1992-07-08 M.B. 42, Pg. 1
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 1)
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, was held on July 8, 1992, at 7:00 P.M., Meeting Room 7, County
office Building, McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
PRESENT: Mr. Edward H. Bain, Jr., Mr. David P. Bowerman, Mrs. Char-
lotte Y. Humphris, Messrs. Forrest R. Marshall, Jr., Charles S. Martin and Mr.
Walter F. Perkins.
ABSENT: None.
OFFICERS PRESENT: County Executive, Robert W. Tucker, Jr.; County
Attorney, George R. St. John; and County Planner, V. Wayne Cilimberg.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:07 P.M. by the
Chairman, Mr. Bowerman.
Agenda Item No. 2. Pledge of Allegiance.
Agenda Item No. 3. Moment of Silence.
Agenda Item No. 4. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
Public. There were none.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to adopt the
following resolution relative to the afternoon executive session:
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING
WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors has con-
vened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative
recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virgin-
ia Freedom of Information Act; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires
certification by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors that
such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia
law;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Board
of Supervisors hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's
knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the
executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies,
and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in
the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed
or considered by the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors.
VOTE:
AYES:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall,
Martin and Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSENT DURING MEETING: None.
ABSTAIN DURING VOTE: None.
Agenda Item No. 5. Consent Agenda. Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris,
seconded by Mr. Bain, to accept the items on the consent agenda as informa-
tion. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion
carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin
and Perkins.
NAYS: None.
Item 5.1. Copies of Minutes of the Planning Commission for June 9 and
June 23, 1992, were received for information.
Item 5.2. Copy of the Minutes of the Albemarle County Service Authority
dated May 21, 1992, was received as information.
Item 5.3. Monthly Bond Report for Arbor Crest Apartments (Hydraulic Road
Apts.) for the months of April and May, 1992, received as information.
M.B. 42, Pg. 2
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 2)
Item 5.4. Notice dated June 23, 1992, from the State Corporation Commis-
sion that Commonwealth Gas Services, Inc. has filed application for a general
increase in rates, received as information.
Item 5.5. Copy of letter dated June 29, 1992, from Mr. D. S. Roosevelt,
Resident Engineer, addressed to Mr. Henry M. Childs re: Route 693, received as
follows:
,,Reference is made to your letter dated June 23 and our telephone
conversation of June 29, 1992, concerning Route 693.
Funding for improvements to any secondary routes require financing
through the Six Year,Plan process. I believe your letter of June
23 with a copy to Mr. Perkins and the Albemarle Board of Supervi-
sors will be sufficient to bring your concern to their attention.
Revision to the Six Year Plan is not scheduled until the winter of
1993-94. Since this is some time off, I do not believe it would
be productive for you and I to review road widening needs at this
time.
I recognize the special problems that tractor trailer trucks have
in negotiating Route 693. Certainly some tree trimming and brush
cutting can be undertaken on this route in addition to what has
already been done this year. I am, by copy of this letter to my
maintenance superintendent at Yancey Mills, asking that he contact
you personally to review these needs."
Not Docketed: Motion was offered by Mrs. Humphris, seconded by Mr. Bain,
to reappoint Mr. Michael J. Marshall as the at-large member on the Albemarle
County School Board, with the term to expire on June 30, 1996. Roll was
called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Marshall.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 6. Public Hearing Continued from June 17, 1992: An
ordinance to be known as Chapter 16.01 of the Code of Albemarle entitled
"Naming of Roads and Numbering of Properties."
Mr. Cilimberg remarked that the Board and staff discussed at last week's
work session, the size of signs and the placement of sign requirements of the
ordinance relating to the naming of roads and the numbering of properties. He
noted that the discussion centered around whether or not a reduced size of
signs would be allowable by VDoT, and whether it would be appropriate for the
County to help in getting some perspective on that. He recalled that signs
were placed at the County Office Building parking lot entrances at McIntire
Road to give the supervisors a comparison between the nine inch sign and the
six inch sign. He said, based on last week's discussion, this Board agreed to
continue to this hearing tonight, with staff's recommendations, and without
changes to the ordinance or the size specifications. He informed the supervi-
sors that the action which the staff is requesting tonight is the approval of
the ordinance, and the approval of the road naming and addressing manual which
is a supporting document to the ordinance. He said the staff would also like
to get re-confirmation that the Board will continue with the size of sign that
was originally approved on March 4, 1992, which is the nine inch wide sign
with six inch letters on primary collector roads, and the eight inch sign with
five inch letters on local and subdivision streets.
Mr. Bowerman next opened the public hearing, and he invited the public to
speak on the Road Naming Ordinance. He asked the speakers to come forward,
identify themselves and make their comments.
Mr. John Hood, current President for the Jefferson Country Fire and
Rescue Association, stated that when plans started for the E-911 road naming
and all of the associated things that went along with that, the Association
was asked for an opinion on roadside signs. He said the Association's answer
was that the bigger the signs were, the better it was for rescue people. He
urged the Board's support of the eight inch and nine inch signs, and the
marking of roads which have three or more houses located on them. He noted
that it is the Association's unanimous opinion that the primary reason for the
expense of the signs for the E-911 system is to locate people under conditions
of emergency and duress. He said this means that the police, fire and rescue
people have to be able to read the signs in all kinds of weather and at night,
and in almost every case, they are trying to read them under emergency
conditions. He stated that the emergency responders need the best that they
can be given, and the Association cannot support anything less.
