive rewrite of our sign ordinance. At that time they decided to reduce the height and size of signs, number of signs, and proliferation of signs. They basically wanted to outlaw billboards. What they did is they said by definition a billboard is an off -site sign that exceeds 32 square feet and any off -site sign requires a special use permit with some exceptions. She handed out a sketch for the Commission's reference as they discuss off -site signs. Staff forwarded an email from Ben Foster, local sign company owner. Mr. Foster recommends that off -site signs be an administrative review process and the criteria be based on the fact that the applicant cannot derive equivalent benefits from installing onsite signs. Background: / Off -Site Signs: Signs that are not located on the same lot with the use to which the sign pertains. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 FINAL MINUTES / Most off -site signs are allowed only by Special Use Permit (SP), except political, subdivision or temporary signs, signs within planned developments or off -site agricultural product signs. / Approval of an S.P. for an off -site sign does not allow an additional sign or additional sign area than is otherwise allowed for the property. Off -Site Sign Freestanding signage permitted in typical situations is one (1) sq ft sign per street frontage {can also be divided into two (2) signs not exceeding 16 sq ft each per entrance;. Approval of a special Use permit for an off -site sign to serve parcel B allows an off -site establishment to be listed on the signs allowed for parcel A. No additional signs or sign area is provided through the special permit. Parcel A qualifies for two freestanding signs. With a special use permit, parcel B can use part or all of one of the signs allotted to parcel A. The S.P. does not authorize an additional sign or a larger sign. It is a very confusing concept. Focused Discussion 1. Appropriate Qualifying Criteria; 2. Location from which the Sign should Effectively Communicate Its Message; and 3. The Approving Body Background / Off -site sign Special Use Permits are issued by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). / In addition to the general criteria applicable to an SP, current criterion requires a finding that the off -site sign is necessary "because an on -site sign would be ineffective to communicate its message off -site because of topography or vegetation." [Section 4.15.5 cl] ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 9 FINAL MINUTES Off -site sign special use permits are one of only three types of special use permits (all for signs) that the BOS has delegated to the BZA. The current criterion for an off -site sign is problematic: an on -site sign would be ineffective to communicate its message off -site because of topo or vegetation." Let's talk further about appropriate criteria. Qualifying Criteria / Current ordinance language is overly limiting in several aspects: a) justification is restricted to topography or vegetation and does not consider many other valid factors such as safety considerations; b) does not require applicant to exhaust other remedies such as using onsite signs, subdivision signs, VDOT signs, etc.; and c) treats all uses the same whether or not they have high public safety demands (such as a hospital or nursing home). The current ordinance language limits the qualification for an off -site sign to two factors. This does not consider many other valid factors such as safety considerations. It also does not require the applicant to exhaust other remedies for signage. Nor does it distinguish between uses as qualifying for an off -site sign. Qualifying Criteria a) Because many factors can impact the visibility of an on -site sign, staff recommends not limiting the factors that are beyond the applicant's control. b) In addition, we recommend that the applicant exhaust other remedies before applying for an off -site sign. c) Finally, justification based on the type of use makes some sense but can be problematic. Under (a), staff suggests that the qualifying factors should be those factors beyond the applicant's control rather than something, such as location of the sign, that is within his/her control. As a practice, (b) makes sure the off -site sign may be the only remedy because other options are exhausted. Under c), a distinction based on the public safety needs associated with the use can get complicated if it goes beyond a hospital. Location from which Sign should Effectively Communicate its Message / This is probably the greatest point of debate. The Board recently confirmed the intent for off -site signage is not way - finding or marketing on major roadways. Current ordinance language simply requires the sign to be visible from other properties. / Staff suggests that a sign should be visible from the primary access to the property because signs are oriented to motorists. With the ROI for this ordinance amendment, the BOS confirmed staff's statement of intent that off -site signs are not intended for way - finding or marketing on high - volume roadways. Staff discussed the Independence on Pantops, which was one of the applications that the BZA had for an off -site sign. The discussion was to illustrate how difficult it can be to try to figure out what is the point from which an on -site sign should be visible. Location from which Sign should Effectively Communicate its Message / If the subject property is located at the end of a road, an onsite sign at the primary access road serves limited purpose for directing traffic. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 10 FINAL MINUTES / To direct motorists, signage is helpful at major turning decisions but is not practical for every turn. For your consideration / Currently the Z.O. allows several types of signs which identify development with multiple establishments /tenants — residential subdivision signs, shopping center signs and planned development signs. The gap (and the SP for off -site sign) is for those establishments or tenants not located within a subdivision, shopping center or planned development. / One option is to create a new freestanding sign type available by- right, "development AM" This is not an additional sign. / The development sign must be located at the entrance to a road serving more than one parcel. The sign can list those tenants or businesses served by the access road. There would be very limited circumstances this would not serve and a special use permit would be necessary. The Approving Body / With a revised ordinance more clearly stating the intent and criteria for off -site signs, staff recommends that the BZA is the most appropriate approving body. We suggest that given the issue (an off -site sign shares onsite signage allowances), the review and timeline for a BZA application is more appropriate. Questions or Comments / Next step — draft ordinance language and set a public hearing with the Commission. Staff requested input from the Commission on the three issues: 1. Appropriate Qualifying Criteria; 2. Location from which the Sign should Effectively Communicate Its Message; and 3. The Approving Body Public comment was taken from the following person: Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, noted the peach signs in Crozet he followed to turn in to the location to purchase peaches. He wondered how that rural use of signage would fit because it certainly was not on -site. What is the goal of the off -site ordinance? What are they after? It seems like the idea of preferred uses challenges his way of thinking. There was a big discussion about not regulating content — he felt this needs to be about the signs and not about the content. When a business chooses their property for a hospital or other use the signage and visibility are part of their decision making. Should off -site signs have preferential treatment based on use? He tends to think not. He tends to think if they look at the ordinance as a mechanism to serve a purpose whether it is limiting the number with bundle signs or whatever it is, he thinks if the purpose is such that it is a uniform purpose the application should be uniform as well. 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. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NNE 26, 2012 11 FINAL MINUTES I- For an emergency situation for signage — such as a road closing more than 24 hours- they need to create a class of signage to allow a business to stay in operation. Staff noted that there is provision for temporary signage and VDOT signage that can deal with this situation. 2- Be sensitive to needs of businesses coming into the county to allow their business to be competitive. 3- Solicit other localities similar in size to see how they handle off -site signs. It would be helpful to get their information. 4- Consideration should be given to the bundling of signs in one location in RA. 5- Agreed with staff's recommendation that the approving body should continue to be BZA since the process would be more timely. 6- Requested staff to work on development signs to possibly do a definition and come back to the Commission with examples. 7- Look at comparables and precedents of other communities and to understand how VDOT works to narrow approach. They have not narrowed the options enough to really understand how to approach this. It seems that understanding how the VDOT system works in terms of those blue signs would be helpful. 8- Signage should be administratively approved by staff as much as possible. 9- If something is truly unique maybe a variance is appropriate unless there is something in the ordinance that says they can't vary that. Important that they were exhausting on -site remedies. The idea is appropriate. Supports the BZA or the staff, but not the Planning Commission and the Board making these decisions. 10- The idea of a development sign sounds like something one might call a sign planning program even outside of Planned Districts where a group of people collaborate. One Commissioner called it a bundle sign. There was some support for bundle signs. 11-In our cell tower policy they were very careful to use the word visible. One Commissioner noted he gets a little nervous when they talk about "effectively" or "ineffectively" communicate since he did not know what that is. However, visible he did. 12- The extreme situation is that there are some businesses where it was assumed they pay less rent because they are on the back side. One comment was the sign ordinance should not make those primary spaces as if they were up on the main drag. 13- Don't want a "South of the Border" proliferation of off -site signs. 14- The health, safety, and welfare of the people of Albemarle County give them some ability to prioritize signage. 15- One thing that is a little off the subject but in the report again is the lack of staff. This keeps coming up that Albemarle County does not have adequate staff to do all the things that they are asking them to do or they have to do in their normal routine. The Commissioner was not saying go out and hire somebody, but noted it keeps coming up and somehow the Board of Supervisors needs to take this into account. 16- There was some discussion about having signage up for vineyards, having it all the same. Staff noted there is a fairly new provision for off -site signs by -right for agricultural products. The suggestion was made that the county might want to come up with some uniform sign and rent space instead of raising taxes. For different businesses they could have a uniform sign. No formal action was taken. Affordable Housing ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 FINAL MINUTES 12 As a follow -up to the March 20 report on affordable housing proffers, this work session includes responses to a number of questions from Planning Commissioners and a discussion of potential issues related to managing existing and crafting future proffers given significant changes in the housing development and financing markets. (Ron White) The Planning Commission held a work session on affordable housing as a follow -up to the March 20 Planning Commission meeting. The work session included responses to a number of questions from Planning Commissioners and a discussion of potential issues related to managing existing and crafting future proffers given significant changes in the housing development and financing markets. A summary of the questions related to addressing the affordable housing needs, types of units that are being built under the proffers and if these are addressing the needs, process and procedures, financing, and other mechanisms was provided. Also included was some other issues of which he brought to the Commission in the brief time they had together back in March. The following was initially noted by the Commission: • What form should the proffers take? • Should the proffers provide for actual housing units or monies in lieu of units? • What is our goal with the affordable housing policy? • Is there a lack of units now? Public Comment was taken from the following persons: - Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum. He spoke to a concern that cost of cash proffers is paid by home buyers, but it does not always result in the production of new units as some of the cash is paid to rehabilitate existing housing stock. He felt that rehab is a great program, but proffer proceeds are the wrong bucket of money to help pay for it. He also expressed concern about the lack of deed restrictions or other mechanisms such as trust funds to assure that the value realized in the lower price of affordable housing for the initial buyer is passed on to subsequent owners of such housing. - Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environmental Council. He spoke to the need for more facts, figures, and sincerity in the conversation about affordable housing and who pays for it. He offered that it is a shared responsibility for the whole community and all have to talk honestly about how the issue can be addressed. The Commission noted the following: - Concern about County accepting cash in lieu of affordable units in the 15 percent proffers money vs. units. - Timeframe for people to have the opportunity to purchase proffered affordable units when made available. Look at programs that other localities have. - Need to understand how many affordable units are needed on a yearly basis. - Opportunity to exercise flexibility in moving from affordable units for purchase to affordable rental. Need to include the city in the discussion of demand and provision of affordable housing. The following are to be done as follow up: - Mr. White to send an electronic copy of the affordable housing proffers data to Mr. Cilimberg who will forward to Planning Commissioners. