HomeMy WebLinkAboutZTA201500004 Executive Summary 2015-05-07COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
AGENDA DATE:
ZTA 2015 -4 Phase 1 Route 29 Solutions Business
May 6, 2015
Signage
ACTION: X
INFORMATION:
SUBJECT /PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
Adoption of ZTA 2015 -4 Phase 1 Route 29 Solutions
CONSENT AGENDA:
Business Signage
ACTION:
INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
ATTACHMENTS:
Yes
Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, McCulley, Wright,
Burbage
REVIEWED BY:
PRESENTER (S): Amanda Burbage
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
BACKGROUND:
As part of its broader Route 29 Solutions Business Assistance Program effort, the County is considering phased changes
to its sign regulations for businesses affected by Route 29 Solutions construction. Phase 1 of these changes addresses
temporary signs for businesses whose permanent signs will be removed as a result of construction and utility work
associated with the Rio -29 interchange project. Phase 1 was prioritized and expedited because utility work is scheduled to
begin in May 2015. Phases 2 and 3 will address temporary and permanent signage for all other businesses in the affected
corridor and will involve more extensive outreach to the business community. Work on Phases 2 and 3 is expected to
begin in late spring / early summer.
At its meeting on March 4, the Board adopted a Resolution of Intent to implement the Phase 1 signage regulation changes
(Attachment B). On April 7, the Planning Commission recommended approval of proposed ordinance language addressing
Phase 1 (Attachment C).
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Economic Prosperity: Foster an environment that stimulates diversified job creation, capital investments, and tax revenues
that support community goals
DISCUSSION:
The key provisions of the proposed ordinance (Attachment A) include:
Clarification of the temporary sign definition
Provision for a temporary sign replacing a permanent sign removed as a result of a qualifying VDOT
construction project to remain: 1) for the duration of construction; or 2) until a permanent sign to replace
the removed permanent sign is erected at the establishment or on the lot, whichever occurs first
Clarification that the current allowance for six temporary signs per establishment per year is in addition to
a temporary sign replacing a permanent sign removed as a result of a qualifying VDOT construction
project
Exemption from the ARB review process if the permanent sign that was removed previously had a
certificate of appropriateness and the sign, when re- erected, is in compliance with that certificate of
appropriateness
At the conclusion of its April 7 public hearing, the Commission recommended expanding the provision for re- erecting
permanent signs with prior ARB approval to include new signs that can comply with a previously approved certificate of
appropriateness. The original draft ordinance limited this ARB exemption to erecting the "same sign." Staff has revised
the draft ordinance to allow a new sign that is consistent with the specifications and ARB approval of the removed
permanent sign to be erected without further ARB approval. Following input from VDOT staff, additional changes to the
draft ordinance were made to ensure consistency between the ordinance language and VDOT terminology referring to the
"project limits of construction" and the use of the C -5 form as evidence of construction completion.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is no anticipated budget impact associated with the proposed ordinance changes.
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2015 -4 Phase 1 Route 29 Solutions Business Signage
May 6, 2015
Page 2
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that following the public hearing, the Board adopt the attached Zoning Ordinance Amendment
(Attachment A).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Attachment B: Resolution of Intent
Attachment C: April 7, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report
Attachment D: April 7, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Return to agenda
ORDINANCE NO. 15-18(3)
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 18,ZONING,ARTICLE II,BASIC REGULATIONS,AND
ARTICLE III,DISTRICT REGULATIONS, OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE,
VIRGINIA
BE IT ORDAINED By the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle,Virginia,that Chapter 18,
Zoning,Article II,Basic Regulations,and Article III,District Regulations,are hereby amended and
reordained as follows:
By Amending:
Sec. 4.15.2 Definitions
Sec.4.15.4A Signs authorized by temporary sign permit
Sec. 4.15.7 Prohibited signs and sign characteristics
Sec.30.6.5 Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness
Chapter 18. Zoning
Article II.Basic Regulations
Sec.4.15.2 Definitions
The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and implementation of this section 4.15:
(51) Temporary sign. The term"temporary sign"means a sign that is displayed at an establishment or
on a lot for only a limited period of time authorized in section 4.15.4A.(Amended 3-16-05)
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.03; Ord. 01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4),3-16-05; Ord. 10-18(1), 1-13-10; Ord.
10-18(3), 5-5-10; Ord. 10-18(5), 5-12-10; Ord. 11-18(1), 1-12-11; Ord. 12-18(2), 3-14-12;Ord. 14-18(3),
6-4-14)
State law reference—Va.Code§15.2-2280.
Sec.4.15.4A Signs authorized by temporary sign permit
A permit shall be required for each temporary sign(hereinafter,a"temporary sign permit"),prior to its
erection,alteration,replacement or relocation,as provided herein:
a. Application. An application for a temporary sign permit shall be submitted to the department of
community development,together with payment of the fee required for the application pursuant
to section 35.1, and comply with the application requirements of subsection 4.15.4(a).
b. Application review and permit issuance. A temporary sign permit application shall be reviewed
and acted upon by the zoning administrator only as provided herein:
1. Action on application. Within seven(7)days after receipt of a complete application,the
zoning administrator shall either: (i)approve the application; (ii)deny the application; or
1
(iii)refer the application to the applicant for more information as may be required by
section 4.15.4(a)(3). An application shall be denied only if the proposed temporary sign
is a prohibited sign or does not comply with the regulations set forth in this section 4.15.
If the application is denied,the reasons shall be specified in writing.
2. Failure to timely act. If the zoning administrator fails to take one of the actions described
herein within seven(7)days after receipt of a complete sign application for a temporary
sign,the permit shall be deemed approved as received.
c. Administration. The following regulations shall apply to the administration of temporary sign
permits:
1. Number of permits. No more than six(6)temporary sign permits shall be issued by the
zoning administrator to the same establishment, or lot not containing an establishment, in
any calendar year,provided that a temporary sign erected to replace a permanent sign as
provided in subsection(c)(2)(b) shall not count toward this limit.
2. Period of validity. Each temporary sign permit shall be valid for the following periods:
(a) Generally. Except as provided in subsection(c)(2)(b),for a period not to exceed
fifteen(15)consecutive days after the erection of the sign,provided that a
temporary sign permit issued while a permanent sign is being made may be valid
for longer than fifteen(15)days until the permanent sign is erected.
(b) Within limits of VDOT construction project during construction;where existing
permanent sign removed. For the period between the date the sign is erected,
which shall be on or after the date the Virginia Department of Transportation
("VDOT")issues a notice to proceed for a VDOT construction project,until the
date of project construction completion as evidenced by the date that VDOT
issues a form C-5 or makes an equivalent written determination,or until a
permanent sign to replace the removed permanent sign is installed at the
establishment or on the lot,whichever occurs first,provided that: (1)the
temporary sign is erected to replace a permanent sign on a lot abutting a primary
arterial or other public street within the project limits of the construction project
that includes the primary arterial; and(2)the permanent sign was required by
VDOT to be removed in conjunction with the construction project,
3. Aggregate duration for temporary signs in calendar year. Temporary signs shall not be
erected at an establishment for more than sixty(60)days, in the aggregate, in a calendar
year,provided that this limit shall not apply to a temporary sign erected to replace a
permanent sign as provided in subsection(c)(2)(b).