Ms. Hester Witcher recalled that she had spoken to this Board several
weeks ago. She is still very much concerned about the matter of privacy that
will be~ short-circuited on a driveway such as her own. She wondered if the
County Attorney might have some thoughts about liability for these property
owners, because people will think a road is public, if there is a County sign
M.B. 42, Pg. 3
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 3)
on it. She said that people, their children or pets could get hurt on her own
private road, and she could be sued. She also thinks the size of the sign is
excessive, and she asked the Board what is the methodology behind the E-911
system. It is her understanding, after talking to the fire department, that
the 911 system does not dispatch the fire department. The call goes from 911
to a fire control department to dispatch the various engines to the needed
site. If, by chance, that service is already booked, the call goes back to
911, and then the engines are dispatched from there. She does not see where
this has saved any time, at all. She is really concerned about people's
private roads that are not subdivision roads. These private roads are
driveways, and they will never be anything else. If the County is going to
insist on this system, then she thinks citizens have the right to ask for some
type of protection from legal recourse. She suggested that the signs could be
marked as a dead end, a public way,'.-or'private property. ~
Mr. Edward Strauss commented that he lives in the western part of the
County. He has a question which has been in his mind for several months, and
he has talked to a lot of people about it, but has not been able to get an
answer. He went on to ask what is the difference between saying that a person
lives in House Number 2810 on Route 240, or that he lives at 2810 Three
Notch'd Road. He noted that state signs are already located on roads, and he
pointed out that state officials will never throw these signs away, because
they (state officials) are obligated to the citizens of Albemarle County,
through tax money, to put up road signs. He asked why the County wants to go
into the road sign business. All of the County's projects have not worked
very well. The County is short on money, and the supervisors want to change
the Dillon Rule, so they can go over the citizens' heads on the meals tax
issue. County officials cannot handle the new 911 system, and they do not
even know the total cost. He added that it is a dead expense. People are
asking for more money for schools and police, and the supervisors are spending
money by putting up road signs. The police and fire department personnel know
the area. The good responders know where they are going, because in an
emergency, a person does not stop and read a street sign. If a person knows
where Route 240 is located, then that person will know where Three Notch'd
Road is located. Road naming should be a local option. If he owns 50 acres
of land, and he has a road, and owns three tenant houses, it should be his
business, as to whether or not a road sign would be installed. Most of the
people who live on roads without signs, want to live there. He moved further
out into the county to get away from the water and sewer system in Crozet.
W~ere he is currently living is where he wants to spend his money, and this is
where he wants to live. He reiterated that the issue of whether or not a sign
is installed at a private road, should be left up to the individual landowner.
He said that 80 percent of this county is rural, and no matter how many signs
are installed, it will stay a rural county. Installing signs will not bring
in industries and jobs to make the county grow. Putting up little houses and
naming streets will not make this an urban county, and it does not give the
supervisors the right to tax more. He thinks the supervisors are taking on
this burden, so they can indicate that the county is urban, now, and they can
require more tax money. Of the supervisors would release a statement and
explain to him how the E-911 system will work better with green street signs,
then he will support it. He does not think, however, that the supervisors can
do so. He emphasized that now the supervisors want to adopt an ordinance to
tell people what they can do. He asked what can be more obnoxious than
putting up a green sign on a person's property. He had a person register a
complaint about him, because that person did not like where his (Mr. Strauss')
trash cans were located. He wishes that all of the county officials would get
together and determine a total cost of the E-911 system. He mentioned that
Mrs. Humphris had a question about the cost of the new E-911 system, but he
never heard a price relating to the system. He does not even have to belong
to this new system, if he does not want to do so. He went on to say that C &
P Telephone Company personnel told him that he can opt out, and he does not
have to be in the data base. He asked what are the supervisors trying to
accomplish, and he wondered if this system is really better. He inquired if
any of the supervisors have lived anywhere which has this system. There is no
substitute for trained personnel. The money should be put into the rescue
squad's and the fire department's budgets, because this phone system will
never save a life. It is the people at the other end who save lives.
Mrs. Jessica Lindstrom, said she had two comments. She said the first
comment to which she will refer comes from a remark made by Mr. Perkins at
last week's meeting, which implied that a number of the public are late
comers, who are getting involved at the last minute. She would like to
correct Mr. Perkins' statement. If the supervisors and staff will look in the
files, they will see a number of letters from her and her neighbors, dating
back to last December, written to Wayne Cilimberg and Tex Weaver about the
naming of the roads. She and her neighbors have been keeping very much aware
of the situation. When she and her neighbors were calling and asking ques-
tions about the size of the signs and whether or not there could be a private
designation, they were told the staff did not know, and there would be time
for them to have their input. She reiterated that a number of the people are
not getting involved late. She said they have been a part of the issue and
have been paying attention to the whole matter. The second concern related to
privacy. She feels the tendency of this Board is to vote for the signs. She
thinks the signs are too big, especially if one is put at the end of her
driveway. Her driveway is almost at the end of a county road. If this
ordinance is adopted, when people come to the end of that road, instead of
M.B. 42, Pg. 4
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 4)
just seeing a sign that says, "End of State Maintenance," if they come just a
little further, they will see a sign pointing to her house. There is a
right-of-way through her property to four other houses, which, including her
house, will be a total of five houses located on that road. She is concerned,
not only for privacy, but also for safety reasons. She likened the situation
to a subdivision where there is a real estate sign stating that there is an
open house pointing down Mr. Bowerman's driveway or Mr. Bain's, driveway, etc.
She knows she has exaggerated the situation, but she is expressing her
feelings on the issue. Everybody is going to think, because the sign is
there, that it is a road where they can continue to drive, and they will end
up in her front yard. She thinks there is a safety issue involved, although
she has no idea about.the liability issue to which someone has already
referred. She asked the Board, should they approve this ordinance, if they
would consider including a-designation of privacy, no exit, or:deadend, etc.,
for the signs. The general public will be using her road to hunt, or sight-
see, and she also stated there are a number of subdivisions being constructed
at the beginning of her road, and she does not want people looking for land in
her front yard. She emphasized that she would appreciate the Board consider-
ing a privacy designation for these signs.
Mr. Rick Miller stated that he has property on Route 20. He mentioned
that there is a large county sign indicating the route number (Route 769, of
the road on which he lives, and this seems to be functional. In addition to
that sign, there is a county sign with the road name on it. He thinks these
two signs are more than adequate. He questioned the fiscal responsibility of
funding larger szgns. He appreciates the rescue squad's position, and he had
been involved with a rescue squad situation recently with his grandmother, and
he knows this is important. However, he thinks larger signs will be, "over-
kill," and he does not know how the County can afford them.