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 13 FINAL MINUTES - The Housing Committee has been disbanded. A work group reviewing Affordable Housing policies is being formed. Mr. White will notify Mr. Cilimberg and the two volunteers from the Planning Commission (Don Franco and Rick Randolph) of the meeting dates. No formal action taken. The Planning Commission took a break at 8:03 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 8:12 p.m. Livability Proiect Goals Topics for Joint Comprehensive Plan Goals: Historic Preservation, Entrance Corridors, and Environmental Resources. (Summer Frederick) The Planning Commission held a work session to set general direction on three of the identified topics identified both through the public workshops and at the last joint Planning Commission meeting with the City where the City and County could come up with language that would be reflective of each other in the individual comprehensive plans. Summer Frederick, with Thomas Jefferson Planning District and Elaine Echols, County Principal Planner, presented a PowerPoint presentation on the three joint comp plan goals. Margaret Maliszewski, Design Planner, was present to answer questions. Each topic was discussed with the Commission with staff requesting feedback from the Planning Commission on the following questions. The Planning Commission provided guidance and direction in response to staffs questions regarding Joint City /County Comprehensive Plan Goals regarding Historic Preservation, Entrance Corridors, and Environmental Resources as summarized below: Historic Preservation: Given the City and County's differing approaches to historic preservation, are there opportunities for the City and County to create joint goal statements related to Historic Preservation? Historic Preservation Comments from PC • There needs to be a map of places worth commemorating and remembering and seeing • We should continue with voluntary efforts rather than adopting a historic landmark ordinance and using regulatory methods — except for Mr. Dotson. Mr. Dotson was not at the point of saying he had made up his mind that a strictly voluntary approach is the only thing they ought to talk about. He was open- minded at this point and did not know. • We need to take advantage of historic tourism opportunities and need maps for City and County cultural and historic resources and landscapes. • Maybe put world heritage sites, presidential houses on that map • Perhaps provide a map of historic trails. It is about educational opportunities. • Cultural landscape is important to preserve • Staff potentially needs to map conservation easements also and archeology • Mr. Franco: We need more measureable goals on conservation easements ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 14 FINAL MINUTES • Mr. Randolph: we need an inventory of historic resources such as historic structures • Ms. Monteith: the districts are a good way to go because the pressure to designate landmarks isn't so great • We need to see minutes of each others' (City and County PC) meetings • Staff should map historical markers Natural Resources and Cultural Assets — contains commitments — (don't forget these) when reducing bulk Conclusion: The County and City should work together to create a map of environmental, cultural, and historic assets together for public to see and potential tourist benefit Entrance Corridors: Is having two different approaches to maintaining and enhancing the Entrance Corridors appropriate? Are there opportunities for the City and County to develop joint goals related to Entrance Corridors? Comments from PC Mr. Dotson — • ECs are the threads that tie us together • How do we link environmental corridors with the City? • Mr. Franco — Avon Street EC is a good example of land use changes and design changes between the City and County Conclusion: Staff should compare the City guidelines to the County guidelines — are they similar? Are they different? If they are the same, perhaps write them similarly for ease of use in both localities Environment: - Water Quality - Air Quality - Development Area Tree Coverage Environment: Are there opportunities for the City and County to create joint goals to ensure high water quality within shared waterways? Is a joint Comprehensive Plan goal related to air quality appropriate? Is a Comprehensive Plan goal related to expanding and maintaining tree coverage in the Development Areas Appropriate? Environmental Comments from PC Environment — Water /Air /Tree Coverage • Maybe we should have an affirmation from the City that we have a strong relationship ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 15 FINAL MINUTES • Mr. Franco — what are the City standards for water protection? Are they different from ours? Are there joint City- County regional stormwater basins? • Ms. Monteith — the upcoming TMDL (Total Maximum Dail) regulations proposed for the Chesapeake Bay communities are going to make them the same Air Quality • Check in with Steve Williams on thresholds before we have to address the solutions with regulatory measures • Mr. Lafferty — to reduce pollution, limit the amount of driving and promote multi -modal transportation and the use of bicycles. He noted that the City has been more proactive because they own their own roads. In the County it is more difficult when the property rights go up to the center of the road to expand and put in bicycle lanes. Conclusion: Get information on air pollution from Steve Williams before doing anything else related to air quality Additional conclusion relating to environmental resources: The City and the County should affirm their relationship which benefits both localities. Old Business Mr. Morris asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting proceeded. New Business Mr. Morris asked if there was any new business. • No meetings July 3, 2012 and July 10, 2012 • Next regularly scheduled meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 There being no further business, the meeting proceeded. Adjournment With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m. to Tuesday, July 17, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 16 FINAL MINUTES P u blic..Heariri ZTA- 2012 -0001 U Off-site Signs — Thee Plennl ng Oommisslon will hold a public hearing to receive com meats on its inkent to recommend adoption of an ordinance to amend Secs. 18- 4.15.2, Definitions, and 18-4.15.5. Signs authorized by special use perrnfk, and to add Sec, 1B- 4.15_SA, Signs authcrlzed by special use permit; off-site signs, of Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordina rioe would amend Sec, 164.15,2. Deflnitlons, by adding defini[ions of terms related to off -site signs, amend Sec. 18-4.15.15 to pertain only to electric message Signs anti to move the reguEation of off -site signs to n W :SeC_ 11 -4.1 _ ,4, whim establishes three classes of off-sh signs — bundle signs, directional signs, and signs in the public right- of-way — allowed by speclaI use permit, orlrl establishes eligibility+ orlteria, rnlnlmum standards, and exemptions from the SP requirement. A Copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office cff the Cleric of the 6loard of ,Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development, Gounty Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. (Mandy Surbage) Ms. Buribage, wrkh the assistance of Amelia McCulley, proso. ^.tad a PowerRotnt presentation for ZTA -2C, 2 — 010 Off -Site Signs, Backgro und: — Off-sita signs are signs that are not located on the same lot as the use to which the sign pertains and are regulated under Section 4,15.5. Most off -site signs are allowed try Special Use Permit (S PI with the exoeption of political, A ubdivlaion, tm p nary a lg 119, Planned Development District, arid Ag Product signs. — Off -site slg ns a llowad by special use permit a re reviewed by the B oa rd of Zon Ing Appeals (IRZA). Approval requires a findlog that the on -site signarge Is "Irieffective to communicate it$ message offs to because of topography or vegetation_" That wording has been problemuffic for the BZA in the implementation process by very specifically limiting the criterle to topography and vegetation, and a1w being somewhat Prague as to how far offsite It la. Therefore. that was one of the focuses of this amendment. - An off -site sign does not allow for additional signage beyond what is otherwise alloyed for the property where the sign is located (1 signs street frantage), — January 4, 2012 —Ord adopt Resolution of Intent to focus on clarifying the qualifying criteria for off -alte alg ns and also consider whether the Board m Ight be a more appropriate approving body for off -site sign ape at use permits instead of the BZA. June ,26 (2012), Februarys 12 1 April 23 2013 Planning Commission work sessions and ultimately decided the fall ing= Imp E2A as approving body I ntrod um directional & bundle sign classifications They talked about cladfying the qualifying criteria, and I nlrod ucing locatlon caiterla for both of two classes of off -site signs. Staff` also discussed introducing two now classifications of off -site signs: direchonal signs and bundle signs. The idea being that there really are two kinds of off -site Signs. One is necessary when a business is in a somewhat remote or difficult to sea locQUon and re u Ires directlonal eig Wage. Another type of sign, whkh is akin to what is allcvued by right for Planned Developmenk Districts and Subdivisions: would essentially enable businesses located on a shared roadWay to cc-locate their signage. ALBEMMU= 00UN7Y PLANNING COMMISSIDH -MCEMBER 3, 3073 10 FLWAL LUNUTES During previous discussions, the Planning ODrnm ission recommended that they look for opportunitles for administrative review of off -site signs when possible. Both the bundle signs and directional signs now are proposing fey -right options- Staff reviewed the proposed changes for each ctassi loation, Directi -unal signs — Qual flying criteria — repWcee current problematic language & provides a spew standard for visibility. — Staff fell that 100 ft was a reasonable visibility distance that allows For sate turns Into the property, Approval method — intro- uses a by rightl option for 24- hour emergency medical & public uses (schools, parks, pWg roundfs operated by publlo entities); all other would require special use permit, - Directional signs would be permitted in any type of zoning district if they met the qualifying a iteda. In any zoning dislriet if a direWonal Fig n_ 1) Within mile of the entrance on the road where the entrance is Iocaled, or oniy if 1 is not possible= 2) (thin ' rn ile of turning decision, or only if 9 & 2 are not passible; 3) Another Jocatlon with B;ZA approval E3 undIe Signs The second clasallioatlon staff Is proposing is a bundles sign- Bundle signs are available to properties located In a commerclal, midential or industrial zoning district that are served by a common entrance or access road - This essentially extends the same permissions to commercial development that is afforded to planned development, ,Staff proposw that bLI rtdle signs be permitted by rigitit in industrial, commercial or � R4, Residential zoning cilsWcts- Allowing them by right effectively incentivizes bundling. • A special use permit (SP) would be necessary in lower density (R4 or lower) reeidential districts, • In terms of location, bundle signs can be located in any commercia], planned development: indusWal or R6 residential district on a lot that has frontage on an access road that serves all of the properties listed on the sign. U1 ces net allow for additional signage (no charge)_ Racommendatlon Staff recommends the Planning Commisslon to recommend adoption of the draft ordinance language found in Aftachment A of the staff report, Ally- Moms invited questions. M r- Randolph questioned #tie wDrding under the directional eigrls for the provIslon that mentions emergency medcca I service facilities and dwiF not say hospitals. He assumes they are creating a broader definition that would include hospitaks and doc in a box, Ms. Burbege replied yes, if R was providing 24 hour emergency medical care rt would quell#_ Those would not be a- ect to the location criteria, Ir. Randolph asked if on Pantop�& if under this policy it would be allowable by right[ for both the ospitaLar�tLd�in boxes be aLrtti ❑p�si�La1v��� �raf#in�}s�h. is, Burbage replied it is correct. They would only be allowed to have one off-site sign- LBEMFPLE OOUNYY PLAWIPS COMMSION -DECEMBER 3. 