4. Portable signs;stabilization. A temporary sign that is a portable sign shall be stabilized
so as not to pose a danger to public safety. Prior to the sign being erected,the zoning
administrator shall approve the method of stabilization.
d. Exemptions.A temporary sign permit is not required for a sign exempt from the sign permit
requirement under section 4.15.6 or nonconforming signs subject to section 4.15.24.
(Ord. 12-18(2),3-14-12)
2
Sec.4.15.7 Prohibited signs and sign characteristics
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section 4.15,the following signs and sign characteristics are
prohibited in all zoning districts:
c. Certain sign types. Signs that are:
1. Animated signs, including signs using rare gas illumination,that give the appearance of
animation. (Amended 3-16-05)
2. Advertising vehicles, where(i)the vehicle is parked so as to be visible from a public
right-of-way in a parking space or parking area not authorized by section 4.15.6(21); (ii)
the vehicle is an inoperable vehicle; or(iii)the vehicle is incapable of moving on its own
or is not self-propelled. (Amended 3-16-05)
3. Banners, except as an authorized temporary sign under section 4.15.4 A.(Amended 3-16-
05)
4. Billboards.
5. Flashing signs.
6. Moving signs, including signs using rare gas illumination,that give the appearance of
movement,but not including flags that meet the requirements of sections 4.15.6(18)or
4.15.6(19). (Amended 3-16-05)
7. Roof signs.
(12-10-80; 7-8-92, § 4.15.06; Ord.01-18(3), 5-9-01; Ord. 05-18(4), 3-16-05; Ord. 13-18(6), 11-13-13,
effective 1-1-14)
State law reference—Va.Code§15.2-2280.
III.District Regulations
Sec.30.6.5 Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness
The following development is exempt from the requirements of section 30.6:
a. Primary and accessory dwelling units if no site plan is required by this chapter.
b. Structures for agricultural or forestal uses if no site plan is required by this chapter.
c. Temporary construction headquarters(section 5.1.18(a)),temporary construction yards(section
5.1.18(b)),and temporary mobile homes(section 5.7).
d. Agricultural product signs,political signs,public signs,sandwich board signs,temporary signs,
window signs and signs exempt from the sign permit requirement under section 4.15.6.
3
e. The repair and maintenance of structures and site improvements where there is no substantial
change in design or materials.
f. The repair and maintenance of nonconforming structures or site improvements as authorized by
section 6.3(B).
g. Additions or modifications to structures or site improvements where there is no substantial
change in design or materials.
h. Additions or modifications to structures to the extent necessary to comply with the minimum
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act,the Fair Housing Act, or any other similar
federal or state law providing for the reasonable accommodation of persons with disabilities.
i. Additions or modifications to nonconforming structures as authorized by sections 6.3(A)(3)and
6.3(A)(5).
j. Interior alterations to structures where there is no change in the exterior appearance of the
structures.
k. Issuance of permits classified in sections 5-202, 5-203, 5-204 and 5-208(A) if a building permit
has also been issued and the work authorized by the permit classified in those sections does not
change the external appearance of the structure.
1. If a sign for which a certificate of appropriateness was previously issued was thereafter required
by the Virginia Department of Transportation("VDOT")to be removed in conjunction with a
VDOT construction project,the erection of the same sign, or a new sign composed of new
materials;provided that the same sign or the new sign: (1) complies with the previously issued
certificate of appropriateness, including all of its conditions; and(2)any condition pertaining to
the specific location of the sign need not be complied with if locating the sign in the previously
approved location is not reasonably practicable but it will be located where it otherwise complies
with the condition to the extent practicable,as determined by the zoning administrator.
(§ 30.6.6, 10-3-90; § 30.6.6.1, 10-3-90; § 30.6.6.2, 10-3-90, 6-14-00; § 30.6.6.3, 5-18-94; § 30.6.5; Ord.
10-18(5), 5-12-10; Ord. 12-18(2), 3-14-12)
I,Ella W.Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,Virginia,by a vote of five to one(noted
present), as recorded below,at a regular meeting held on May 6,2015.
___ YU
Cl k,Board of••unty Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr.Boyd Present
Ms. Dittmar Y
Ms. Mallek Y
Ms. McKeel Y
Ms. Palmer Y
Mr. Sheffield Y
4
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance regulates temporary signs and
allows each business to obtain up to six (6) temporary sign permits per year, limits each
permitted temporary sign to be erected for not more than fifteen (15) consecutive days, and
limits temporary signs being erected at a business for more than sixty (60) days, in the
aggregate, in a calendar year; and
WHEREAS, the road construction project commonly known as the "Route 29 Solutions"
project will require the removal of approximately ten (10) privately-owned permanent signs
along Route 29 North between the southern terminus of Berkmar Drive and Myers Drive to the
north to allow utilities to be relocated; and
WHEREAS, the removal of these permanent signs may be as soon as Spring 2015 and
the affected businesses may prefer to not establish new permanent signs until the Route 29
Solutions project is completed; and
WHEREAS, it may be desirable to amend the County's regulations for temporary signs,
under suitable standards, to extend the duration for which temporary signs may be erected to
allow those businesses whose permanent signs are removed in conjunction with a road
construction project to erect temporary signs until new permanent signs are erected or the road
construction project is completed, whichever occurs first.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of
Supervisors hereby adopts a resolution of intent to consider amending Albemarle County Code
§ 18-4.15, Signs, and any other sections of the Zoning Ordinance deemed to be appropriate to
achieve the purposes described herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing
on the zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its
recommendations to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of
six to zero, as recorded below, at a regular meeting held on March 4, 2015.
410
la OA LAI AL .r
I-r , Bo-rd • County Supervisors
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd Y
Ms. Dittmar Y
Ms. Mallek Y
Ms. McKee) Y
Ms. Palmer Y
Mr. Sheffield Y
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA TITLE: ZTA 2015 -4 Phase 1 Route 29
Solutions Business Signage
SUBJECT /PROPOSAL /REQUEST: Public Hearing
to Address ZTA 2015 -4 Phase 1 Route 29 Solutions
Business Signage
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Kamptner, McCulley, Wright, Burbage
AGENDA DATE: April 7, 2015
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
BACKGROUND:
Beginning as early as May 2015, VDOT will begin utility relocation in preparation for the construction of the grade -
separated interchange at the Route 29 — Rio Road intersection. A partial closure of the intersection is planned for a
103 day period from May 23, 2016 through September 2, 2016, during which traffic flow will be limited to through
traffic on Route 29, right turns from Route 29 onto Rio Road, and right turns from Rio Road onto Route 29. Outside of
this 103 day window, all construction activity will be limited to night work. According to VDOT, all business entrances
will remain open during construction, including the 103 day period.