Ms. Angelica Killam remarked that she was present at a meeting of this
Board a few weeks ago, and she has not changed her feelings a great deal since
that time, except that she is shocked to see the signs will be put in so many
more places than she had thought. She said that she did not realize there
would be so many signs installed. She appreciates the emergency service
people, and she mentioned that she was on the Stony Point Fire Company Board
at one time, so she knows about the problems that emergency service people
have. She added that she would like to hear from these responders as to why
they need the larger signs. She pointed out that Orange County and Highland
County have chosen smaller signs, and she is interested to know why Albemarle
County officials feel the larger signs have to be used. She noted that there
are 14 official signs within three-tenths of a mile of her entrance, and she
thinks this is very much, "overkill."
Mr. Peter Hallock stated that he is representing some people in eastern
Albemarle County, and he noted that the area where he lives is about to become
a historical district. He said it is counterproductive to put large signs
through such a district, and he added that the private landowners zn his area
feel the smgns should be smaller.
Ms. Sarah Lee Barnes reminded the Board members that she had spoken at
the last public hearing about her concern for the privacy factor relating to
the County signs. She lives on a farm in Keswick, and there is a large farm
sign on the road going into her farm. Just last week, the rescue squad
responders managed to find the farm and the house without any further slgnage.
She understands some farms and places are not as well marked as others, but
she noted that there is a constant stream of individuals driving into her
property, even though it is posted. If a large County sign is put at her farm
entrance, people from out of town are not going to know that these signs are
for the use of emergency personnel, and they are going to drive in, look
around and check out the farm for whatever reason. She wanted to impress upon
this Board the need for indicating on the signs that farms, etc., are private,
and, if not, then she thinks the landowner should have the option of whether
or not to put up a County sign. She also wanted to note that she prefers a
smaller sign.
There was no further public input, so Mr. Bowerman closed the public
hearing.
Mrs. Humphris stated that there are two issues which have not been
resolved. She noted that one issue relates to the size of signs on subdivi-
sions and local roads, and the other issue involves signage of private
property. Before the Board had this discussion last week, she had thought the
supervisors were headed in the direction of being interested in the possibili-
ty of the smaller sign, which is the six inch sign, for the subdivision and
private ownership roads. She added that the signs were displayed in the
County Office Building's lower parking lot last week for the supervisors to
view, and the signs were still there today. When the discussion was held last
week, a couple of the members of this Board said they could not see the
smaller sign. This Board, more or less, indicated that since two Board
members could not read the smaller signs, then this Board would be in favor of
the larger s~gns. She asked, at this time, if the supervisors could discuss
this issue in further detail. She inquired if the two supervisors had looked,
again, and really found that the six inch sign was difficult to read.
M.B. 42, Pg. 5
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 5)
Mr. Bowerman asked if the signs which are displayed in the parking lot
are eight inches and nine inches in size, or is there a six inch sign located
there, also. Mr. Cilimberg replied that there are two signs displayed in the
County office Building parking lot. He said that one sign is a nine inch
sign, and the other sign is six inches in size.
Mrs. Humphris noted that the six inch sign is closer to the County office
, and the nine inch sign is further away. She acknowledged that she
wears glasses, but she had no trouble seeing the six inch sign. She added,
however, that another Board member indicated he had trouble seeing the smaller
sign, so she said this Board began to change direction, as far as the sizes of
the signs were concerned. She asked, again, if this issue could be discussed.
Mr. Martin suggested a different approach. He mentioned the public
hearing which was held before the :last meeting, and said that he left that
public hearing thinking it was possible to have a compromise. He stated this
compromise would include a smaller sign, as well as installing signs on
private roads where there are five or more houses, instead of putting signs on
private roads with three or more houses, as the proposed ordinance indicates.
noted that based on the fact that a lot of people on private roads are
looking forward to having signs installed, he had thought it would be appro-
priate to look into the matter of providing these people with an option. He
went on to say that at the last meeting the Board discussed the matter and
decided to approve the larger sign as well as requiring signs on private roads
with three or more houses. He thinks a majority of people in this County are
in favor of having the signs in order to help the rescue responders find their
homes. He, also, thinks the people who have a problem with the ordinance, as
it is being advertised, are represented at this meeting, and he stated that
these people make up a small portion of the County's population. It seems to
hat it would make sense for the supervisors to try and work out a
compromise that everybody could live with, rather than for this Board to
appear that it is not open to any changes. He believes the smaller signs
would work well, and he also believes that for people who live on private
roads with five or less houses, they should have an option of whether or not
to have a sign. He knows it will be hard to change the proposed ordinance
now, but he is not talking about redoing the whole ordinance. He commented
that the staff and supervisors could take another week or two to try to f±gure
out a way that a compromise could be reached, to satisfy the few people who
are in disagreement with the ordinance. He pointed out that these people only
disagree with small portions of the ordinance, and not the entire document.
He said after these problems have been solved, the Board could take its vote.
Mrs. Humphris mentioned that someone had suggested to her there might be
approach to this matter. She will use Cloverfields Farm as an
example, because she had notes from Mrs. Barnes' remarks from an earlier
meeting, which indicated that there were five dwellings on this farm, but
these dwellings were all used by the same family. Mrs. Humphris stated that
perhaps a compromise could be worked out in terms of single ownership of
private road property, instead of the number of dwellings which are located on
private roads. She has not had the opportunity to think through this sugges-
tion, as far as whether it would help, or whether it would add to the confu-
smon. She said that as she recalls rural areas around the County where farms
are located, she has noticed that a tremendous number of them are single
ownership pieces of property, which have more than three dwellings on a
private farm road. She asked if other supervisors or staff members have any
thoughts on dealing with this matter in a single ownership situation.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the staff had a report last week which spoke to
the issues that Mr. Martin raised, and the staff had some recommendations. He
mentioned, too, that Mrs. Humphris has just made a proposal. He then asked
the staff to comment on last week's staff report.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that the staff examined the VDoT minimum sign
requirements to see what the requirement would be on any public road where
there was an intersecting road, whether it was public or private. He added
that VDoT requires a nine inch sign with six inch lettering on primary and
collector roads. As an example, Mr. Cilimberg said that on Route 20, whether
there is a public or private road intersection, VDoT would require a nine inch
sign with six inch letters. He went on to say that, internally, on subdivi-
sion streets and private roads which are considered local and subdivision
roads, the six inch size with a four inch lettering would be an acceptable
standard. He does not know if reducing the standard size of a sign would help
people who have expressed a concern and who live on a road, such as Route 20,
because they are on a State primary road.