2D13 INA MN4TES 11 Mr. Randolph pointed out he umas trying to find out the number- He did not want to see them unintentionally all of a sudden spawn a lot of medical signe- Ms. Monteith pointed out that Ms. McCulley is looking It up_ Mr. Lafferty asked If it counts against their alktW suns; and therefore could not put up like south of the border type signs. Mr. Burbage replrad it would not stop them from approaching multiple property Owners at e parcel along the roadway to have a directional sig n. Mr, I- afferty noted likewise in the bundle sign staff Bald they could be placed in any of The blue slots. He questioned if they could put a sign on alt of the blue slots- Ms. BuTbage replied that they did not alter the num be r of off-site sign allowances "rn what Was permitted previouWy- It seams they were only allowing one -Bite sign per business. Mr. Morris sa ld ft seems like that was what wn said at the last meeting_ Mr, Surma replied that she was not seem that wording in the crtli na noe. Mr. Kam ptner asked the Dorn mission to let staff clarify that. HGwever, he was thinking that for directional signs if they have traffic coming from two different sides they may need more than one sign. Ms. McCulley noted staff would need to clarity that before the public hearing. Mr. Morris pointed out this was strictly for a -hour operatlon for a doo in the box. So that would eliminate the hied One in the Rantops area- Ms. McCu Iley said she did not th In k ft language currently lien ils � because it says signs i n the language descri bi ng 1t She thong ht they have to add some Zang uage to reduce the n umber, Mr- Morrls sald It was an excellent point that co:mi ng from the east and west that directional signs were needed - Mr. Rot&on said on the definition of an access road he was thinking about the way roads get bullt sometImes In phases. An a"ess road is not a through sbmat, but could become a through street in the future- He asked if they were talking about a currerXtly existing through street or a pianned through straat He asked could someone be allowed a sign today and lhen at the point when the street goes the rest of the way through ftwy would have to remove it- Ms- Bu"e replied that this does riot get to the planned street versus existing street. Howmr, the way the definition is written it could qualify as an access road if It vM a through street If It gars providing frortage to tan nr fewer properties. The reason it was written that way was they wanted to avoid creating situations where reads, like Berkmar, as an axampte, were considered access roads but were serving many more than ton parrcels. They would not want to incenfivize a let of signage appearing along those roadw_ Mr. Dotson asked staff to think about it to see rf any further tweaking is necessary- Tho second question is on bundle signs. The language is the slt,e to which the bundle sign pertains, He ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANONG GOMMISMN -DECEMBER 3.2D13 12 FINAL MINUTES wanted to clarify his understanding them was tip a home property of the business and not where the sign was located. He asked if that was greet. He wa!s in &action 4.1 b_5_a. c_ 1 bundle signs where they would be authorized under a speclal use permit, Ms. Burbage replied yes that would refer to the eiigibiRy criteria and not where the sign can go_ That is spelled out_ Mr. Dotson said that was the parc$I of the business_ Ms. Burbage replied that was right. and the location is spelled out in d1 Mr. Dotson said the other informational question Is that he did not have a fl mn grasp of the d iAnctlon between direc4jonal and bundle. Ha asked if there was a bundled directional sign where several people could throw into together, Ms. Bu rbage replied she thought that would fall into the category of a bundled sign wMn there is collocation. The directional signs are very li rnif ed in the type of content having the name of the business, the distance, and an arrow providing the direction_ However, she supposed they could have that Dontent. The content of the burpole sign can be broader. But, the aot of having mu 10ple listings is whiat puts it into that bundle sign category. Mr. Dotson asked if he would be allowed to have both a direotiona I sign and a bundle sign, but he could ba constrained on the total size of therm, Ms. McCulley replled that it would be on the total number and size. Typically, the directional sign is serving an individual business. The bundle sign is a combination sign that is serving mu Iliple businesses. Mr, Dotson said he was taming to understand what a direetional sign, and bundle sign Is since our rules are not absolutely Identical for (hem and how all that plays out_ M& McCulley said that was a good point because really both are providing directlons to the business. Bo the di rwionsl sign seams like it is really more with arrows and providing directions, but the bundle sign oould have the same because It is at a key intersection that serves these businesses. However, she fully appreciates what he is saying, Mr_ Morris noted that the signs are quite common. Mr_ Franco said the directional sign defnItion talks abort no on -site sign face to be visi ble within 100 fee# of the site entrance_ He asked does that means if he goes 140 feet to each side and walks between those two points, then he can't sae the sign. Alts, Burbage replied Yesr at the point of 100 feet is It vlslble from the road. If you Were 100 feet in the woods across from the property it would not. Mr. Franca asked if walking on the read 10 feet from the entrance that is within 100 feet, is that a good place for the sign.' He was aisualizIng no on sine locartlon if he had a driveway and looking 10 feet #nom the int8PSO pon since he could look dowm the driveway. So there Is going to be a Iccadcn he can see the (ace of the sign, He did not think that was going to be very helpful —kle- questioned -how- that - eras -worded -and- w.h@LMe- intent- is--.be-g uftsed-whot -she means is if he was 100 feet away from the entrarxe that he r;.nnot see the sign. ALBEMARLE COUNTY RLANHINO COMMISSION 4X- GEMBER 3, 3013 1$ FINAL bAIRUTES Ms. Bu"ge replied that is correct, fti+lr_ Franco questioned visible 100 feet from the entrance aB opposed to wtthln He asked for clarification of the wwrd 'Within' because that was the part he was corifused. aboub Ms_ McCulley asked what he would suggest VW is dear to achieve that- Mr. Franco relied if they mean at 1 DO feet from the entrance, then he would say at 100 feet from the entrance, Ms_ McCulley pointed out what they area rM Is any point within 100 fit of the entrance, Mr_ Franco saio again he would go back to if he was standing at the entrance and looking down the entrance road there Iias got to be a place for therm that is in the property. He did rrof tfaink that is acceptable and considered reasonable. Ails_ Burbage noled ft idea was at any poi mt from 100 fee# in- However, he was correct if all of a sudden, you can only -see ltre sign when you get right up on it, than that does not really take care of it_ Mr. Franw suggested maybe ik is not any point on the property, but is along the roadway of the property- Mr. Kani ptner suggested the last line read somothing Ilke no on else sign face located at the alte entrance would be viaibls from the road within 100 feet from the site entrance. That is the ccmcepL TMs language ontici pales the sign would be at " site entrance and they would determine the distance and its visi blllty from somebody who is on the road. He thinks those are the two ooncepts, whfch staff can clarify_ Mr. Morris opened the pubilc hearl ng and invited putAc comment, Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, said before he comments speolFically on this ordlnanc.e he has to tell them a quick story_ When he was at the AFB meeting three or four weeks ago the Crozet Ubrary came in and presented #ieir rendiadrngs_ The ARE saw there was a sign on the library acrd no sign permit had bean applied for because that is separate from the other panning process_ He had to wander since they have tyre same flrst name Albemarle NIIding Services and Albemarle Architectural Review Board. His point in that is they worked it out and It Is got N through to get app oval. Actually he thinks the If.brary is going to look very nice. However, when y" look at the approval method for the directional sign #tie goal of having the speoial use permit he believes is to mitigate the manner in which directional signs come forvua rd. That real ly+ is the g oa I_ He un,damtand s the 24 hour med ical si nce that seems to be by right and a life and death Issue. Why are ttrey exempting public tne? ,lust as he shared wffh the ,FRB example there are times in this bulldl ng as hard as It is to belkipm the right hand does not know what the left is doing- He thinks it would be proper for Albemarle Courrty to hold themseWa and their public use directional signs to #wB same standard that they are g of ng fps force commeraal property owners to go through. There being no furlher public comment, Mr_ Morris closed the public hearlrrg too bring the matter back before the Planning Commission for discussion and actiQn- ALSEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -DECEMBER I_ M13 14 FINAL MINUTES Mr_ Dotson said staff has worked really hard on this with lots of people involved. Fie thinks May have a good packet. However, it is uncharted territory In some sense so it would be nice to look at this again in two years and see how it is working. Motion_ Mr_ Franco moved and Mr. Randolph seoonded to reoornmend approval of ETA -2012- 0001 Q Off -Site Signs as recDmmended by staff With some tweaking of the language to address the conoeme raised in the discussion_ The motlori ,gas approved by 6:1, (S mith vaW nay) Mr. Smith voted no bacause there is just too much govemmerrt lFwolvement in 4W everybody is do ingi and the government has the right to put up all the segns that they want_ In summary, the Planning Commisslon recommended approval by a vote of GA (-Smith voted nay), of the draft ordinance irl Attachment A of the staff report, amended as follows_ Consider adding Ianrgaage to Ifmft the number of directional signs. 2. Revise the last tine regarding eligibiiltyr for directional signs to reed, "hlo onsite sign face located w the sfte enlrsnas would be visible from the road within 1 -DY of the site enh> mce_" Thls language anticipates the sign would be at the site entrance and they would determine the distance and its vislbility from someone that was on the road. Mr. Morris said the matter will go before the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for adoption on a date to be determlrred, Work Session ETA -201 3 -0 0 DD7 F I ood Hazard Overlay District ( FH 0113) - Rocom rn endatic ns Discussion oP proposed chariges to Flood Hazard Overlay District feguiations to maintain compliance with state standards and eligibility to parbolpate In the Federal Flood Insurance Program. (Attie) is McCulley) The Planning Commission held a work session to set general direction and provide feedba.ek, Glean Brooks and Amelia McCulley presented a PowerPoint presentation entitled ZTA 2D13- OCHDO7 T Flood Hazard CNeflay District (FH00� - Plann ing Commission Work Session_ Background • Flood Insurance rate map (FIRM) related to the Scottsville levee has been revised to reflect provisiorial acoeptance, The Zoning regulations need to be remised to refer to the rrew flood map and this initiates a review of our flood rag ulations (Zoning and Subdivision) by the Virginia Department of Donaervatian and Recreation (DDR) for compliance wife this minimum federal regulatory standards. In addition to the mandated provisions such as definitions, procedures and formatting, we are reaommendIng clarifloafion and revlslon to regulations that are currently problematic. The amended regulations must be adopW no Wer than April 2, 2D14 in order #or Albemade to remain in the federal flood insurance program. Sackg rou nd a nd I ntroducti n n ALIBEMOLRLE C❑UNTY FLAINNING COMMISSION - WOnMBER 3. 2013 1s FINAL WHILNES ' Albemarle County Planning Commission February 12, 2013 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public healing on Tuesday, February 12, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Ed Smith, Bruce Dotson, Don Franco, Thomas Loach, Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chairman, and Calvin Morris, Chairman. Mr. Franco arrived at 6:19 p.m. Absent was Richard Randolph. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present. Other officials present were Andrew Sorrell, Senior Planner, Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director of Zoning /Zoning Administrator; Amanda Burbage, Senior Planner; Stewart Wright, Permits Planner; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public: Mr. Morris invited comment from the, public on other matters not listed on the agenda. • 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. There being no further comments, the meeting moved to the next agenda item. Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting —February 6, 2013 Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the actions taken by the Board of Supervisors on February 6, 2013. The Commission requested staff to bring the Community Development Work Program to the Commission for discussion at a future Commission meeting. Work Sessions ZTA- 2012 -00010 Off -Site Signs Review and Discussion of Proposed Ordinance Changes to Provisions for Off -site Signs (Amanda Burbage /Amelia McCulley) 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) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 12, 2013 FINAL MINUTES 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 Enviromnental 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. 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 should think through some more real world examples. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 12, 2013 FINAL MINUTES 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. Work Session CPA - 2013 -00001 Comprehensive Plan Update - 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), Natasha 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. There being no public comment, the matter was before the Planning Commission for discussion. 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 ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - FEBRUARY 12, 2013 FINAL MINUTES BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TENTATIVE DECEMBER 4, 2013 COUNTY OFFICE BUILDING 9:00 A.M. — AUDITORIUM 1. Call to Order. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3. Moment of Silence. 4. Adoption of Final Agenda. 5. Brief Announcements by Board Members. 6. Recognitions: a) 2013 VACO Go Green Virginia Challenge Award. 7. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda. 8. Consent Agenda (on next sheet). Discussion /Action Items: 9. FY 2012 -2013 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). 10. Economic Development Program (continued discussion). Presentations: 11. Charlottesville Albemarle Convention and Visitors Bureau (CACVB) 2013 Annual Report. 12. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) Update, Gary O'Connell. 13. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority_(RWSA) Update, Tom Frederick. 14. Closed Meeting. 15. Certify Closed Meeting. 16. Boards and Commissions: Vacancies /Appointments. 1:30 p.m. - Public Hearing: 17. Proposed Ordinance to Establish Auxiliary Police Force. Ordinance to amend Chapter 2, Administration, Article V, Law Enforcement, of the Albemarle County Code, by amending Section 2 -504, Volunteer community service force, to clarify the function and the insurance coverage of the community service force volunteers, and by adding Section 2 -505, Auxiliary police force, to establish an auxiliary police force under the direction of the chief of police pursuant to Virginia Code Section 15.2 -1731. 18. — Agricultural and Forestal Districts. Ordinance to amend Division 2, Districts, of Article II, Districts of Statewide Significance, of Chapter 3, Agricultural and Forestal Districts, of the Albemarle County Code, to add lands to certain districts and to make corrections to certain district regulations to identify all those tax map parcels within the districts, as specified below: a) AFD- 2013 -1. Ivy Creek AFD — District Review. The proposed ordinance would amend Section 3 -217, Ivy Creek Agricultural and Forestal District, to identify TMP 44 -21 C(part) as being in the district (land from a parcel in the district was transferred to this parcel, the remainder of which is not in the district), to identify TMP 44- 35(part) as being in the district (land not in the district was added to this parcel, resulting in only part of this parcel being in the district), to continue the district for all parcels identified in the district regulations, to set the next district review deadline date of December 4, 2023, and to remove any parcels for which a request for withdrawal is received before the Board acts on the proposed ordinance; b) AFD- 2013 -2. Keswick AFD — Addition. The proposed ordinance would amend Section 3 -219, Keswick Agricultural and Forestal District, to add TMPs 65-14A-and 65 -14A1 to the district; c) AFD - 2013 -3 and 2013 -4. Hardware AFD — Addition. The proposed ordinance would amend Section 3 -214, Hardware Agricultural and Forestal District, to add TMPs 74 -6H and 88- 3U to the district; d) AFD- 2013 -5 and 2013 -6. Glen Oaks AFD — Addition. The proposed ordinance would amend Section 3- 213.5, Glen Oaks Agricultural and Forestal District, to add TMPs 93A5- K2A11, 93A5 -K2Al2 and 93A5 -K2A13 to the district; e) AFD- 2013 -7. Jacobs Run AFD — Addition. The proposed ordinance would amend Section 3- 218. Jacobs Run Agricultural and Forestal District, to add TMP 19A -22 to the district; and f) AFD- 2013 -8. Totier Creek AFD — Addition. The proposed ordinance would amend Section 3- 227, Totier Creek Agricultural and Forestal District, to add TMP 127 -39 to the district. 19. ZTA- 2013 - 00003. Dam Break Inundation Zones. Ordinance to amend Chapter 18, Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle County Code by adding regulations pertaining to proposed development within dam break inundation zones, as required by State law. This ordinance would amend Sec. 18 -3.1, Definitions, by adding definitions, Secs. 18- 32.4.1.3, Contents of preapplication plan, and 18- 32.5.2, Contents of an initial site plan, by requiring information pertaining to dam break inundation zones be shown on those plans, and Sec. 18- 32.4.2.8, Effect of approval of initial site plan on other future and pending approvals, to refer to new Sec. 18- 32.8.6, Dam break inundation zones; prerequisites to development. New Sec. 18- 32.8.6 imposes requirements before development may occur in dam break inundation zones, as required by State law. In addition to adding Sec. 18- 32.8.6, this ordinance would add Sec. 18- 32.5.6, Dam break inundation zones, to impose certain requirements on the site review committee when reviewing a site plan in a dam break inundation zone, and Sec. 18- 32.6.4, Dam break inundation zones; engineering study and mapping information, which requires the developer to submit an engineering study and mapping information in prescribed circumstances. This ordinance also would make a technical amendment to Sec. 18- 32.8.1, Completion of on -site improvements required prior to final site plan approval, to provide that required improvements must be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy and amend Sec. 35.1, Fees, to impose the minimum fee required by Virginia Code § 15.2- 2243.1 related to the developers' share of the contract -ready costs for necessary upgrades to an impounding structure, which fee is one percent of total amount of payment or one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), whichever is less. 20. STA- 2012 - 00002. Subdivision Plat Process Improvements. Ordinance to amend Chapter 14, Subdivision of Land, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would add and delete definitions (Sec. 106, Definitions), amend the requirements and procedures for administering Chapter 14 and the procedures for submitting, reviewing and acting on subdivision plats, easement plats, and related variations and exceptions (Secs. 14 -200 through 14- 231.1), including eliminating planning commission review of plats except on appeal from an action by the agent and requests for certain variations or exceptions, requiring an approved valid preliminary plat prior to submitting a final plat for certain classes of subdivisions, reorganizing such regulations, deleting certain fee classifications for processes no longer required and amending the terminology of other fee classifications (Sec. 14 -203, Fees) and to impose the minimum fee required by Virginia Code § 15.2- 2243.1 related to the subdividers' share of the contract -ready costs for necessary upgrades to an impounding structure, which fee is one percent of total amount of payment or one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), whichever is less; amending the regulations pertaining to plat requirements (Secs. 14 -300 through 14 -318) by making technical corrections and adding requirements for information for stream crossings (Sec. 14 -307, Stream crossings) and dam break inundation zones by imposing requirements on the site review committee when reviewing a preliminary plat for development in a dam break inundation zone (Sec. 14- 307.1, Dam break inundation zones) and requiring the subdivider to submit an engineering study and mapping information in prescribed circumstances. (Sec. 14 -318, Dam break inundation zones; engineering study and mapping information); amending the regulations pertaining to onsite improvements and design (Sec. 14 -400 through 14 -441) by making technical corrections, amending those sections authorizing waivers to instead authorize "variations or exceptions," updating regulations pertaining to securing improvements and the release of security (Secs. 14 -435 through 14 -436), and adding regulations pertaining to dam break inundation zones which impose requirements before development may occur in dam break inundation zones, as required by State law (Sec. 14 -441, Dam break inundation zones; prerequisites to development). In addition to the foregoing regulations pertaining to dam break inundation zones, this ordinance would amend Sec. 14 -302, Contents of preliminary plat, to require information pertaining to dam break inundation zones be shown on plats and, the regulations in new Sec. 14 -225, Effect of approval of preliminary plat on other future and pending approvals, would refer to new Sec. 14- 441, Dam break inundation zones; prerequisites to development. 21. Arrowhead Farm Acquisition. 22. Five -Year Financial Plan — Work Session. 23. From the Board: Committee Reports and Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 24. From the County Executive: Report on Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. 25. Adjourn to December 11, 2013, 4:00 p.m., if needed. CONSENT AGENDA FOR APPROVAL: 8.1 Approval of Minutes: August 7 and August 14(A), 2013. 8.2 FY 2014 Budget Amendment and Appropriations. 8.3 Earlysville Volunteer Fire Company, Application to Operate as Advanced Life Support (ALS) EMS Transport Agency. 8.4 Project Based Vouchers: The Crossings at 4`" and Preston. FOR INFORMATION: 8.5 December 2013 VDOT Charlottesville Residency Monthly Report for Albemarle County. 8.6 Board -to- Board, December, 2013 Monthly Communications Report from School Board, School Board Chairman. 8.7 Copy of letter dated November 15, 2013, from Francis H. MacCall, Principal Planner, to Frank Pohl, re: LOD- 2013 -00022 — OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCEL OF RECORD, Tax Map 56A 1 -01, Parcel 74 (property of John H. Jr., or Jennifer B. Hilker), White Hall Magisterial District. 8.8 Copy of letter dated November 15, 2013, from Ronald L. Higgins, Chief of Zoning /Deputy Zoning Administrator, to Evergreen 651 LLC (c /o Therese Elron) re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION OF PARCELS, Tax Map Parcel 059D1 -02 -OH -01400 (property of Evergreen 61 LLC), Samuel Miller Magisterial District. CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK AT PUBLIC HEARINGS ONLY Return to Top ofAgenda Return to Board of Supervisors Home Page Return to County Home Page Albemarle County Planning Commission June 26, 2012 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday, June 26, 2012, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Richard Randolph, Bruce Dotson, Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Don Franco, Calvin Morris, Chair; and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was present. Other officials present were Joanne Tu Purtsezova, Planner; Ron Lilly, Office of Facilities Management; Dan Eggleston, Fire Chief, Summer Frederick, Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission; Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; Stewart Wright, Permits Planner; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator/ Director of Zoning; Ron White, Director of Housing; Margaret Maliszewski, Design Planner; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public: Mr. Morris invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda. There being none, the meeting moved to the next item. Consent Agenda Approval of Minutes: March 20, 2012 There being no requests to pull any item on the consent agenda, Mr. Morris asked for a motion. Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Smith seconded for approval of the consent agenda. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Mr. Morris said the consent agenda had been approved unanimously. Regular Item: SDP - 2012 -00015 Ivy Fire Station at Kirtley Warehouse — Minor PROPOSAL: Parking space grade waiver associated with a request for a minor site plan amendment to convert the existing Kirtley Warehouse to a fire station. A critical slopes waiver (was approved at the May 2, 2012 Board of Supervisors meeting). Parking space grade waiver (is for grades greater than five percent in the parking area per Section 4.12.2(C)2 of the Zoning Ordinance ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 FINAL MINUTES ZONING: LI — Light Industrial — industrial, office, and limited commercial uses (no residential use) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 1 - Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit /acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes SECTION: 18 -32 Site Plan; 18 -27 Light Industry; 18- 4.12.15C Maximum 5% Grade for Parking; 18- 4.12.2(C)2; 18 -1.4 Safety and Welfare LOCATION: 642 Kirtley Lane off of Ivy Rd. between the Volvo dealership and the Northridge medical complex TAX MAP /PARCEL: 05900- 00- 00 -023B1 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Samuel Miller (Joanne Tu Purtsezova) Ms. Purtsezova presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report. The item before the Planning Commission is a parking space grade waiver associated with the proposed Ivy Station at the Kirtley Warehouse site just off of Ivy Road. The request is for seven (7) additional parking spaces extending from existing, nonconforming parking spaces in the travelway between the Volvo dealership and the Northridge medical complex, which is Kirtley Lane. Please note that the Ivy Fire Station minor site plan amendment is under ministerial review by staff and is NOT before the Planning Commission at this time. Request: • Seven (7) additional parking spaces with a 12.7% average grade • The existing nonconforming parking spaces range from 11% to 12% grade • The proposed parking spaces range about the same • A parking space grade waiver per 31.8, which allows the Board of Supervisors to approve modifications to the 5% maximum grade limit for parking areas under 4.12.15c. Because staff is recommending denial they are requesting Planning Commission review and provide a recommendation • Section 4.12.15c limits the maximum grade of parking areas to 5 %, but the request is for an average grade of 12.7 %. • Section 31.8 gives the Board of Supervisors sole authority to approve waivers. Staff has reviewed the request against 4.12.2(c)2 and 1.4, but the Board of Supervisors does not need to make specific findings in support of its final decision Staff reviewed slides showing views of the existing conditions on site. To either side of the travel way there are parking spaces that are nonconforming and have not been reviewed explicitly by staff. However, they were looked at as existing conditions with the site plan in 2008 for the North Ridge Complex. Staff displayed views of the warehouse proposed for the Ivy Fire Station. The addresses are 640, 642 and 644 Kirtley Lane. As a comparison the approved spaces that have been reviewed by staff are very flat, whereas the nonconforming ones go upward to Ivy Road. FACTORS FAVORABLE: 1. The proposed parking exceeding 5% would be for employees only associated with the hospital only. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 FINAL MINUTES 2. The seven additional spaces would be similar in character /grade to the existing, non- conforming spaces along the travelway. 3. A maximum grade of 13% has been approved administratively before for a driveway; however, conditions and expectations for the use of a driveway are different than for a parking. FACTORS UNFAVORABLE: 1. Engineering recommends denial 2. A finding that the waiver would better serve public safety, health, and welfare cannot be made. 3. Public safety and property damage concerns, particularly in inclement weather. 4. A maximum parking space grade greater than 10% has never been approved. Staff is concerned primarily with inclement weather conditions: slippery and slick conditions while passengers and drivers are getting in and out of their cars. Staff cannot find that the waiver would better serve public health and safety. In addition, engineering and planning have checked and a maximum parking space grade waiver has never been approved for more than 10 %. Mr. Morris invited questions. Mr. Loach asked how many compliant parking spaces are down at the bottom close to the warehouse. Ms. Purtsezova replied that she thought it was between 11 to 14 parking spaces. Mr. Loach said if they are going to have one engine down there, then they are talking about 3 to 5 persons. Therefore, they have enough parking spaces. Mr. Benish noted this is not parking that is required for the fire station. Mr. Loach said that was the one point he wanted to make. He has trouble with this only because of the engineering documentation. On page 5 it says since the Ivy Fire Station is proposed at this location at 13 percent maximum grade the travel lane may be potentially dangerous. The loss of health or property is a danger such as during inclement weather the hazardous parking conditions that otherwise could possibly be preventable accidents. Then it goes on to say the maximum parking grade space greater than 10 percent has never been approved. With that recommendation and those caveats he was not sure how he could feel comfortable in supporting it. Mr. Lafferty noted one of the concerns was it was perpendicular parking. He realized the slope was a problem. He asked could they go to diagonal parking and put dividers so that people could walk in between. Another thought is whether this is in any way grandfathered in. He knows it has been passed through several committees before and no action has been taken. Ms. Purtsezova said he believed he had two questions. One is whether this can be grandfathered in. The second question is whether perpendicular spaces or any other alternatives would be possible. The applicant has provided a little bit of information on that. They have said that it is not possible. They do propose on the site plan to use permeable pavers. She did not know if ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 FINAL MINUTES that makes a difference. As far as grandfathered in she did not know how they could grandfather something that was never explicitly authorized. Mr. Benish said they were asking for the new parking spaces. So the existing spaces will stay. The ones shown in the pictures will not change and will stay. The request is to add seven additional spaces. Any other configuration (parallel or diagonal) that would provide additional space, the applicant may best explain. However, one of the goals is just a need for more parking spaces in the general North Ridge area. They are only asking for seven parking spaces. So any reconfiguration that would reduce means they don't gain very much. There is probably some concern about the practicality of the request if they have to widen the spaces, resulting in only three or four parking spaces. He is sure that Ron Lilley has looked at some options and can answer the question. Mr. Lafferty said the actual fire department does not need additional spaces. Mr. Benish replied this is related to the site plan to approve the fire station, but this request is really from the Health Science Foundation to augment their parking. It is part of looking at the larger site there including North Ridge and LTECH. Mr. Dotson asked if Health Sciences itself is requesting this as a state agency would they be coming to us. Ms. Monteith noted that it was Health Services and it is a foundation and they are not an agency. Mr. Randolph asked if this was in fact just a business entity would they have come to a even more rapid conclusion understanding that this parking is to be used for employees for a fire station, which is a public service, that because of the critical slopes that this should absolutely be denied. He asked if they would have even greater degree of firmness about it or the same degree of firmness. Mr. Benish replied that staff would follow the same process. Mr. Randolph said he wanted that on the record that there is no differentiation between the two and that they coming to this conclusion based on the merits of the application. Mr. Benish said that is the way staff has reviewed it. They have looked at it as any other request. There being no further questions, Mr. Morris opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission. Ron Lilley, with the County's Office of Facilities Development representing the applicant in this case, said that in an agreement with the University of Virginia to use a portion of Kirtley Warehouse they agreed to take a site plan forward for the necessary site changes there, which are essentially parking configuration changes and to try to obtain additional parking spaces in this row of seven as part of an agreement. There was no hard and fast promise that this is going to be provided when it was discussed. Frankly, it was not realized that a waiver was necessary for those spaces. The spaces would be used by the University for employees at primarily LTECH and that then frees up some of the spaces that would be needed down at the lower end of the site ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 FINAL MINUTES for the fire station and other sort of site users. He hoped that clarifies that. That is why the County is taking forward something really on the University's behalf. Mr. Lilley noted that they do have a segment of parking down at the lower end that would be permeable pavers, which have a little better traction. However, the segment they are talking about here would just be regular asphalt just like the spaces that would be extended. He hoped there is no confusion about that. From an applicant's point of view the concern for health, safety, welfare is certainly understood and he knows the University does as well. They would take the position that with the existing context of a row of 18 spaces it is pretty much like it in an existing lane that is going downhill. There is no change to the grade of the lane. Adding a segment of seven spaces is a fairly minor adjustment to an existing situation that is sensible in a case where parking is necessary. It is not to say that this would make it right, but when you look at the alternatives people may park in places that are less safe. He would take that into account. He thinks for the most part it is within the existing context with the understanding that the University is trying to do all they can to provide reasonable parking. He would ask for consideration of that. He would also say on the health safety thing that there is a bit of common sense for people who park there. As far as he knows there have been no incidents of people who park there getting up the grade or having any cross traffic concern there. They did look at alternatives of whether it would be angled or perhaps moving the proposed bay of spaces further back so they could transition to a flatter surface. But that brings its own set of problems, namely getting further into slopes and having a portion of the row of parking further inset and perhaps creating safety issues that are worse as a result of not being in line with the rest of the parking there. He appreciates the Commission's consideration in the context. Fire Chief Dan Eggleston is here for any questions. He might choose to speak to the need and the understanding with the University. To address technical questions Craig Kotarski is here from Timmons Engineering. Mr. Morris invited questions for the applicant. Mr. Smith noted that he had answered one of his questions about any accidents. Today he called a gentleman from the University that is involved with this situation and asked him about any incidents or accidents and he said there was no record of anything in the last 4 years. He knew they have had one bad winter in the last four years. Mr. Lilley said he could understand where someone trying to make it up a lane of a substantial slope could have an issue. Although he knows it happens on lesser slopes as well. He has not been aware of any accidents that are posed here. Mr. Franco asked what the width of space is. Mr. Lilley replied that he believed the spaces were 9'. Mr. Franco asked if there is room enough to go to 10'. Craig Kotarski, with Timmons Group, replied that there is not room to go to 10 without reducing the number of spaces. Mr. Morris invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the Planning Commission. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 FINAL MINUTES Mr. Smith said as the representative of the Samuel Miller District he was in favor of the request. He realized the slopes do not meet county standards. History has proven that what is there has worked. He even questioned the gentleman this morning from the University why they even applied because nobody ever applied before. He asked why they did not go ahead and start using it. Are they going to tell them that they can't do it? He said they can do it since it has been done before. He has been up and down the road many times and he supports the request. He moved for approval of the request. Mr. Franco said since the parking spaces are not required again there is not the same situation as a shopping center where there would be shopping carts and they would be worried about things getting away and hitting cars. He would be more comfortable at 10' so there was a little bit more room for doors to swing. However, he was out there today and was able to open his car door without any problem and close the car door on the other side as well. He tends to support the request again mainly because it is not a required set of parking. He would probably be more in favor if they could label it "employees only" so that it is something they know is going to be used just by the employees. He knows it is separated as far as an entrance goes, but he can support this. He seconded the motion. Mr. Morris noted that there was a motion and second for approval. He invited further discussion. Mr. Lafferty pointed out he was for the fire department having a place there. However, they are being asked to go against the recommendation of the engineering department and the recommendation of our own planning division. If it were a 7/11 could we do this? Mr. Loach said what he was hearing as the conflict was they actually have two divisions of government presenting conflicting views and opinions. One is from the engineering department saying this is a safety and health issue. The one that they just heard was that common sense should allow us to overcome that, which is the problem. It may be right that there have not been any accidents. The problem is, and perhaps he spends too much time in court, is that all they need is one accident. Then the other problems they have are suppose they have an accident that is blocking the egress of the fire trucks. The language in the report from the engineering department is the reason he could not support it. Mr. Randolph agreed with Mr. Loach. Mr. Dotson said he visited the site today and it seemed workable. However, he worried about the precedent if they waive a standard to this extent how do they say no to the next request. Mr. Morris agreed that was a good point. That really sums up his feelings. It seems that they should not be recommending to the Board of Supervisors something that goes so far beyond our standard at this particular time. He invited further discussion. Mr. Franco suggested that they better understand the concern about the accidents and blocking. They are adding a couple more spaces, but they are not changing the travel way. So there may be a little bit more activity there. In his mind as far as health and safety goes they already have people walking up and down that slope. Again, maybe they are adding some more people to that slope with the extra parking spaces. However, if the driveway in general is in this 12% to 13% range and people are parking at the bottom and walking up it he was not sure he sees a whole lot of difference of having a couple more spaces other than the fact that they would have a couple ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 6 FINAL MINUTES more opportunities to have problems there. Again, he goes with the fact that it has been sitting there and has been working. It is not really being required for the required parking spaces. They have the ability to control it with signage. It is on the opposite side of the building from the patient parking. He was not sure he sees the same consequence as a 7/11 where they might be asking for additional