Approximately 200 businesses (of which approximately 1/3 are in Fashion Square) are located in the affected corridor,
which extends along Route 29 from Twentyninth Place Court to Woodbrook Drive. VDOT plans to use directional
signage in the right -of -way to guide traffic to businesses during construction. While its plans for construction signage
will not be finalized until July 2015, VDOT has enlisted the Route 29 Solutions Project Delivery Advisory Panel
(PDAP) to provide feedback in the development of temporary construction signage for the affected corridor. In
addition, VDOT has identified 10 signs (identifying 12 businesses) that will need to be removed to accommodate utility
relocation and road construction. Removal of these signs could begin as soon as May 2015. VDOT has begun
outreach to the 12 businesses and plans to compensate them for the loss of their signs. The County has also
contacted the businesses and offered assistance with their signage needs.
As part of its broader Route 29 Solutions Business Assistance Program effort, the County is considering changes to
its sign regulations for businesses affected by Route 29 Solutions construction. Phase 1 of these changes addresses
temporary signs for the businesses whose permanent signs will be removed as a result of the construction and utility
work. This phase has been prioritized due to the time sensitive nature of the utility work. Future phases will address
temporary and permanent signage for all other businesses in the affected corridor and will involve more extensive
outreach to the business community. At their meeting on March 4, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution of
Intent to address Phase 1 (Attachments B & C).
DISCUSSION:
Currently, the County's temporary sign regulations allow:
Each "establishment" to have up to 6 temporary signs per year.
Each temporary sign to be up to 32 square feet in size, up to 12 feet in height, and as close as 5 feet to the
right -of -way.
Each temporary sign to be erected for up to 15 days.
The aggregate temporary signage for each establishment may not exceed 60 days per year. Time that a
temporary sign is up without a permit is deducted from the time allowed.
These signs are not subject to approval by the Architectural Review Board (ARB).
With their signage scheduled for removal as early as May, the 12 affected businesses may choose to not replace their
permanent signs until construction is completed in late 2016. An extension of the current 60 day limit would enable
these businesses to display temporary signage until their permanent signs can be replaced. At their February 17
meeting, the ARB expressed support for allowing the 12 businesses to display a temporary sign for the duration of
construction.
The key provisions of the proposed ordinance (Attachment A) include:
Clarification of the temporary sign definition
Provision for a temporary sign replacing a permanent sign removed as a result of a VDOT construction
project to remain for 1) the duration of construction, or 2) until a permanent sign to replace the removed
permanent sign is erected on the lot, whichever occurs first
Clarification that the current allowance for six temporary signs per establishment per year is in addition to a
temporary sign replacing a permanent sign removed as a result of a VDOT construction project
Exemption from the ARB review process if the permanent sign that was removed previously had a certificate
of appropriateness and the replacement sign is in compliance with that certificate of appropriateness
Administration / Review Process:
Although there is the potential for these ordinance changes to generate additional temporary sign applications, it is not
anticipated that these changes will significantly impact sign permit review times over the long term. Because
temporary signs are not reviewed by the ARB, their review process will not be affected.
Housing Affordability:
There is no anticipated impact on housing affordability.
Implications to Staffing / Staffing Costs:
There is no anticipated need for additional staffing as a result of the ordinance changes.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that following the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopt the
attached Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment (Attachment A).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Attachment B: Resolution of Intent
Attachment C: Executive Summary for March 4 Board of Supervisors Meeting
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance regulates temporary signs and allows each
business to obtain up to six (6) temporary sign permits per year, limits each permitted temporary sign to
be erected for not more than fifteen (15) consecutive days, and limits temporary signs being erected at a
business for more than sixty (60) days, in the aggregate, in a calendar year; and
WHEREAS, the road construction project commonly known as the "Route 29 Solutions" project
will require the removal of approximately ten (10) privately -owned permanent signs along Route 29
North between the southern terminus of Berkmar Drive and Myers Drive to the north to allow utilities to
be relocated; and
WHEREAS, the removal of these permanent signs may be as soon as Spring 2015 and the
affected businesses may prefer to not establish new permanent signs until the Route 29 Solutions project
is completed; and
WHEREAS, it may be desirable to amend the County's regulations for temporary signs, under
suitable standards, to extend the duration for which temporary signs may be erected to allow those
businesses whose permanent signs are removed in conjunction with a road construction project to erect
temporary signs until new permanent signs are erected or the road construction project is completed,
whichever occurs first.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT for purposes of public necessity,
convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
hereby adopts a resolution of intent to consider amending Albemarle County Code § 18 -4.15, Signs, and
any other sections of the Zoning Ordinance deemed to be appropriate to achieve the purposes described
herein; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on
the zoning text amendment proposed pursuant to this resolution of intent, and make its recommendations
to the Board of Supervisors at the earliest possible date.
I, Ella W. Jordan, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a Resolution duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to , as
recorded below, at a regular meeting held on
Aye Nay
Mr. Boyd
Ms. Dittmar
Ms. Mallek
Ms. McKeel
Ms. Palmer
Mr. Sheffield
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
AGENDA TITLE:
AGENDA DATE:
Phase 1 Route 29 Solutions Business Signage Impacts
March 4, 2015
SUBJECT /PROPOSAL /REQUEST:
ACTION: X INFORMATION:
Resolution of Intent and Work Session to address Phase
1 Route 29 Solutions Business Signage Impacts
CONSENT AGENDA:
ACTION: INFORMATION:
STAFF CONTACT(S):
Foley, Walker, Davis, Kamptner, McCulley, Wright,
ATTACHMENTS: Yes
Burbage
REVIEWED BY:
PRESENTER (S): Amelia McCulley, Amanda Burbage
LEGAL REVIEW: Yes
BACKGROUND:
Beginning as early as spring 2015, VDOT will begin utility relocation in preparation for the construction of the grade -
separated interchange at the Route 29 — Rio Road intersection. A partial closure of the intersection is planned for a 103
day period from May 23, 2016 through September 2, 2016, during which traffic flow will be limited to through traffic on
Route 29, right turns from Route 29 onto Rio Road, and right turns from Rio Road onto Route 29. Outside of this 103 day
window, all construction activity will be limited to night work. According to VDOT, all business entrances will remain open
during construction, including the 103 day period.
Approximately 200 businesses (of which approximately 1/3 are in Fashion Square) are located in the affected corridor,
which extends from the southern terminus of Berkmar Drive north to Myers Drive. VDOT plans to use directional signage
in the right -of -way to guide traffic to businesses during construction. While its plans for construction signage have not been
finalized at this time, VDOT has enlisted the Route 29 Solutions Project Delivery Advisory Panel (PDAP) to provide
feedback in the development of temporary construction signage for the affected corridor. In addition, VDOT has identified
10 signs (identifying 12 businesses) that will need to be removed to accommodate utility relocation and road construction.