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Cilimberg is indicating that a private road
which intersects a State road requires a nine inch sign. Mr. Cilimberg
answered affirmatively. Mr. Bain explained that the proposed ordinance
requires a nine inch sign for private roads which intersect a State road, if
there are three or more dwelling units located on the private road.
Mr. Cilimberg agreed. He then went on to say the staff commented last
week on the fact that road names were received and requested by the residents
for at least 90 percent of the 620 private roads in the County, and many of
those 620 private roads will have three or more dwelling units located on
them, and will fall under this requirement. He informed the Board that if an
M.B. 42, Pg. 6
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 6)
exception is made, it will potentially affect a great number of roads, and he
wondered how the message can get to the people that they will have an opportu-
nity for an option. He said many people may not be aware of what is happening
until a road sign appears. He noted that the staff had also commented there
could be numbering on existing signs which identify properties, versus placing
road signs at private entrances. He said this gets into the concerns raised
by the emergency service providers, relating to consistency and type and
visibility of signs, which the emergency providers feel is of the utmost
importance. He added that staff has never investigated the question of how
many of these private roads are on common ownership parcels, or how many
private roads serve the dwellings of one owner, so he cannot tell the Board
how many of these types of properties exist.
Mr. Martin pointed~'out ~hat~the staff report had indicated that one of
the difficulties of changing the sign requirement from three houses or more to
five or more houses on a private road is the simple fact that a lot of people
on roads with three or more dwellings submitted names and are anticipating a
road name change, and they are looking forward to it. He wondered, however,
if the recommendation is changed from three houses on private roads to five
before a sign is required, how will this information be given to the people
who need it, and how will the staff get the information they need back from
the citizens. He reiterated that it seems to him that a couple of weeks could
be spent on giving people an option to make a decision as to whether or not
they want a sign, if the requirement is changed from three houses on a private
road to five. He said the two weeks would save the County money, because
there will not be an addition of signs, and he pointed out that there will be
less signs, if this option is approved. He does not think the difference
between requlr±ng a sign for private roads with three dwellings or five
dwellings will mean a lot in terms of emergency response time. He said,
however~ that the increase in the requirement on private roads from three
dwellings to five, before a sign is required, will mean an awful lot to the
people who are attending this meeting tonight. He emphasized that he thinks
it is worth the effort to consider this matter for another two weeks.
Mrs. Humphris asked what is involved, as far as cost is concerned, if the
system that has already been set up, is changed. Mr. Cilimberg replied that
the staff would not recommend the road name be eliminated. He explained that
even if the sign is not installed, the road name needs to stay because a
contractor is now confirming addresses, and he is working to send out confir-
mation to all people on those roads. If the contractor is stopped in the
middle of that process, a cost will be incurred, and there will be a delay in
the delivery involved with the contract. The original contract was signed
approximately nine months ago, and the contractor was given the idea that all
roads with three or more houses located on them were being named.
Mr. Martin stated that if roads are not named now, and they have differ-
ent names, it will create problems for the rescue squad.
Mr. Cilimberg remarked that, in lieu of a County road sign, the number of
the house and the street will have to be put on mail boxes or on another sign
at the beginning of the road leading into the property.
Mr. Marshall asked if there will be a map and a key with all of the road
names, so that the emergency responders can look at the map to find out where
they are going. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he is assumzng that a map and key
will be available to emergency responders. He does not know how easy this
will be for the responders.
Mr. Marshall then talked directly to two fireman, John Hood and Johnny
Baughman, who were in the audience. He asked-them if there was ever an
incident where they could not find a house in time to save it, and he asked
them if they felt that the road naming is necessary to the community.
Mr. John Hood replied that it would be difficult to relate this to his
experiences. He went on to say that within the last four weeks in the Keswick
area, he, personally, went on a cardiac arrest call. He said the directions
that were given to the 911 dispatcher were faulty. They were told that the
person in distress lived on a road that was a certain number of driveways past
Route 616 on Route 250 East, but the number of driveways that the dispatcher
was given was incorrect. He went up three driveways trying to find the right
house. Someone has to put themselves in the place of a rescue person to know
how an emergency provider feels. He cannot tell this Board how it feels when
an emergency responder is the only chance for a person to live, and the
responder is lost and cannot find that person. A person would have to ride in
an emergency vehicle to understand such a situation. He remarked that
emergency providers need every chance they can get to find the proper home
when they get calls. He then noted that the issue has been raised about
properties at Keswick. He said the Keswick area is no different than any
other place. He noted that one farm sign may be outlined in rocks and
columns, another may be on a plaque and another may be on a sign on a pole.
He said the signs are inconsistent, as far as color, size and placement. He
explained that in the Keswick area, the Fire Department had to make up a
graphics map, and he has such a map in his car. He said the firemen carry
this map all the time because the farms are hard to find. He added that there
is a good chance for finding farms with big signs, such as the one for
Cloverfields Farm. He reiterated that there are other large farms in the
M.B. 42, Pg. 7
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 7)
Keswick area, which are as large as Cloverfields, but the farms have no signs
or the signs are small, and it is hard to find these farms when there is a
problem.
Mr. Marshall inquired if the map and key, to which he (Mr. Marshall) had
referred earlier, will be of any more help to the emergency responders. Mr.
Hood answered that the emergency responders really need the road signs,
because the responders need to have access to the best way of finding people.
If there is a road with five people living on it, one person might feel very
vocal about the fact that it is a private road. This is really not a private
road, because there has to be a maintenance agreement if that many houses are
involved. He went on to say that the other four families on that road may
have a medical or fire emergency, and they want emergency responders to be
able to find them. He said that people,~'when they need"emergency help, do not
have much regard, at that time, as to whether or not they live on a private
road. He thinks there is some merit in marking the roads as ,,private" or "no
thoroughfare". He cannot see any merit, however, in not putting up County
road signs which can be seen by the responder. He reminded the supervisors
that he is representing the unanimous vote of 350 fire and rescue responders
who discussed this issue at their last meeting.