parking. Mr. Loach said that Mr. Franco may very well be right. If the language was not such in the report he would probably go along and may be use the common sense scenario as presented tonight. That said that is not the case that is before us now with the recommendation for denial from engineering. He questioned if the county wants to take the position that they will assume the increased liability because of this. That was the other thing; too, that he was not sure what he was hearing from the position of the county and the assumption of such liability. Not only as Mr. Dotson pointed out to us that we break precedent but if the language was such that it gave him some feeling that it has more of a grade but they don't see it as being problematic even though there is the potential. But, the language is fairly clear in the report. Mr. Smith said he had a question for staff. What happens if somebody parks there on the grass? Mr. Benish replied he was not sure he would park there given its existing condition there. That is at someone's risk. Mr. Franco said he thought they would have to regrade the site to make it accessible because it is coming up from the back of pavement. It is not really going to work. Mr. Lafferty said it was mentioned before that Volvo dealership uses parking in there. In one of the photographs there is parking on both sides. He asked if there is any way to take the Volvo parking and have it serve the purpose. Ms. Purtsezova replied she was not sure whether the Volvo dealership is inclined to do that. However, she did know there may be a shared parking agreement with the Korean Community Church, which is also listed as a minor request. However, it was recently withdrawn, but the project is still in process. Mr. Benish noted that they were not aware of the arrangement. As far as staff can tell, the county has never approved those sites. In the LTECH site plan it did recognize that existing travel way, Kirtley Lane, and the spaces on it. There was never an actual approval of those. Any arrangement that have been made with Volvo and the other property owners is probably a private agreement. So he does not know if that is possible or not. Mr. Franco said there was one other thing that puts it in context for him. When he was on site he had his wife drive him over there. When he opened the passenger side and his wife opened the driver's side he asked her what she thought about it. Her comment was that it was not nearly as bad as some of the spaces downtown in the parking lots. An example is where they have the farmer's market and things like that. So these spaces exist in places and for the limited number that it is it helped him feel more comfortable. Mr. Randolph pointed out that this is the county and not the city. Mr. Morris asked that the role be called. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 7 FINAL MINUTES Restated Motion: Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Smith seconded to recommend approval of the parking space grade waiver associated with SDP - 2012 -015 Ivy Fire Station at Kirtley Warehouse. The motion failed by a vote of 2:5. (Franco, Smith voted aye) (Lafferty, Loach, Morris, Dotson and Randolph voted nay.) Mr. Lafferty voted nay because of the recommendation of the engineering department. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that the Commission actually needs to take another motion because to make the recommendation they need something affirmative to go on to the Board. Motion: Mr. Dotson moved and Mr. Loach seconded to recommend denial of the parking space grade waiver associated with SDP - 2012 -015 Ivy Fire Station at Kirtley Warehouse based on the staff report recommendation. The motion passed by a vote of 5:2. (Franco, Smith voted nay) Mr. Morris noted that a recommendation for denial of the parking space grade waiver associated with SDP - 2012 -015 Ivy Fire Station at Kirtley Warehouse will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors to be heard on July l 11h Work Sessions: Off -Site Sins Discussion of the criteria and reviewing process for applications for special use permits for off - site signs. (Amelia McCulley) 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. (Amelia McCulley) Ms. McCulley, with the assistance of Steward Wright, presented a PowerPoint presentation entitled ZTA 2012 — 010 Off -Site Signs - Planning Commission Work Session Ms. McCulley noted in July, 1992 they first did a comprehensive rewrite of our sign ordinance. At that time they decided to reduce the height and size of signs, number of signs, and proliferation of signs. They basically wanted to outlaw billboards. What they did is they said by definition a billboard is an off -site sign that exceeds 32 square feet and any off -site sign requires a special use permit with some exceptions. She handed out a sketch for the Commission's reference as they discuss off -site signs. Staff forwarded an email from Ben Foster, local sign company owner. Mr. Foster recommends that off -site signs be an administrative review process and the criteria be based on the fact that the applicant cannot derive equivalent benefits from installing onsite signs. Background: / Off -Site Signs: Signs that are not located on the same lot with the use to which the sign pertains. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 FINAL MINUTES / Most off -site signs are allowed only by Special Use Permit (SP), except political, subdivision or temporary signs, signs within planned developments or off -site agricultural product signs. / Approval of an S.P. for an off -site sign does not allow an additional sign or additional sign area than is otherwise allowed for the property. Off -Site Sign Freestanding signage permitted in typical situations is one (1) sq ft sign per street frontage {can also be divided into two (2) signs not exceeding 16 sq ft each per entrance;. Approval of a special Use permit for an off -site sign to serve parcel B allows an off -site establishment to be listed on the signs allowed for parcel A. No additional signs or sign area is provided through the special permit. Parcel A qualifies for two freestanding signs. With a special use permit, parcel B can use part or all of one of the signs allotted to parcel A. The S.P. does not authorize an additional sign or a larger sign. It is a very confusing concept. Focused Discussion 1. Appropriate Qualifying Criteria; 2. Location from which the Sign should Effectively Communicate Its Message; and 3. The Approving Body Background / Off -site sign Special Use Permits are issued by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). / In addition to the general criteria applicable to an SP, current criterion requires a finding that the off -site sign is necessary "because an on -site sign would be ineffective to communicate its message off -site because of topography or vegetation." [Section 4.15.5 cl] ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 9 FINAL MINUTES Off -site sign special use permits are one of only three types of special use permits (all for signs) that the BOS has delegated to the BZA. The current criterion for an off -site sign is problematic: an on -site sign would be ineffective to communicate its message off -site because of topo or vegetation." Let's talk further about appropriate criteria. Qualifying Criteria / Current ordinance language is overly limiting in several aspects: a) justification is restricted to topography or vegetation and does not consider many other valid factors such as safety considerations; b) does not require applicant to exhaust other remedies such as using onsite signs, subdivision signs, VDOT signs, etc.; and c) treats all uses the same whether or not they have high public safety demands (such as a hospital or nursing home). The current ordinance language limits the qualification for an off -site sign to two factors. This does not consider many other valid factors such as safety considerations. It also does not require the applicant to exhaust other remedies for signage. Nor does it distinguish between uses as qualifying for an off -site sign. Qualifying Criteria a) Because many factors can impact the visibility of an on -site sign, staff recommends not limiting the factors that are beyond the applicant's control. b) In addition, we recommend that the applicant exhaust other remedies before applying for an off -site sign. c) Finally, justification based on the type of use makes some sense but can be problematic. Under (a), staff suggests that the qualifying factors should be those factors beyond the applicant's control rather than something, such as location of the sign, that is within his/her control. As a practice, (b) makes sure the off -site sign may be the only remedy because other options are exhausted. Under c), a distinction based on the public safety needs associated with the use can get complicated if it goes beyond a hospital. Location from which Sign should Effectively Communicate its Message / This is probably the greatest point of debate. The Board recently confirmed the intent for off -site signage is not way - finding or marketing on major roadways. Current ordinance language simply requires the sign to be visible from other properties. / Staff suggests that a sign should be visible from the primary access to the property because signs are oriented to motorists. With the ROI for this ordinance amendment, the BOS confirmed staff's statement of intent that off -site signs are not intended for way - finding or marketing on high - volume roadways. Staff discussed the Independence on Pantops, which was one of the applications that the BZA had for an off -site sign. The discussion was to illustrate how difficult it can be to try to figure out what is the point from which an on -site sign should be visible. Location from which Sign should Effectively Communicate its Message / If the subject property is located at the end of a road, an onsite sign at the primary access road serves limited purpose for directing traffic. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 10 FINAL MINUTES / To direct motorists, signage is helpful at major turning decisions but is not practical for every turn. For your consideration / Currently the Z.O. allows several types of signs which identify development with multiple establishments /tenants — residential subdivision signs, shopping center signs and planned development signs. The gap (and the SP for off -site sign) is for those establishments or tenants not located within a subdivision, shopping center or planned development. / One option is to create a new freestanding sign type available by- right, "development AM" This is not an additional sign. / The development sign must be located at the entrance to a road serving more than one parcel. The sign can list those tenants or businesses served by the access road. There would be very limited circumstances this would not serve and a special use permit would be necessary. The Approving Body / With a revised ordinance more clearly stating the intent and criteria for off -site signs, staff recommends that the BZA is the most appropriate approving body. We suggest that given the issue (an off -site sign shares onsite signage allowances), the review and timeline for a BZA application is more appropriate. Questions or Comments / Next step — draft ordinance language and set a public hearing with the Commission. Staff requested input from the Commission on the three issues: 1. Appropriate Qualifying Criteria; 2. Location from which the Sign should Effectively Communicate Its Message; and 3. The Approving Body Public comment was taken from the following person: Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, noted the peach signs in Crozet he followed to turn in to the location to purchase peaches. He wondered how that rural use of signage would fit because it certainly was not on -site. What is the goal of the off -site ordinance? What are they after? It seems like the idea of preferred uses challenges his way of thinking. There was a big discussion about not regulating content — he felt this needs to be about the signs and not about the content. When a business chooses their property for a hospital or other use the signage and visibility are part of their decision making. Should off -site signs have preferential treatment based on use? He tends to think not. He tends to think if they look at the ordinance as a mechanism to serve a purpose whether it is limiting the number with bundle signs or whatever it is, he thinks if the purpose is such that it is a uniform purpose the application should be uniform as well. 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. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - NNE 26, 2012 11 FINAL MINUTES I- For an emergency situation for signage — such as a road closing more than 24 hours- they need to create a class of signage to allow a business to stay in operation. Staff noted that there is provision for temporary signage and VDOT signage that can deal with this situation. 2- Be sensitive to needs of businesses coming into the county to allow their business to be competitive. 3- Solicit other localities similar in size to see how they handle off -site signs. It would be helpful to get their information. 4- Consideration should be given to the bundling of signs in one location in RA. 5- Agreed with staff's recommendation that the approving body should continue to be BZA since the process would be more timely. 6- Requested staff to work on development signs to possibly do a definition and come back to the Commission with examples. 7- Look at comparables and precedents of other communities and to understand how VDOT works to narrow approach. They have not narrowed the options enough to really understand how to approach this. It seems that understanding how the VDOT system works in terms of those blue signs would be helpful. 8- Signage should be administratively approved by staff as much as possible. 