Removal of these signs could begin as soon as spring 2015. VDOT has begun outreach to the 12 businesses and plans to
compensate them for the loss of their signs.
The County recognizes the importance of effective signage as a key component of the County's overall business
assistance strategy, and is focused on working proactively with VDOT and business representatives to ensure that the
County is aware of and responsive to the needs of establishments in the affected corridor.
Prior to any work beginning on the interchange project, the County has been asked to consider changes to its sign
regulations in order to accommodate businesses that may be affected by Route 29 Solutions construction. The signage
needs will be discussed in terms of three project phases.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Economic Prosperity: Foster an environment that stimulates diversified job creation, capital investments, and tax revenues
that support community goals
DISCUSSION:
It is staff's opinion that VDOT temporary construction signage will be most effective for wayfinding due to its highly visible
location in the right -of -way and visual consistency with other roadway signage. To compliment VDOT's signage efforts,
staff proposes considering signage on private property in three phases:
Phase 1: Temporary Signage for Businesses Whose Signs Will Be Removed
It is staff's opinion that the businesses whose signs will be removed will benefit most from revisions to the current
temporary sign regulations. Currently, the County's temporary sign regulations allow:
Each "establishment" to have up to 6 temporary signs per year.
Each temporary sign to be up to 32 square feet in size, up to 12 feet in height, and as close as 5 feet to the right -
of -way.
Each temporary sign to be erected for up to 15 days.
AGENDA TITLE: Phase 1 Route 29 Solutions Business Signage Impacts
March 4, 2015
Page 2
The aggregate temporary signage for each establishment may not exceed 60 days per year. Time that a
temporary sign is up without a permit is deducted from the time allowed.
These signs are not subject to approval by the Architectural Review Board.
With their signage scheduled for removal as early as this spring, many of these businesses may choose to not replace
their permanent signs until construction is completed in late 2016. An extension of the current 60 day limit would enable
these businesses to display temporary signage until their permanent signs can be replaced.
Because this is the most time - sensitive issue, staff believes it should be considered prior to addressing other signage
needs so that new regulations are in place by the time the signs are removed. Phase 1 signage is the subject of the
attached resolution of intent. Staff has reached out to these businesses to offer assistance and to let them know that the
County will be considering changes to its temporary sign regulations to accommodate the loss of their signs. Staff is
working with VDOT to coordinate the timing for removal of existing signs with the establishment of new regulations.
Phase 2: Temporary Signage for Businesses in the Affected Area During Construction
With approximately 200 businesses in the affected area, both VDOT and County staff share concerns about the potential
for increased temporary signage on private property creating confusion in the field of vision and unsafe driving conditions
in an already visually congested construction zone. Therefore, it is the opinion of County staff that any provision to allow
additional temporary signs during construction should be very limited and focused so as to be effective. Staff also is
evaluating whether changes to the temporary sign regulations should be considered for all businesses in the affected
corridor during construction and whether these provisions should apply to similar road construction projects in the future.
Because construction is not scheduled to begin until May 2016, there is more time to seek input from the business
community on their temporary signage needs. Furthermore, because staff believes that signage located in the right -of -way
is more effective than signage located on private property during construction, staff plans to meet with stakeholders once
the VDOT signage plan has been finalized. No Board action is required on Phase 2 at this time. Once staff has the
information to formulate a recommendation, we will return to the Board for consideration. We will schedule this Board
discussion to occur by September so that any amendments could be in place by January 2016.
Phase 3: Changes to Permanent Signage for Businesses in the Affected Area
The creation of the grade- separated interchange has sparked some concern from the business community about the
visibility of permanent on -site signage once construction is complete. As the 29 Solutions project progresses and
businesses are more aware of their long -term signage needs, staff can begin to evaluate whether changes to the
permanent sign regulations should be considered for businesses in the affected corridor. Staff will seek input from the
business community on this Phase 3 issue. No Board action is required on Phase 3 at this time. Once staff has the
information to formulate a recommendation, we will return to the Board for consideration. We will schedule this Board
discussion with Phase 2 signage to occur by September.
BUDGET IMPACT:
There is a potential for a temporary increase in staff time that would be required to review temporary sign applications
associated with this Zoning Ordinance amendment.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Resolution of Intent (Attachment A).
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Resolution of Intent to Address
Return to agenda
ase 11 Route 29 Solutions Business Sianaae Impacts
Albemarle County Plan ning_Commission
April 7, 2015
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 7, 2015, at
6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Cal Morris, Chair; Karen Firehock, Richard Randolph, Thomas Loach,
Bruce Dotson, and Tim Keller. Absent was Mac Lafferty, Vice Chair. Julia Monteith, AICP,
Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Stewart Wright, Senior Permit Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director of
Zoning /Zoning Administrator; 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.
From the Public: Matters Not Listed for Public Hearing on the Agenda.
Mr. Morris invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda.
There being none, the meeting moved to the next agenda item.
Committee Reports
Mr. Morris invited committee reports.
The following was noted by Commission members:
Mr. Keller reported the Fiscal Impact Committee continues to meet weekly in their review of the
Cash Proffer Policy and should have a report in several weeks. They are going point by point of
elements that would be appropriate to use in the formula to create a new set of proffer numbers
that are based on the formula that had been put into place in 2007. They are getting very close
to that and he would like to think that in several weeks he would have a report on the specifics.
Mr. Randolph reported The Solid Waste Task Force just finished today the second of the. four
hour workshops on Solid Waste Priorities for Albemarle County. It was a very productive
workshop and they have come to some priorities one which will be continuing to operate Ivy as
a transfer station, but with an improved configuration of that transfer station and in addition with
a recycling component to the transfer station. Then there was also agreement at looking at other
recycling centers that might be appropriate for elsewhere in the county. It would not be a
transfer station, but where the county would have a capability to have residents recycling solid
waste.
Ms. Firehock reported the meeting of the National Heritage Committee was moved to next
week. The Water Resources Funding Advisory Committee is meeting on Thursday.
Mr. Morris reported the Rivanna River Corridor Committee did not meet last.month, but will meet
later this month at a new day and time. Mr. Cilimberg noted they will meet next Thursday, April
16 at 4:00 p.m. at the Planning District Water Street Center.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -April 7, 2015
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Morris reported they had a meeting with the folks from the North Pointe project. There are
some very interesting items coming about there that probably will be surfacing and it is more
appropriate to talk about situations that developers are being faced with simply to meet
environmental regulation new interpretation by the Corps of Engineers. It is cutting back on
density in essence. So they have to take a look at that. It goes back to what Mr. Keller has
been asking for that they really have to take a look at housing in an overall view.