Mr. Bowerman asked what are the responders' feelings about the eight inch
sign versus the six inch sign. Mr. Hood replied that visibility in bad
weather makes the eight inch sign more desirable. He also stated that the
smaller~signs would require the responders go at a considerably reduced speed
in order to read them as the vehicle goes by them. Mr. Bowerman then inquired
if two inches makes a significant difference in the terms of the sight
distance. Mr. Hood replied that he feels two inches makes a lot of differ-
ence. He believes the state put a lot of work, at some point, into their
requirements. He would think state officials have the experience to determine
the appropriate size of signs for current speed limits. He noted that
emergency responders have to read the signs at posted speed limits, and he
pointed out that responders should not have to drive 25 or 30 miles an hour
when there is an emergency.
Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Baughman if he concurred with Mr. Hood. Mr.
Marshall went on to say that if Mr. Baughman has another situation to report,
he would like to hear about it.
Mr. Baughman answered affirmatively. In the area of the County that his
fire company covers, there are already a lot of street signs. There are
situations, even in subdivisions, where there are problems with signs. He
does not respond to a lot of emergency calls, personally, because he is not in
that particular phase of the department. However, occasionally he will ride
along with the emergency responders. He recalled one instance when he went to
a chimney fire in Hollymead. He was reading the maps for the Fire Chief to
try to locate a particular house, and the signs were too small in Hollymead to
actually see at night. The responders had to count the turns of the streets
to find the proper house. They did not have a lot of difficulty finding the
house, but he thought this might be a good example for the supervisors to
hear. He emphasized that the larger the sign, the easier it is for the fire,
police and rescue responders to get to the problem. He said it is hard to try
to determine where a place is located, especially in the County, when the
directions indicate that emergency vehicles should go to a certain store, and
then go so many miles beyond that point, and turn into a certain driveway. He
pointed out that it is difficult for emergency responders to try to read their
speedometers, and count the driveways, when they are trying to get to a place
quickly.
Mr. Martin asked if people living on 10 percent of the 690 private roads
chose to opt out of having signs, but everything else in the ordinance was
approved, would this be a drastic improvement over what the County currently
has with which to work.
Mr. Baughman replied that there is no question this would be an improve-
ment. There could be a situation at one of the residences where there was not
a sign. He said the supervisors need to consider the fact that the County
might have 90 percent coverage, but the ten percent of the County without
signs could create a problem. He added that responders want 100 percent
coverage rather than just a percentage. He understands the concern for
certain roads, etc., but if the emergency is there, then the people are not
worried about the private roads. When there is an emergency, the people are
concerned about the response time.
Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that for every sign placed on an existing public
road intersection, the state road number sign will be removed, because the
number will be on the new sign. He added that this state sign could poten-
tially be removed on both sides of the road, because if it is a "T" intersec-
tion or a crossing intersection, there will be one road sign replacing the
number sign which currently exists. The proliferation of signs should not be
as dramatic as it seems, based on the existing signs which are currently
located on the roads. He then referred to private roads, and said that on
those signs which are placed on intersections of private roads with other
roads, since the space for the route number will not be used, the words,
"private road" could be placed in that space. He said this would indicate
that a particular road is private, rather than having a state route number
M.B. 42, Pg. 8
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 8)
showing on the sign. He commented that this is one way to try to deal with
the privacy concerns which have been expressed by some of the County citizens.
Mr. Bain commented that he believes private roads with three or more
houses should have a County sign because of safety issues involved. However,
he also thinks the matter of people coming into these private drives, because
they think they are public roads, should be addressed. He believes this
matter can be addressed, even if there is a separate sign on the sign pole
indicating that a road is private. Other than that, Mr. Bain stated he is
ready to approve the ordinance. He said that either the County is going to
have an E-911 program, or it is not. He emphasized that he thinks roads with
three or more houses located on them should have a sign, and he does not want
to exempt any road from having a sign, if it can be avoided. ~
Mr. Martin remarked that he has been listening to Mr. Hood's and Mr.
Baughman's statements regarding the safety issue. Mr. Martin indicated that
he thinks this is a very important issue, and this is why the proposed
ordinance has been prepared. Some minor changes to the proposed ordinance
would still improve the safety in the County drastically over how it currently
exists° He pointed out that people who would choose not to have a sign would
be consciously opting for a possibility of a slower response time. He is not
implying that people would get what they deserve, if they did not have a sign
at their road, and if there was a fire, and their house burned down. He
believes those people would be making conscious decisions, and they would be
fully aware that if they choose the option of not having a sign, then they may
be reducing emergency response times. It seems to him a person should have
the right to make this choice.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Cilimberg if the addition of adding the words,
"Private Roads," on the signs is something that the staff will need to
continue to study, or can this Board deal with the situation tonight.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that he would need to find out from Mr. Tucker how
this matter could be handled. The staff could study the situation, without
delaying the other elements of the proposed ordinance. The staff could
consider a "Private Road" sticker to be put directly on the sign, or there
could be a second sign located on the pole.
Mr. Tucker commented this would not be a problem. He said the staff can
deal with the situation.
Mr. Martin inquired if six inch signs could be used in some locations,
where permissible. Mr. Tucker answered that this option is still open to the
Board.
Mr. Bowerman remarked that he is not sure where a six inch sign would be
permissible. Mr. Martin stated that he thought anytime another road connected
to a major road, a larger sign would have to be used.
Mr. Bowerman asked if it is true that a larger sign will be used whenever
any road connected to a major road, or will a larger sign be used, only if a
state road is involved. Mr. Cilimberg answered that a larger sign would be
installed whenever there is an intersection with a primary or public collector
road.
Mr. Bowerman next wondered if, in subdivisions, a nine inch sign would
still be required, where there are connecting public and private roads. Mr.
Cilimberg replied that a nine inch sign would be required only if the roads in
subdivisions were collector or primary roads. He said the local or subdivi-
sion streets, within a subdivision, could use the smaller signs.
Mr. Bain recalled that at last week's meeting, the staff had indicated
the Board had an option of approving a six inch s~gn with four inch lettering,
and he noted that he is not interested in this reduction. He said he supports
the larger sign.
Mr. Marshall stated that two weeks ago he was against the si~n ordinance.
He was against the ordinance because he was the only farmer on this Board, and
he did not want one of these signs in front of his farm. He does not want to
have a heart attack, and not have the emergency team find him, either. The
signs were put up in the County Office Building parking lot for the supervi-
sors to examine, and he was one of the people who could not read the smaller
sign. He could, however, read the larger sign. The signs look considerably
smaller when they are installed at the beginning of roads, than they did when
the staff brought them to the room where the supervisors were meeting. It is
his opinion that this Board has to either approve the proposed ordinance or
not approve it. For safety reasons, he is inclined to support the ordinance.