9- If something is truly unique maybe a variance is appropriate unless there is something in the ordinance that says they can't vary that. Important that they were exhausting on -site remedies. The idea is appropriate. Supports the BZA or the staff, but not the Planning Commission and the Board making these decisions. 10- The idea of a development sign sounds like something one might call a sign planning program even outside of Planned Districts where a group of people collaborate. One Commissioner called it a bundle sign. There was some support for bundle signs. 11-In our cell tower policy they were very careful to use the word visible. One Commissioner noted he gets a little nervous when they talk about "effectively" or "ineffectively" communicate since he did not know what that is. However, visible he did. 12- The extreme situation is that there are some businesses where it was assumed they pay less rent because they are on the back side. One comment was the sign ordinance should not make those primary spaces as if they were up on the main drag. 13- Don't want a "South of the Border" proliferation of off -site signs. 14- The health, safety, and welfare of the people of Albemarle County give them some ability to prioritize signage. 15- One thing that is a little off the subject but in the report again is the lack of staff. This keeps coming up that Albemarle County does not have adequate staff to do all the things that they are asking them to do or they have to do in their normal routine. The Commissioner was not saying go out and hire somebody, but noted it keeps coming up and somehow the Board of Supervisors needs to take this into account. 16- There was some discussion about having signage up for vineyards, having it all the same. Staff noted there is a fairly new provision for off -site signs by -right for agricultural products. The suggestion was made that the county might want to come up with some uniform sign and rent space instead of raising taxes. For different businesses they could have a uniform sign. No formal action was taken. Affordable Housing ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 FINAL MINUTES 12 As a follow -up to the March 20 report on affordable housing proffers, this work session includes responses to a number of questions from Planning Commissioners and a discussion of potential issues related to managing existing and crafting future proffers given significant changes in the housing development and financing markets. (Ron White) The Planning Commission held a work session on affordable housing as a follow -up to the March 20 Planning Commission meeting. The work session included responses to a number of questions from Planning Commissioners and a discussion of potential issues related to managing existing and crafting future proffers given significant changes in the housing development and financing markets. A summary of the questions related to addressing the affordable housing needs, types of units that are being built under the proffers and if these are addressing the needs, process and procedures, financing, and other mechanisms was provided. Also included was some other issues of which he brought to the Commission in the brief time they had together back in March. The following was initially noted by the Commission: • What form should the proffers take? • Should the proffers provide for actual housing units or monies in lieu of units? • What is our goal with the affordable housing policy? • Is there a lack of units now? Public Comment was taken from the following persons: - Neil Williamson, Free Enterprise Forum. He spoke to a concern that cost of cash proffers is paid by home buyers, but it does not always result in the production of new units as some of the cash is paid to rehabilitate existing housing stock. He felt that rehab is a great program, but proffer proceeds are the wrong bucket of money to help pay for it. He also expressed concern about the lack of deed restrictions or other mechanisms such as trust funds to assure that the value realized in the lower price of affordable housing for the initial buyer is passed on to subsequent owners of such housing. - Jeff Werner, Piedmont Environmental Council. He spoke to the need for more facts, figures, and sincerity in the conversation about affordable housing and who pays for it. He offered that it is a shared responsibility for the whole community and all have to talk honestly about how the issue can be addressed. The Commission noted the following: - Concern about County accepting cash in lieu of affordable units in the 15 percent proffers money vs. units. - Timeframe for people to have the opportunity to purchase proffered affordable units when made available. Look at programs that other localities have. - Need to understand how many affordable units are needed on a yearly basis. - Opportunity to exercise flexibility in moving from affordable units for purchase to affordable rental. Need to include the city in the discussion of demand and provision of affordable housing. The following are to be done as follow up: - Mr. White to send an electronic copy of the affordable housing proffers data to Mr. Cilimberg who will forward to Planning Commissioners. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 13 FINAL MINUTES - The Housing Committee has been disbanded. A work group reviewing Affordable Housing policies is being formed. Mr. White will notify Mr. Cilimberg and the two volunteers from the Planning Commission (Don Franco and Rick Randolph) of the meeting dates. No formal action taken. The Planning Commission took a break at 8:03 p.m. and the meeting reconvened at 8:12 p.m. Livability Proiect Goals Topics for Joint Comprehensive Plan Goals: Historic Preservation, Entrance Corridors, and Environmental Resources. (Summer Frederick) The Planning Commission held a work session to set general direction on three of the identified topics identified both through the public workshops and at the last joint Planning Commission meeting with the City where the City and County could come up with language that would be reflective of each other in the individual comprehensive plans. Summer Frederick, with Thomas Jefferson Planning District and Elaine Echols, County Principal Planner, presented a PowerPoint presentation on the three joint comp plan goals. Margaret Maliszewski, Design Planner, was present to answer questions. Each topic was discussed with the Commission with staff requesting feedback from the Planning Commission on the following questions. The Planning Commission provided guidance and direction in response to staffs questions regarding Joint City /County Comprehensive Plan Goals regarding Historic Preservation, Entrance Corridors, and Environmental Resources as summarized below: Historic Preservation: Given the City and County's differing approaches to historic preservation, are there opportunities for the City and County to create joint goal statements related to Historic Preservation? Historic Preservation Comments from PC • There needs to be a map of places worth commemorating and remembering and seeing • We should continue with voluntary efforts rather than adopting a historic landmark ordinance and using regulatory methods — except for Mr. Dotson. Mr. Dotson was not at the point of saying he had made up his mind that a strictly voluntary approach is the only thing they ought to talk about. He was open- minded at this point and did not know. • We need to take advantage of historic tourism opportunities and need maps for City and County cultural and historic resources and landscapes. • Maybe put world heritage sites, presidential houses on that map • Perhaps provide a map of historic trails. It is about educational opportunities. • Cultural landscape is important to preserve • Staff potentially needs to map conservation easements also and archeology • Mr. Franco: We need more measureable goals on conservation easements ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 14 FINAL MINUTES • Mr. Randolph: we need an inventory of historic resources such as historic structures • Ms. Monteith: the districts are a good way to go because the pressure to designate landmarks isn't so great • We need to see minutes of each others' (City and County PC) meetings • Staff should map historical markers Natural Resources and Cultural Assets — contains commitments — (don't forget these) when reducing bulk Conclusion: The County and City should work together to create a map of environmental, cultural, and historic assets together for public to see and potential tourist benefit Entrance Corridors: Is having two different approaches to maintaining and enhancing the Entrance Corridors appropriate? Are there opportunities for the City and County to develop joint goals related to Entrance Corridors? Comments from PC Mr. Dotson — • ECs are the threads that tie us together • How do we link environmental corridors with the City? • Mr. Franco — Avon Street EC is a good example of land use changes and design changes between the City and County Conclusion: Staff should compare the City guidelines to the County guidelines — are they similar? Are they different? If they are the same, perhaps write them similarly for ease of use in both localities Environment: - Water Quality - Air Quality - Development Area Tree Coverage Environment: Are there opportunities for the City and County to create joint goals to ensure high water quality within shared waterways? Is a joint Comprehensive Plan goal related to air quality appropriate? Is a Comprehensive Plan goal related to expanding and maintaining tree coverage in the Development Areas Appropriate? Environmental Comments from PC Environment — Water /Air /Tree Coverage • Maybe we should have an affirmation from the City that we have a strong relationship ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 15 FINAL MINUTES • Mr. Franco — what are the City standards for water protection? Are they different from ours? Are there joint City- County regional stormwater basins? • Ms. Monteith — the upcoming TMDL (Total Maximum Dail) regulations proposed for the Chesapeake Bay communities are going to make them the same Air Quality • Check in with Steve Williams on thresholds before we have to address the solutions with regulatory measures • Mr. Lafferty — to reduce pollution, limit the amount of driving and promote multi -modal transportation and the use of bicycles. He noted that the City has been more proactive because they own their own roads. In the County it is more difficult when the property rights go up to the center of the road to expand and put in bicycle lanes. Conclusion: Get information on air pollution from Steve Williams before doing anything else related to air quality Additional conclusion relating to environmental resources: The City and the County should affirm their relationship which benefits both localities. Old Business Mr. Morris asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting proceeded. New Business Mr. Morris asked if there was any new business. • No meetings July 3, 2012 and July 10, 2012 • Next regularly scheduled meeting Tuesday, July 17, 2012 There being no further business, the meeting proceeded. Adjournment With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 9:27 p.m. to Tuesday, July 17, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission & Planning Boards) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - JUNE 26, 2012 16 FINAL MINUTES FINAL ACTIONS Planning Commission Meeting of April 23, 2013 AGENDA ITEM /ACTION FOLLOW -UP ACTION 1. Call to Order. Meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. by Calvin Morris, Chairman. PC members present were Mr. Morris, Mr. Loach, Mr. Dotson, Mr. Randolph, Mr. Franco, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Lafferty. Ms. Monteith was present. Staff present was Andy Sorrell, Elaine Echols, Summer Frederick, Scott Clark, David Benish, Sharon Taylor, and Greg Kamptner. 2. Work Session Staff: Refer to feedback /direction noted in Attachment 1 CPA - 2013 -00001 Comprehensive Plan in further work on the Comp Plan Update. Update (Minutes will provide greater detail) The worksession discussion to be continued at In a work session staff reviewed the first next week's meeting on April 30. four sections and highlighted comments from the public, to date and reviewed the following four topics: • Values and Vision • Growth Management and Sustainability • Introduction and Background • Natural Resources The Commission discussed and provided feedback and comments to be taken into consideration and requested a future work session for continued discussions on April 30. No formal action taken. Due to time restraints public comment was deferred to other matters not on the agenda. The Planning Commission recessed at 5:38 p.m. The Planning Commission reconvened to the regular meeting at 6:01 p.m. 3. Call to Order. Regular meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m. by Calvin Morris, Chairman. PC members present were Mr. Morris, Mr. Loach, Mr. Dotson, Mr. Randolph, Mr. Franco, Mr. Smith, and Mr. Lafferty. Ms. Monteith left the meeting at 5:38 p.m. Staff present was Trevor Henry, Andy Sorrell, Scott Clark, Brent Nelson, Mandy Burbage, Amelia McCulley, David Benish, Sharon Taylor, and Greg Kamptner. 4. From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Clerk: Draft PC Action Memo 4 -23 -2013 Submit to Planning Commission Public Hearing on the Agenda. No action required Charles Battig presented comments in a letter dated April 23, 2013 regarding concerns with Stonefield traffic, definition and scope of Monticello's viewshed; and enforcement and new restrictive zoning codes. (Attachment A filed with written minutes 4. Consent Agenda Clerk: Adopted Resolution of Intent: Dam Breakage — a. Resolution of Intent: Dam Breakage Directed staff to proceed and schedule the public (Mandy Burbage) hearing on the resolution of intent on the b. Approval of Minutes: 08 -28 -2012 amendment to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. APPROVED CONSENT AGENDA, by a Finalize minutes for signature vote of 7:0. 