Mr. Dotson reported on the following:
Regarding the ACE Committee he received an email today from our Chair reiterating a plea that
he made to the Commission several weeks ago. He read the email to the ACE members, as
follows, "As they all know adequate funding for ACE is essential for its survival and
effectiveness. The Board will consider whether to allocate $500,000 to the program for next year
or less or even zero. They would like to be at one million, which is actually what the program
began with. But, if they can get at least $500,000 the State and possibly other matches will help
us keep going in a meaningful way. Please contact your Supervisor with your thoughts." He
would make that same request to the Commission members to weigh in with their Supervisors
support of funding at least at the $500,000 level.
The PRFA (Public Recreation Facilities Authority) met recently and received. The division of
labor between ACE and PFRA is ACE acquires easements and it does not steward and manage
those easements. So after ACE has acquired them those essentially are turned over to the
PRFA. The PRFA met recently and accepted two ACE easements on two high quality
properties. The real plea is in terms of the funding for the ACE Program.
Mr. Keller asked if he would like the Commission to entertain a motion on that to the Board of
Supervisors, and Mr. Dotson replied that he certainly would.
Mr. Keller questioned how it should be worded, and Mr. Cilimberg replied that Mr. Dotson had
some language.
Mr. Dotson said perhaps it should say that the Planning Commission supports a minimum of
$500,000 funding for the continuation of the ACE Program in order to guarantee its survival and
effectiveness.
Mr. Keller said they should include something in support of the Comprehensive Plan both for
rural land preservation and to focus development in the Development Area..
Mr. Dotson added this would enable the program to also leverage,state and federal funds.
Motion: Mr. Keller moved and Mr. Dotson seconded that the Planning Commission supports a
minimum of $500,000 funding for the continuation of the ACE Program in order to guarantee its
survival and effectiveness in support of the Comprehensive Plan both for rural land preservation
and to focus development in the Development Area. This would enable the program to also
leverage state and federal funds.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0. (Lafferty absent)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -APRIL 7, 2015
FINAL MINUTES
_Mr Cilimberg pointed out that right now the Board_of Supervisors was_ meeting across the hall
and considering funding. Staff will send it on but it won't get to the Board of Supervisors before
this year's budget consideration.
There being no further committee reports, the meeting moved to the next item.
Review of Board of Supervisors Meeting —April 1, 2015
Mr. Cilimberg reviewed the actions taken on April 1, 2015.
Consent Agenda:
Approval of Minutes: February 3, 2015
Mr. Morris asked if any Commissioner would like to pull an item from the consent agenda for
further review.
Motion: Mr. Randolph moved and Mr. Dotson seconded for approval of the consent agenda.
The motion carried by a vote of (6:0). (Lafferty absent)
Mr. Morris noted the consent agenda was approved.
Regular Items:
a. ZTA- 2015 -00004 Phase I Route 29 Solutions Business Signage Impacts
The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive comments on its intent to
recommend. adoption of an ordinance amending Secs. 4.15.2, Definitions, 4.15.4A, Signs
authorized by temporary sign permit, 4.15.7, prohibited signs and sign characteristics, and
30.6.5, Development exempt from requirement to obtain certificate of appropriateness, of
Chapter 18, Zoning, of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec.
4.15.2 by amending the definition of temporary sign; amend Sec. 4.15.4A to allow a second
class of temporary sign permit where the temporary sign replaces a permanent signs
required to be removed by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) in conjunction
with certain described construction projects, and the temporary sign permit would be valid
until the project is substantially complete or a permanent sign is installed; amend Sec.
4.15.7 to correct the cross - reference Sec. 4.15.4A, and amend Sec. 30.6.5 to add an
exemption from the requirement for a new certificate of appropriateness for the re- erection
of the same permanent sign previously required to be removed by VDOT in the
circumstances described above. A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the office
of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community Development,
County Office Building. (Mandy Burbage)
Staff Presentation:
Amelia McCulley presented a PowerPoint presentation on ZTA 2015 -4 Phase 1 Route 29
Solutions Business Signage
This zoning text amendment is very narrowly focused. Phase 1 is entirely intended to address
existing business signage that will be removed with the construction of the Rio -29 grade
separated interchange. They are expediting this ordinance amendment process due to the tight
schedule for pending sign removal. She would give a broader view than the Phase 1 ordinance
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 7, 2015
FINAL MINUTES
amendment. She would explain the broader Route -29, Solutions_ signage program within the
context of the business assistance program in addition to the specific changes proposed with
this ordinance amendment. A link was sent to the Commission late in the day to the strategies
under the business assistance program, which is a much better explanation than she will
provide. Also, Lee Catlin is happy to come and speak further about that.
The properties that are impacted for the Route 29 / Rio interchange are shown in the slide. The
project limits of construction extend from the 291h Place signal (South) to Woodbrook Drive
(North) and from the Berkmar/ Rio intersection (West) to the mail entrance on Rio Rd (East).
There are more detailed plans.
The most up -to -date construction schedule provided by VDOT is:
March 4, 2015 - VDOT Contractor Notice to Proceed
May, 2015 — Utility work begins
Fall, 2015 — Night road construction work begins
May 23, 2016 - Partial closure of Rio Road intersection
September 2, 2016 — Interchange complete
Staff meets with VDOT regularly with several different panels and teams. The Sign Team that is
focused on signage meets again tomorrow. Utility work is slated to begin as early as this May.
Night construction work begins in the fall and is planned to be limited to the hours between 9
p.m. and 6 a.m.
During the 103 day period between May 23, 2016 and September 2, 2016, traffic flows through
the Rio -29 intersection will be limited to through traffic on 29 and right turns from Rio Road to 29
and vice versa.
There are over 200 businesses within the project limits (1/3 of those businesses are within
Fashion Square). All of the business entrances will remain open during construction including
during the 103 day period. This zoning text amendment for Phase 1 is about the situation in
which 10 existing signs on which 12 businesses identified are slated to lose signs as a result of
the utility.work beginning in May. All of those signs are conforming to the zoning regulations.
Those signs that are subject to Architectural Review Board review are actually conforming and
have Certificates of Appropriateness from the ARB.
VDOT construction signage is the most critical for way for people to have wayfinding during
construction. VDOT expects to have final construction signage plans finalized by July, 2015
with the road design.
A broader view of the whole package of signage will be given focusing also on this ordinance
amendment. They are very intent on limiting the provision of additional signage because, again,
the VDOT signage is the most important provision for signage. They don't want to just add
signs indiscriminately to clutter the field of vision, which is already compromised in a
construction site. In the .meantime the Board has adopted a resolution to provide temporary
signage to accommodate businesses impacted by construction, specifically for those
businesses whose signs will be removed.
This sign work is being done in the context of a broader County initiated Business Assistance
Program. The construction mitigation / business assistance programs are designed to limit the
negative economic impact of the construction projects on the surrounding businesses. There is
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -APRIL 7, 2015 4
FINAL MINUTES.
a _whole package of strategies, which _was_provided to the Commission today._ The program_
details will be finalized with the Board in May. They've given a consensus for a program that
includes strategies in the areas of: technical assistance, marketing, communication, signage
and regulatory measures. This initiative is springing from the signage strategies.