He does have a genuine concern about the privacy issue. People come to his
farm all the time thinking it is a subdivision. He has a dog on his property
that does not like people to come into the entrance to his farm, so this poses
a danger for people who drive onto his property. He emphasized that he thinks
there is a need for t.he words, "Private Road," somewhere on the s~gns, if this
proposed ordinance is approved. He intends to support the ordinance, based
upon what the experts tell him.
M.B. 42, Pg. 9
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 9)
Mr. Bowerman stated that he basically concurs with Mr. Bain and Mr.
Marshall. Mr. Bowerman added that either the supervisors are going to approve
the ordinance, or they are not going to approve it. If the ordinance is
approved, it should be approved in such a way, that it will work. He does not
see much difference between the six and eight inch signs, in terms of their
appearance, but he did find the eight inch sign was much easier to read. He
is use to eight and nine inch signs, since he lives in the urban area. He
really does not think there will be a negative result from installing eight
inch signs, nor does he feel that having signs required for three or more
houses located on a road will be a problem. He said initially the requirement
of signs for roads with three or more houses may be a problem, but he believes
that in order to have a system that works, there has to-be consistency
throughout the County. He would not want to see a system where a certain
percentage could opt o~t of it. He will supporH the proposed'ordinance as it
has been written. He pointed.out that the supervisors had gone over all of
this before, and they had accepted the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Martin said he had made his comments ton±ght, because he thought he
would try again to make the other supervisors see his viewpoint.
Mr. Perkins inquired if the privacy designation will be added to the
signs. The other supervisors answered affirmatively.
Mr. Bain remarked that the staff will need to tell the Board, at its next
meeting, where the privacy designation will be included in the ordinance. He
asked when the ordinance will become effective.
Mr. Tucker replied that the ordinance can become effective this evening,
if the supervisors so desire. He said the private road designation can be
added to the manual, and he noted that it does not have to be included in
the ordinance. Mr. Cilimberg agreed. Mr. Tucker stated that the manual deals
with specifications such as the size of the sign, etc.
Mr. Bain asked the staff to bring the manual to the next meeting for the
Board to review.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that adding the Private Road designation may
result in a different financial cost. If this is the case, this Board will
probably decide that something to protect people's privacy will still have to
be provided, and he does not believe this is the homeowners' responsibility.
Mr. Tucker responded that the staff can certainly bring the manual back
to this Board for its review. He reiterated, however, that the amendment does
not have to be in the ordinance.
Mrs. Humphris wondered if the letters indicating that a road was private
would be too small, if they were put on the sign, itself, in the designated
area. Mr. Cilimberg replied that he does not know the dimensions of the
designated area on the sign, but it is the same space that would have been
used for state route numbers. The staff can tell the Board how much space is
available for the privacy designation, versus another alternative.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that when a vehicle slows down to turn into an
entrance, the driver would be able to read the words on the sign, even if they
are small.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she thinks it is necessary for the Board to see
some alternative methods of adding the privacy designation. Mr. Bain con-
curred. Mrs. Humphris said she does not think the privacy indication on roads
will work at all, if people have already turned their vehicles into a private
road. She cannot imagine what another alternative would be, but she would
like to see the options, before the supervisors make a commitment. She
pointed out that making a private road designation will cause more things to
be put on the signs.
Mr. Cilimberg reported to the Board members that Mr. Weaver had just told
him that the private road lettering would be three inches in height on a nine
inch sign and two inches in height on an eight inch sign.
Mr. Marshall stated that he thinks this Board will have to do something
to protect private property rights. If this means that a separate sign has to
be installed, then it will have to be done.
Mr. Bain commented that he would like to see the Board adopt this
ordinance, but he asked the staff bring alternatives pertaining to private
roads back to this Board by the August 5 day meeting.
At this time, Mr. Bain offered motion to adopt an Ordinance to be known
as Chapter 16.01 of the Code of Albemarle entitled, "Naming of Roads and
Numbering of Properties," with an effective date to be July 8, 1992, and
requested staff to present solutions as to how the signs for private roadS can
be handled, keeping in mind the concerns expressed about privacy, and to make
the report on August 5. Mrs. Humphris seconded the motion.
Mr. Martin remarked that he is going to vote against the motion, but it
ls not that he is voting against the ordinance. He thinks with a little more
M.B. 42, Pg. 10
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 10)
compromise, there could have been a consensus of this Board.
At 8:04 p.m., roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: Mr. Martin.
(The adopted Ordinance is set out in full below:)
An ordinance
To be known as
CHAPTER 16.01 of the Code of Albemarle
entitled
"NAMING OF'ROADS AND NUMBERING OF PROPERTIES"
Sec. 16.01-1.
(a) Purpose.
In order to provide for more efficient delivery of emergency
and other services and to provide for uniformity in road naming
and assignment of property numbers, there is hereby established a
system for naming of roads and numbering of properties within
Albemarle County, Virginia.
(b) Authority.
Authority for this ordinance is Code of Virginia Section 15.1-
379.
(c) Intent.
It is intended that all roads within the county which serve or
are designed to serve three or more dwelling units or business
structures, including both public and private roads, shall be
named; and that all dwelling units and business structures within
the county shall be assigned property numbers.
It is intended that with respect to public and private roads
that meet the above criteria and in existence at the time of
enactment of this ordinance, the placement of road signs shall be
undertaken by the county at county expense; that with respect to
public and private roads which do not meet the above criteria
constructed subsequent to enactment of this ordinance, the county
shall undertake at county expense the placement of road signs upon
those roads funded and/or constructed by the county itself or by
the Virginia Department of Transportation; and that private
developers or owners shall be responsible for the placement of
road signs upon those roads constructed as part of any private
development or subdivision.
It is further intended that the placement of numbers upon
dwelling units and business structures shall in all cases be at
the expense of the owners of such structures.
Sec. 16.01-2. Agent Appointed.
The director of planning and community development is hereby
appointed the agent under Code of Virginia 8ection.15.1-379 for
the purpose of assigning road names and property addresses, and
for the development and maintenance of a manual and maps, as
described below.