5. Deferred Item Clerk: Action Letter — Recommend approval of SP -2012- SP- 2012 -00032 Bellair CSA 32 with staff's recommended conditions as PROPOSED: Special events in and around outlined in Attachment 2. existing barn The Commission suggested that staff confirm with ZONING CATEGORY /GENERAL USAGE: the applicant that all activities they desire to RA, Rural Areas- agricultural, forestal, and undertake with the special events on -site can be fishery uses; residential density (0.5 done and meet the recommended conditions of unit /acre in development lots) approval 3. SECTION: 10.2.2.50, which allows for The matter will be scheduled for public hearing Special events (reference 5.1.43) with the Board of Supervisors on a date to be COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND determined. USE /DENSITY: Rural Areas in Rural Area 4 - Preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (.5 unit/acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: No LOCATION: 5363 Bellair Farm TAX MAP /PARCEL: 11300- 00 -00- 01000, 11300- 00- 00- 003A0, 11300 -00 -00 -00800 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville DEFERRED FROM MARCH 19, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING (Scott Clark) RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SP -2012- 32, by a vote of 7:0, with the conditions outlined in the staff report and the recommendations of staff to ensure agricultural activities that are appropriate to the site are guaranteed to the owner. 7. Public Hearing Item Clerk: Action Letter — Recommend approval of SP -2013- SP- 2013 - 00003 — Verizon 00003 as recommended by staff with the Wireless /Simeon /Orrock Property - Tier conditions outlined in Attachment 3. III Personal Wireless Service Facility PROPOSAL: Request for installation of a The matter will be scheduled for public hearing 97' tall monopole structure and associated with the Board of Supervisors on a date to be round equipment on 15.61 acres. No Draft PC Action Memo 4 -23 -2013 Submit to Planning Commission dwellings proposed determined. ZONING CATEGORY /GENERAL USAGE: RA Rural Areas - agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit /acre in development lots), and Entrance Corridor (EC) Overlay to protect properties of historic, architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of development along routes of tourist access. SECTION: Chapter 18 Section 10.2.2.48 of the Albemarle County Code, which allows for Tier III personal wireless service facilities (reference 5.1.40) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas in Rural Area 4 — preserve and protect agricultural, forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources/ density (0.5 unit/ acre in development lots) ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 1240 Thomas Jefferson Parkway (Route 53) TAX MAP /PARCEL: 092000000005A0 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville (Brent Nelson) RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF SP -2013- 00003, by a vote of 7:0, to locate the facility at ten (10) feet above the tallest tree with the conditions outlined in the staff report as outlined in Attachment 3. 8. Regular Item Clerk: Action Letter — CCP- 2013 -00001 - Forward CCP- 2013 -00001 Rio Road Property Planning Commission's finding to the Board: The Compliance Review Planning Commission finds that the the location, PROPOSAL: Potential location for public character and extent of the proposed uses of 705 library, local government or schools storage, Rio Road West are in substantial accord with the temporary or permanent rescue squad adopted County's Comprehensive Plan for the location, and /or vehicle storage, or support reasons identified as the favorable factors of the services and school technology facilities on staff report, as outlined in Attachment 4, and 3.114 acres. further requested that final site design comply ZONING: HC Highway Commercial which with the Comprehensive Plan's Neighborhood allows commercial and service uses; and Model principles and the Community Facilities residential uses by special use permit (15 Plan to the greatest extent possible. units / acre). ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes Does not require Board of Supervisors action. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Mixed Use (in areas around Centers) the goals of which are to provide for commercial and retail uses that are not accommodated in Centers. Residential uses are also allowed at a density of 3 -34 units /acre as well as all public uses. LOCATION: 705 Rio Road West which is the south side of Rio Road West (Route 631), approximately 600 feet west of the intersection of Route 29 Seminole Trail and Draft PC Action Memo 4 -23 -2013 Submit to Planning Commission Rio Road West. TAX MAP /PARCEL: 06100- 00- 00 -120K0 MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio (Andy Sorrell) By a vote of 7:0, the Commission made a finding that the location, character and extent of the proposed uses of 705 Rio Road West are in substantial accord with the adopted County's Comprehensive Plan for the reasons identified as the favorable factors in the staff report, as outlined in Attachment 4, and to request that the final design come as close to the Neighborhood Model and Community Facilities' Plan, components of the Comp Plan, as possible. The Planning Commission took a break at 7:52 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:00 P.M. 9. Work Session Staff: Schedule public hearing — Staff to reference ZTA- 2012 -00010 Off Site Signs comments noted in Attachment 5 and bring draft Focused Discussion on Recommended ordinance amendments back to Planning Commission Changes to Off -site Signs Zoning Provisions for public hearing. (Mandy Burbage) The Planning Commission held a worksession to discuss ZTA- 2012 -00010 off -site signs and bundle signs. They made comments and suggestions and agreed with staff's proposal. 9. Old Business Secretary: Mr. Morris noted there would be an Schedule executive session. 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. 10. New Business Secretary: THE NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION None MEETING WILL HELD ON TUESDAY, APRIL 30, 2013. 11. Adjourn to April 30, 2013, 6:00 p.m. The meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. 8 Attachment 1 — CPA - 2013 -00001 Comprehensive Plan Update — Comments & Recommendations Attachment 2 — SP- 2012 -00032 Bellair CSA — Recommended Conditions Attachment 3 — SP- 2013 -00003 Verizon Wireless /Simeon /Orrock Property — Tier III PWSF — Recommended Conditions Attachment 4 — CCP- 2013 -00001 Rio Road Property Compliance Review — Substantial Accord Finding Attachment 5 — ZTA- 2012 - 000010 Off Site Signs - Recommendations Draft PC Action Memo 4 -23 -2013 4 Submit to Planning Commission ATTACHMENT CPA - 2013 -00001 Comprehensive Plan Update (Elaine Echols) The Commission reviewed the following topics at the Worksession: • Values and Vision • Growth Management • Introduction and Background • People of Albemarle County (Demographics) • Natural Resources In general, the Commission talked about formatting needs. In particular the Commission asked for the following changes: Provide context on how the plan came to be. Explain the different documents (Comprehensive Plan, Master Plans, Implementation, Metrics, Annual Report, etc.) and how they work together. Also, provide a table of acronyms. Explain the rationale for the order of the plan, a "how to read this document" and the role of the Appendix and Reference Documents. Talk about "cross- over" topics up- front, such as the relationship of Economic Development to Natural Resources. Talk about priorities of goals and the rationale, when one goal may appear to conflict with another. Explain the time frame for the plan. For Values and Vision, no substantive changes were suggested; however, the Commission asked that the word "rivers" be added next to "streams." For Growth Management, the Commission requested the following changes: Add something about the importance of business development and jobs for existing residents, not new jobs with more people moving to the County. Add wording which indicates the small amount of money for improvements that comes from proffers and existing infrastructure needs. Add a process diagram to help explain the Capital Improvements Program Clarify how the Board should assess development proposals in non - priority areas. Will paying more than the maximum proffer amount justify rezonings and special uses in the non - priority areas? For the Introduction and Background, the Commission requested the following changes: Add back to the document a reference to the fact that the County does not want to be a large metropolitan area like Richmond and its suburbs or the Washington D.0 metro area. Trim the text relating to sustainability, but don't drop the Sustainability Accords from this chapter. Indicate how the Accords are used or applied. Reduce the bulk of text related to the Livability project. For The People of Albemarle County, the Commission asked for the following changes: Change Table 4 from a table to a bar graph to show median household income by groups. The groupings by income should be reduced so that there aren't 10 different categories. For Table 6, Projected Population, see what information can be included in relation to University of Virginia growth projections. Draft PC Action Memo 4 -23 -2013 5 Submit to Planning Commission Make sure that the population projections are consistent with the time period for the Plan. Add a disclaimer that income and net assets are different and in Albemarle County, "income" does not necessarily represent "wealth." For Natural Resources, the Commission asked for the following changes: Review and revise the section to explain why natural resource preservation is important to the County. Place reference material and some educational material in the Reference section. For air quality, more information is needed to explain what affects air quality in Albemarle County and what can be done to improve it. The Commission agreed to continue the discussion on Natural Resources at their meeting on April 30. Public comment was deferred to the regular meeting under other matters due to time restraints. Draft PC Action Memo 4 -23 -2013 6 Submit to Planning Commission Attachment 2 — SP- 2012 -00032 Bellair CSA — Recommended Conditions of Approval 1. The maximum number of events per calendar year shall not exceed 24. 2. The maximum number of event guests shall not exceed 150 persons. 3. All event activities (not including access or parking) shall take place within 250 feet of the barn whose address is 5290 Bellair Farm. 4. Hours of operation for the events shall be no earlier than 3 p.m. and no later than midnight. 5. There shall be no amplified sound permitted for this use. 6. The use shall not commence without approval from the Virginia Department of Transportation of the entrance to the property at Bellair Farm and of the proposed driveway exit on Tax Map Parcel 11300000000800. The exit on Tax Map Parcel 11300000000800 shall be posted for exit -only use to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. 7. The use shall not commence without approval from the building official, the fire official, and the Virginia Department of Health. 8. The use shall commence on or before [date two years from Board approval] or the permit shall expire and be of no effect. Draft PC Action Memo 4 -23 -2013 7 Submit to Planning Commission Attachment 3 — SP- 2013 -00003 Verizon Wireless /Simeon /Orrock Property — Tier III PWSF — Recommended Conditions The Planning Commission recommends approval of this facility at ten (10) feet above the tallest tree with the conditions outlined below. Development and use shall be in general accord with the conceptual plan titled "Simeon (Orrock Property) 1240 Thomas Jefferson Parkway, Charlottesville, VA 22902" prepared by Justin Y. Yoon latest revision date 4/2/13 (hereafter "Conceptual Plan "), as determined by the Director of Planning and the Zoning Administrator. To be in general accord with the Conceptual Plan, development and use shall reflect the following major elements within the development essential to the design of the development, as shown on the Conceptual Plan.: a. Height b. Mounting type c. Antenna type d. Number of antenna e. Distance above reference tree f. Color g. Location of ground equipment and monopole Minor modifications to the plan which do not conflict with the elements above may be made to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. Draft PC Action Memo 4 -23 -2013 8 Submit to Planning Commission Attachment 4 — CCP- 2013 - 00001, Rio Road Property Compliance Review — Favorable Factors 1. The site is centrally - located in a designated Development Area and has access to necessary public infrastructure including a good transportation network and public utilities. 2. A public library on this site will provide for an institutional use that will complement and support the Urban Mixed Use center and areas around it. 3. The existing building can be renovated to meet the general community facility standards and more specific library facility needs and standards as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. 4. The renovation of the building and site will not impact streams, floodplain, WPO or steep slope. Draft PC Action Memo 4 -23 -2013 9 Submit to Planning Commission Attachment 5 — ZTA- 2012 -00010 Off -Site Signs Work Session — Planning Commission Comments 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. FOCUSED DISCUSSION: 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? 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. Draft PC Action Memo 4 -23 -2013 10 Submit to Planning Commission