The Board has endorsed considering amending our sign regulations in 3 phases. Phase 1 is the
most time sensitive and relates to 12 businesses losing their signs that could be without
permanent signage for up to two years during construction; Board of Supervisors adopted
resolution of intent to address temporary signage for these businesses on March 4. The
Architectural Review Board has also endorsed this phase.
There are two other phases staff has identified. Staff has not received input or done an
assessment to know just how far they would go with it. Phases 2 and 3 would be a
consideration of sign allowances or sign provisions both for Phase 2 temporary signage for
businesses that are not losing signs and Phase 3 changes to permanent sign regulations. That
is based on the fact that staff is hearing from businesses that have concerns that the
construction work and the resulting grade separation will cause visibility problems for them. All
that is to say that there is a pretty deliberate process they are going to undertake before staff
would agree they need to add signage provisions that will involve many different avenues for
receiving input from businesses. That really will be done only after they get the signage plan
from the contractor in July. Then staff can evaluate where the gaps are during construction at
least. Lee Catlin will be working very closely with staff and they will be using one of the
subcommittees to receive input on some of the future signage needs. They are going to use
lots of different venues for obtaining that input.
Regarding VDOT Construction Signage, VDOT has indicated an interest in thinking /acting
outside of "the box" to assist businesses and the community with this construction project. In
this case they are open to being flexible about some of the regulations regarding different
signage types. The directional, detour and entrance signage are expected to be part of the sign
program developed with the road plans due early July. TODS (tourist oriented directional
signage) is the blue sign program that lists specific businesses that qualify under the criteria and
pay an annual fee. VDOT is willing to expand the program during this construction project to
allow businesses that don't meet the criteria to obtain TODS signage. It is all in the effort of
trying to provide more appropriate ways for businesses to have signage, have ways for people
to know how to get to them and know that they are still open during the construction. There are
a lot of other. signs.
The Directional signage, Detour signage and Entrance signage will all be part of the contractor's
signage package that they will see in July. The district / quadrant branding /labeling . is
something that would be used initially during construction and probably at a fairly. basic level
with input from PDAP (Project Delivery Advisory Panel). The PDAP have done a survey and
are going to be receiving input to help guide some construction signage that will just at a very
broad generic level provide district and quadrant branding. The idea is to use colors and
quadrant names to guide drivers to make decisions as to whether to take the through road or
the local road to reach their destination and how to access those businesses.
With the small area plan that will include this area, the County will consider more permanent
branding or Place Associations.
Another type of signage VDOT would use is a combination of the entrance signage, directional
signage and the TODS signage. Orange is sort of a typical construction background for signage
construction work zone. Staff explained the context of what VDOT is going to provide in those
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 7, 2015
FINAL MINUTES
four different types of signage that would be in the_ right -of- way.__ -_Some of which is something
that a business would apply for, such as the TODS signage. Some of it would be signage that
VDOT provides as part of the construction signage.
Staff realized in our efforts that our current temporary sign regulations really were in no way
anticipating a situation like this. Temporary signage are set up for the classic sort of grand
opening event, special sales event or other types of seasonal activities that a someone wants a
sign. There are all these limits in terms of numbers of signs, how long it can remain up and so
forth. None of that is really conducive to somebody who is losing their sign for up to a two year
construction period.
The reason she is saying two years is because while the signs will be removed potentially as
early as May, (staff is talking about those ten signs that are in the utility area) it is very likely that
because of the work that will be done with grading easements and construction easement the
business may not want to put the sign back until they know the finished grade and sort of the
finished product in the best location or that sign. So it could potentially be as long as two years
for their temporary construction signage. That is the purpose of this ordinance amendment.
The proposed regulations would add a new provision in addition to those sorts of special events
temporary signs for a temporary replacement sign. It also clarifies that a permanent
replacement sign, which would be a sign that would purchased and removed or those 10 signs
that they are talking about, if reinstalled consistent with their ARB review approval that is
something that would be permitted. The ordinance would say, very clearly that is provided and
they would not have to then go back through the whole ARB review process again.
As stated previously, it is a narrowly focused ordinance amendment for Phase 1. Phases 2 and
3 have yet to be discussed. Staff does not know what format that will take and whether there
will be a difference between what people and businesses want and what staff would
recommend. That has yet to be seen. There is a lot of work to be done on that.
Staff Recommendation
• Following public hearing, staff recommends approval of proposed zoning ordinance
amendment addressing (Phase 1) Route 29 Solutions Business Signage Impacts —
Attachment A in staff report.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Randolph questioned how VDOT is going to determine the order in .which businesses are
listed on the signs. He recommended that it be alphabetical because there is going to be so
much signage and confusion in this corridor that he thinks it would be much easier for drivers to
look for businesses from top to bottom. It is critical the signage has a high degree of
fluorescence so these signs stand out at night. He would hope the signage would be highly
visible at a maximum distance, which is going to be .critical for people to find the businesses.
He did not think they could do enough as a county to help these aggrieved businesses with this
construction project.
Ms. McCulley pointed out VDOT has standards they must follow and even higher standards on
a primary route like 29.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 7, 2015
FINAL MINUTES
_ Mr. Dotson noted -he had a few process questions. The applications would be approved by the
zoning administrator. He asked if that will be the same staff person for each of signs just in
terms of consistent answers.
Ms. McCulley replied that Stewart Wright who is our senior permit planner and also sort of our
sign guru is here tonight. He is working very directly with all the businesses on signage on a
daily basis. They are also as part of this business assistance effort trying to consolidate
procedures and not send people around to a lot of different places and make it as easy as
possible. If someone has specific signage questions Steward Wright, who is probably going to
be handling all of them, is happy to answer them. They did send out letters to all 12 businesses
who are on the 10 signs asking them to contact us so they can provide assistance. They want
to make it a pretty seamless process. Once that sign goes down staff hopes that they have.
already planned for replacement in identification.
Mr. Dodson noted the ordinance says the application will be processed within 7 days. He asked
if our expectation is they would expedite the process and it could be less than 7 days.
Ms. McCulley asked Stewart Wright to speak to that because he does this on a daily basis.
Steward Wright replied that he predicts the turnaround time for these permits be less than 48
hours.
Mr. Dotson said he thinks that is appropriate. They mention a fee. When VDOT requires the
removal of an existing sign he assumes there is some compensation to the property owner and
sign owner. He was assuming that would include that VDOT would essentially be paying the
fee that the county would be charging.
Ms. McCulley replied she did not think that specifically is part of the calculation of the
comprehensive for the signs that they are removing. However, she knows that fees, including
sign fees that they are talking about here, are something that has come up with the business
assistance strategies. There is a consideration of whether there should be a fund whereby it is
like a grant basis. It would be through something like the EDA to help assist businesses with
some of these fees. If there is no ARB requirement the sign permit fee is very low. It is $25.
However, she thinks there is still a desire to assist with even those fees because it was not
through their own desire that the sign is coming down.