Sec. 16.01-3. Manual To Be Developed and Adopted.
The agent shall develop a manual prescribing a system for the
naming of roads and numbering of properties within the county,
prescribing the design of road signs, design of site preparation
for such signs, and for maintenance thereof; in compliance with
the street name sign standards of the County Engineering Depart-
ment. Compliance with the procedures set forth in such manual
shall be mandatory upon its approval by the board of supervisors.
Such procedures may be amended from time to time by resolution of
the board.
Sec. 16.01-4. Maps To Be Developed and Maintained.
The agent shall prepare and keep up-to-date maps showing all
public and private roads which are officially named under this
ordinance within the county, the names of such roads, and number-
ing of all properties.
Sec. 16.01-5. Road Signs.
M.B. 42, Pg. 11
July 8~ 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 11)
With respect to placement of signs for which the county will
be responsible consistent with Section 16.01-1(c), the county
executive or his designee shall be responsible for placement at
each road intersection, and at other places deemed necessary by
the agent.
With respect to placement of signs for which the private
developers or owners will be responsible consistent with Section
16.01-1(c) such private developers or owners shall be responsible
for placement of signs at each road intersection, and at other
places deemed necessary by the agent, and for maintenance thereof
until such time as the roads are taken into the State Secondary
System, or taken over for maintenance by a homeowner's associa-
tion, as the~case'~aY
Such signs shall display the name of each such road within the
limits of the county, along with such other information as the
agent may deem necessary, including, but not limited to, secondary
road numbers as prescribed by the Virginia Department of Transpor-
tation.
Sec. 16.01-6. Numbers To Be Displayed.
On or before January 1, 1993, the owner or other person
responsible for each building in the county shall display the
assigned number in a manner that is easily readable from the road
or access area on which the property is located, in accordance
with the manual. With respect to structures built subsequent to
the enactment of this ordinance, no occupancy permit shall be
issued until such number has been displayed in accordance with the
above provisions.
Sec. 16.01-7. Site Plan and Subdivision Requirements.
No site plan or subdivision plat which shows a new road shall
be approved until such site plan or subdivision plat displays on
its face the name or names of such road or roads, approved by the
agent. No building permit shall be issued for any structure
within the area shown on such site plan or subdivision plat until
road signs have been placed by the developer or owner.
Sec. 16.01-8. Official Address.
Upon adoption of this ordinance and approval of the manual and
the map(s), the street name and number assigned to each property
within the county shall be the official address of such property,
for all purposes.
Sec. 16.01-9. Enforcement. Any person who willfully fails
to comply with any requirements of this chapter and the regula-
tions adopted hereunder shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor
and upon conviction thereof shall be subject to the general
penalty set forth in Section 1-6 of this Code, for each day after
the first day that such violation shall continue. In addition to
the penalty specified above, the county executive or his designee
may invoke any other lawful procedure including injunction to
correct or abate such violation.
This ordinance shall become effective on July 8, 1992.
Agenda Item No. 7. ZTA-91-09. Sign Ordinance. Public Hearing on an
ordinance to modify the current Zoning Ordinance provisions as follows: All
definitions relating to structures and to signs in Sec 3.0 shall be repealed
and replaced with new regulations; all of Sec 4.15 dealing with sign regula-
tions shall be repealed and a new ordinance adopted in its place. Minor
amendments shall be made to Sec 21.7.1, 21.7.2, 26.10.1 and 26.10.2. Sign
regulations within Overlay Districts (Sec 30.5 & Sec 30.6) shall be amended
comprehensively. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 23 and June 30,
1992.)
Ms. Amelia Patterson, Zoning Administrator, stated that she would begin
her remarks to the supervisors about the Sign Ordinance with a brief video
presentation. After the video, she would go briefly through the ordinance and
give a quick background of what has occurred to date in the ordinance revision
effort. She will then move on to the staff's basic proposal in this major
rewrite of the sign regulations, which she will illustrate with visual aids.
Her presentation will end with questions and answers which are available in
the handouts that have been given to the Board. She said the questions and
answers are also available to the public, as well as several other handouts,
and they have been placed on a table just outside of the door to her left.
She mentioned that this information has been available at previous meetings,
and the only new information relates to the question and answer sheet. She
noted, however, that these questions and answers will be read and discussed in
this meeting. She remarked that the staff feels that the video is an effec-
tive representation of the thrust of the sign ordinance.
M.B. 42, Pg. 12
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 12)
(Marcia Joseph then presented the video to the Board.)
Ms. Patterson next discussed the reasons for the ordinance revision, and
went over the history of sign revision in Albemarle County. She mentioned the
numerous meetings and public hearings held, and she thanked everyone for all
of their efforts in the revision of the Sign Ordinance. She wanted to
especially call attention to the efforts of Jane Dittmar, President of the
Chamber of Commerce. She then thanked Don Wagner, Frank Kessler, Neal Gropen,
Paul Holdren, Carter Myers, Tim Lindstrom, Eleanor Santic, Karen Tarrentino,
Bob Smith, and others for their input. The staff thinks this is a workable
ordinance, but, if it is found that changes are necessary, she will bring the
ordinance back before this Board for minor amendments~ She added that the
proposal for the ordinance revision will be illustrated graphically, first,
with comments by Marcia' Joseph.
Ms. Patterson next remarked that most of the new signs will be free
standing sigIls, and they will be 32 square feet and 12 feet high. She said
the wall signs are based on the size of the business, which is a ratio of wall
signage to building frontage. It is important to keep in mind that signage is
a difficult issue, and it is one that necessitates balancing almost competing
needs. Needs exist for site identification and the provision of information,
as well as the need for traffic safety and enhancement of the community's
resources. She believes everybody agrees that they want to avoid making
Albemarle County, "Any Place, USA." Everybody wants to enhance and preserve
that which makes Albemarle County unique. She then discussed the questions
and answers as shown on the handout (copy of this handout on file). Ms.
Patterson asked if the Board had additional questions for the staff. Board
members had no questions, at this time.
Mr. Bowerman thanked Ms. Patterson for a very concise presentation. He
then opened the public hearing, and asked the speakers to state their names
and make their comments.