Mr. Dotson noted that he would think particularly with these 10 -signs where it is at VDOT's
instigation that would be something that the county should make sure takes place. Lastly, in the
slides staff was talking about the about the exemption from ARB review under certain
conditions. He thinks the . vocabulary was "permanent replacement signs" in the slide.
However, in the text of the ordinance it begins the re- erection of the same permanent sign. He
asked if somebody wants to put up a new and better sign that still meets all the ARB
requirements would that be allowed. This literally says the same sign.
Ms. McCulley agreed that it does. If the sign is changed it would need some type of initial
review to see if the change is still consistent with approval. She can see somebody wanting to
use that opportunity to have a new sign if they have an old sign and maybe not just reuse the
old sign. Although they do understand that part of the agreement is they will be compensated
for the sign and will be allowed to keep the sign. But, again, they may not want to do that. They
may want to seize the opportunity to have a new sign built. She thinks it really depends on
whether they are building the same thing or changing that sign.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 7, 2015
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Dotson asked if it would be possible to have the zoning administrator who is reviewing this
make the determination that this new replacement sign meets all the requirements that were on
the previous sign without having to go back to the ARB.
Ms. McCulley asked Mr. Kamptner if he had any ideas about how they could phrase that.
Mr. Kamptner replied yes, essentially Mr. Dotson is saying a sign that satisfies all the previously
imposed conditions have the same right to administrative approval.
Ms. McCulley pointed out that would be something staff would work on in this provision.
Mr. Keller said they know that many people are often using global positioning software. He
asked has any provision been made by VDOT to call attention to Apple, Google or other
providers of the circulation changes. He thinks all of us have come into positions where
circulation has changed and they get going in circles trying to find a place that they can't get to.
Ms. McCulley replied yes, Lou Hatter with VDOT in particular is working on it. They at one time
had talked about a couple of different ideas for apps, some of which would give real time
information about traffic and the best route to take particularly during 103 -day period. They are
working with some of the GPS providers to see how quickly they pick up on changes in routes
as well as different types of apps.
Mr.. Keller said he thinks that a new app is not the issue here. He thinks that having it translate
seamlessly into the existing apps that people use is the concern. They all know that previous to
the call phone GPS that one had to pay for updates. So the people who have the older ones
are going to have trouble regardless. However, the new ones using the cell phone GPS there
has to be some mechanism to get to those providers.
Ms. McCulley agreed that was a good point, which she would pass on at the meeting tomorrow.
Mr. Randolph hoped there was a way legally that the county and possibly the Chamber website
could feature 2 of these businesses a day for the 103 day window of construction. It would be
to identify the fact that these are the people that are victimized, or temporarily inconvenienced
by the construction of the road. It was a way of trying as a county to provide some degree of
visibility. However, he did not know legally they can do that.
Mr. Kamptner noted the 29 Solutions Team is sensitive to that issue. But, they are also mindful
of not showing favoritism because promoting what is going on with the businesses up there and
not those in the Pantops area could create some concerns. But, they are mindful of that issue.
Mr. Loach said he thought it was interesting to color code the districts and coordinate that with
the signs. He thought that would be good because that is one thing they could advertise via the
web what these districts are so people would become familiar with the color coding of the district
that they are going to.
Mr. Keller noted having done these sorts of things his whole career that they can also overdo or
over sign it. The reality is that the local patrons are going to figure this out pretty quickly and
then they are going to use it. It is going to work for them. It might be frustrating, but if they want
to be repeat patrons of a certain business they are going to figure it out. He thinks that it is to
capture that group that is not going to be consistently using it that they have to really work on
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 7, 2015
FINAL MINUTES
the ways to do_ it. He would go with simplicity, which is why he thinks the idea of alphabetizing
or something that would make it easy. They have all been frustrated by not being able to see
signs at night. He was not sure about the district and all the colors. He thinks that might be
over thinking it. '
Mr. Dotson pointed out he liked the concept.
Mr. Morris invited public comment.
Neil Williamson, President of the Free Enterprise, said just to bring the Commission up to speed
across the hall the Board funded from what he calls windfall an additional $250,000 for ACE
which brings their total to $500,000 next fiscal year. He has grave concerns that this body
should not really be weighing in on those budgetary items.. The one vote against it was because
those funds would otherwise be spent on capital projects for infrastructure in the Development
Area, which is concurrency of infrastructure that was something he had heard a lot about here.
Mr. Williamson noted nonetheless, tonight they have before them a common sense regulatory
relieve for the 12 businesses that will lose their permanent signage during the utility relocation
and construction of the Rio /US 29 grade separated interchange. His longstanding opposition to
this project is well recorded. He continues to believe the costs far outweigh the benefits and it
sets the stage for an eventual Albemarle Express Way that will eventually disseminate a large
portion of this important business corridor. Yes, lost signage is just one of the many ways
businesses will be impacted by the Rio GSI. VDOT has already started discussions with the
business owners about just compensation for the signs scheduled to be removed. Removal of
these signs could start in just a few weeks time. They applaud staff for moving this up the
agenda to assist the impacted businesses. They believe not only is this regulation change
commonsensical it is clearly the least you can do. They look forward to the staff promised
Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 of signage review. It is our hope that businesses that will have
access albeit perhaps tortured or limited gain increased signage by right for the construction
period and 6 months thereafter. Further, they have asked that they use this opportunity to set
up a provision in code that helps businesses during such specific road construction regardless
of location. The Free Enterprise Forum encourages the Planning Commission to approve the
zoning ordinance before them and move it forward to the Board of Supervisors with all
deliberate speed. He thanked the Commission for the opportunity to comment.
Morgan Butler, with the Southern Environmental Law Center, said the Southern Environmental
Law Center supports these changes. These ten businesses that have been identified should be
able to put up a non - permanent sign during the duration of construction to replace the one that
will need to be removed. He does have a question about trying to shoehorn this specific
circumstance into the category of temporary signs. Ms. McCulley during her staff report made a
very pertinent observation which is the temporary sign regulations did not anticipate this type of
situation. The temporary sign regulations are meant for signs that are advertising temporary
and seasonal brief events or activities such as a grand opening. As a result if you look at the
proposed changes they have to change the definition of temporary sign. Specifically, they are
striking that language that limits temporary signs to those temporary brief seasonal events or
activities. His concern was he wondered if as a result of that they will start getting temporary
sign permit applications for all types of non - temporary events and activities sort of off -site
general advertising types of signs. He was just curious that there may very well be a good
reason that this was decided to be: done through the temporary sign category, but he was
wondering if any thought has been given to creating a new category. It could be something like
an interim construction replacement sign where it could be a separate category and have these
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL, 7, 2015
FINAL MINUTES
same _provisions and allowances apply_ but not _have to alter the--definition of temporary signs
and risk the potential unforeseen consequences of doing so. So that would be a suggestion. He
anticipates that it probably was considered, but he thinks it is something that is worth
considering if it has not been. He would be curious to hear what the concerns were with that
approach if it was considered. He thanked the Commission for the chance to comment.
Karen Weiner, Mall Manager at Charlottesville Fashion Square, said again as a minimum this is
very welcomed to what will be upcoming for the Corridor. The temporary signage during
construction during the utility relocation, needs to be taken into an aspect that the entire terrain
will have changed both during and after the project. Also, with utility relocations where our
current sign is located a permanent sign may not be able to be located again in the future. So
that needs to be brought into consideration as well as for the location and the visibility of the
sign from the roadway. At Charlottesville Fashion Square, of course, everyone says well the
mall, but they have 80 businesses plus in the mall that they need to consider the visibility and
viability of. So she thanks the Commission very much for considering this as a minimum to be
able to help the businesses in that area.
There being no further public comment, Mr. Morris closed the public hearing session and to
bring it back to the Commission for discussion and action.
Mr. Kamptner asked to address Mr. Butler's comments regarding the definition of temporary
sign. They always take the opportunity to clean up some language in regulations when they
are addressing the same subject matter. His initial intent was simply to update the cross
reference that is in that definition. But, looking at it the current definition actually favors
commercial speech over noncommercial speech and it also regulates content to a certain
extent. So they addressed those two constitutional concerns by cleaning up the language of the
definition. It really was not a consequence of the other changes that are. part of this ordinance,
but just part of the review of the regulations.
Mr. Morris thanked Mr. Kamptner.
Ms. Firehock asked Mr. Kamptner if he feels there is any need to define what is temporary.
Mr. Kamptner replied that it was defined in the regulations themselves because the types of
temporary signs that they have right now are limited by the period for which each permit can be
issued, which is 15 days to an aggregate of 60 days in a calendar year. It also allows us the
flexibility to incorporate the regulations that they are doing with Phase 1 into an existing review
framework simply by modifying the temporary sign regulations establishing for that particular
type of temporary sign a period of time, which for a construction project is going to be inherently .
flexible given the project does not go longer than anticipated.
There being no further discussion Mr. Morris asked for a motion.
Mr. Dotson moved to recommend approval of ZTA- 2015 -00004 Phase I Route 29 Solutions
Business Signage. Impacts to the Board of Supervisors noting that staff is going to look at the
provision about permanent replacement signs possibly as also not warranting further ARB
review.
Mr. Kamptner agreed noting what staff can do is revise that subsection so that either re- erecting
the same sign or erecting a new sign that complies with the conditions of the certificate of
appropriateness would qualify.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING .COMMISSION -APRIL 7, 2015 10
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Dotson so moved.
Mr. Randolph seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of (6:0). (Lafferty absent)
Mr. Morris noted ZTA- 2015 -00004 Phase I Route 29 Solutions Business Signage Impacts would,-
be forwarded with a recommendation for approval to the Board of Supervisors to be heard on
May 6. He thanked everyone who participated this evening.
In summary, the Planning Commission forwarded the proposed ordinance to the Board of
Supervisors as recommended by staff with additional consideration of the following:
• Revise subsection 30.6.5(i) so that either re- erecting the same sign or erecting a new
sign that complies with the conditions of the certificate of appropriateness would qualify
Old Business
Mr. Morris asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting moved to the
next item.
New Business
Mr. Morris asked if there was any new business.
PC liaisons to Places29 CACs —
Mr. Cilimberg explained as noted in his email to the Commission there was a reconstituted
Places29 Advisory Council that has three sub - councils or sub - committees geographically
oriented with a Northern Committee above the South Fork of the Rivanna River, South of the
South Fork and East of Route 29, and South of the South Fork and west of Route 29.
Places29 -North will focus on the Piney Mountain and Hollymead. Neighborhoods. Places29 -
Hydraulic will focus on the neighborhoods and businesses between Hydraulic Road and Rio
Road in the Places29 Master Plan area. Places29 -Rio will focus on the neighborhoods and
businesses between Rio Road and the Rivanna River in the Places29 Master Plan area. Each
sub- Committee will have one Board of Supervisor liaison and one Planning Commission liaison.
Liaisons will be appointed based on magisterial districts within the Master Plan boundaries for
the sub - Committees. For Places29 North, the BOS Liaison will be appointed from the Rivanna
District and the Planning Commission liaison will be appointed from either the Rivanna District
or the At -Large member. For Places29- Hydraulic, the BOS Liaison will be appointed from the
Jouett District and the Planning Commission liaison will be appointed from either the Jouett
District or the At -Large member. For Places29 -Rio, the BOS Liaison will be appointed from the
Rio District and the Planning Commission liaison will be appointed from either the Rio District or
the At Large member. Mr. Cilimberg asked for a confirmation tonight as to who they agree will
represent the Planning Commission on each of those.
Mr. Morris invited discussion. He, asked if there were any objections. There is one item he
would like to be considered. There are a couple of people on the Planning Commission that are
currently not on one of the citizens advisory committees. He would really like to start getting
those people involved and would like to take the advantage if Tim Keller is agreeable to really
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION -APRIL 7,2015 11
FINAL MINUTES
start as a team. and he will pull further and further out because this is his last year. He would
really like Mr. Keller to -be a part of the Pantops Citizens Advisory Committee. He says that --
simply from the logistics of this that based upon where Mr. Keller lives and the time that they
have that committee meeting which is 6:15 p.m. on the fourth Monday of the month that would
be inconvenient for him to come to the "northern part of Places29. Being in Key West he can
more easily handle this, if that would be amendable to Mr. Keller. However, he wanted to give
him his reasoning for this. He asked Mr. Cilimberg if he saw any problem with that.
Mr. Cilimberg replied no, if Mr. Keller is agreeable and the Commission is agreeable he would
think that Mr. Keller would be the Pantops Council representative.
Mr. Keller agreed.
Mr. Cilimberg said for each of these magisterial districts that correspond to the geographic area
of Places29 each Commissioner would serve.
Mr. Morris agreed noting that there was not a thing that says that Mr. Keller and he can't both be
at the Pantops meeting for a while, and Mr. Cilimberg replied no.
• The Commissioners agreed to following representatives on the Places29 CACs: Mr. Morris
on Places29 North, Mr. Lafferty on the Places29 Hydraulic, and Mr. Dotson on Places29
Rio. Mr. Keller also agreed to replace Mr. Morris on the Pantops Advisory Council.
• Mr. Cilimberg noted the need for a public hearing regarding the Planning Commission's
recommended Comprehensive Plan to address a notification oversight at the time of the
original Planning Commission public hearing.
• No Planning Commission meeting on April 14, 2015.
• The next Planning Commission meeting will beheld on Tuesday, April 21, 2015.
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 7:07 p.m. to the Tuesday, April 21, 2015
meeting at 6:00 p.m. at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Room #241, 401 McIntire
Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
V. Wayne glimberg, Secretary
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon C. Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commisi�ron & Planning
Boards)
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - APRIL 7, 2015 12
FINAL MINUTES