Mr. Carter Myers, a resident and businessman in Albemarle County, stated
that he thinks the proposed Sign Ordinance is a much better ordinance, because
of the process it has been through. He appreciates the deferrals which were
made by the Commission and the Board to allow for additional feedback. He
still thinks it is a restrictive ordinance. He said that just as the supervi-
sors have wrestled with other issues, as far as protecting peoples' lives, he
thinks that signage can be the life of a business. Signage is just as
important an issue as far as keeping a business alive. It might not relate to
human lives, but it is important to that business. He recalled that he had
taken a si~n down in Charlottesville which had 30 square feet of signage on
each side, and he pointed out that this sign was legal last year. He men-
tioned that a national company such as Nations Bank or the Marlboro Company,
can operate with smaller signs, because they have millions and millions of
dollars of advertising behind those signs. Local businesses have a more
difficult task in getting the same identification with smaller signs. He
stated, though, that the ARB probably would not allow the Marlboro sign on
Route 29. He next asked the Board to consider the fact that signs look bigger
when they are shown in a room than when they are outside. He is not at this
meeting to suggest major changes to the ordinance, but he has three specific
concerns which apply to his business. First, he mentioned the wall sign
requirement, with respect to the highway commercial zoning, and he said the
proposed ordinance refers to so much signage per establishment. He would like
to have the ordinance clarified as to what the word, "establishment," means.
For example, Mr. Myers stated that there are different franchise businesses,
and he would like for the ordinance to be clearer by stating "establishment/
franchise/business unit." He said there could be one owner with a number of
different businesses under the same ownership. He believes this clarification
would be important and would help the wall sign provision. Otherwise, Mr.
Myers mentioned that a business could only put up one franchise sign. He has
tried to consolidate a number of businesses into one business location, and he
interprets this ordinance to indicate that only one name can be displayed.
This has been discussed in some of the earlier meetings, but he has not seen
any clarification.
Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Myers is saying that, if he has three franchises,
and one wall sign allows for 100 square feet, it would be necessary to have
three signs of 100 feet for three franchises.
Mro Myers replied that he is not asking for any more signage. He would
just like to put the different names of the cars on display, such as: Nissan,
Cadillac, Pontiac, etc. The regulations for wall signage seems to be ade-
quate, and he believes the regulations are reasonable. He thinks, however,
that the proposed ordinance is a little strict for free standing signs. He
mentioned that, for instance, Kroger might have a pharmacy and a deli, which
are separate business units. He reiterated that he would like this section of
the ordinance clarified. Secondly, Mr. Myers mentioned Page 13, where the
ordinance referred to the multi business complex sign. If he installed signs
according to what the car manufacturing companies wanted, there would be a
blue General Motors Sign, a red Nissan sign and a red, blue and white Ford
sign. He tries to put them all in many spotlights showing around Charlottes-
ville. He then called attention to Page 28 of the proposed ordinance. Almost
every main retail business is on an entrance corridor in this community. It
seems as though, the way this ordinance is worded, that everything has been
M.B. 42, Pg. 13
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 13}
turned over to the ARB. He asked if the ARB members have to bring guidelines
back to this Board for approval. Mr. Bowerman answered affirmatively.
Mr. Myers indicated that he was glad this was the case, because if the
matter is not handled properly, it could give the ARB total sign control.
Next, he mentioned that on Page 14, the Zoning Administrator has given a very
broad interpretation of the Sign Ordinance. He is not saying that Ms.
Patterson has handled this improperly, but he thinks the interpretation should
be more specific. He is mostly concerned about the first three specific
things he mentioned. He brought the others to the supervisors' attention,
just so they could consider them.
Mr. Don Wagner, of Great Eastern Management Company, said his company is
in the development business, and he was a member of the Chamber of Commerce
Committee which studied this issue. He added that developers, are in a
similar situation as regulatory bodies, because merchants want as big a sign
as possible. He talked a couple of-days ago to some people who were consider-
ing putting a business on a piece of property near the Pantops Shopping
Center. The two things the top man of this company was interested in were the
elevation of the building, as compared to the other buildings in that area,
and how big the sign was going to be. He emphasized that signage is very
important to people in the retail business. Sometimes the business people
want to put up bigger signs than the developers would like, because the
developers, usually, are concerned with appearance. Whatever the supervisors
do tonight, the process on this particular ordinance has been excellent. The
staff, initially, tried to get public input, but was not successful in its
first attempt, although, he does not know why. He went on to say that
eventually the public did get interested and gave some good input, and he
thinks County officials will get the same sort of interest on the Open Space
Plan. He next mentioned that he had talked to staff a couple of days ago on
the subject of wall signage, and he is unsure if Mr. Myers has seen the latest
draft of the ordinance. He understood there was a change from the previous
draft of the ordinance which attempted to address exactly the matter to which
Mr. Myers referred. He went on to say that the square footage allowance
relating to the size of the building, has nothing to do with the number of
businesses inside the building. It is very confusing, and he read from the
ordinance that wall signs have a maximum of 100 square foot maximum for each
establishment, but this is contradictory to other information. He thinks the
staff knows what is meant by this regulation, but it might be confusing in the
future. He suggested that where the ordinance reads there is a 100 square
foot maximum for wall signs, if it said per sign, then this means that no
single sign can be larger than 100 square feet, but if the building is big
enough, there can be more than 100 square feet of signage. He asked if this
is what the ordinance is intended to say.
Ms. Patterson replied that Mr. Wagner is correct in that it is one
assignment of sign area, based on building frontage. She said the building
frontage can be divided into any number of signs. She noted that each car
model that Mr. Myers sells could have its own sign.
Mr. Wagner stated that it was his understanding the intention is that in
highway commercial zones, no single sign could be bigger than 200 square feet,
but all of the signs together could be one and one-half square feet per lineal
feet of frontage. He reiterated it is confusing the way that the ordinance ~s
written.
Mr. Bain said he believes Mr. Wagner's suggestion could cause some
confusion so that people would think that each establishment could have 200
square feet of wall signage. He does not think this is the intent of the
ordinance. Mr. Wagner agreed. He said the total signage is based on the size
of the building, and then there is a limit on the size of the sign. He added
that if everybody else is clear on the meaning of this regulation, and the
language in the record is clear, then maybe it is his problem. He had written
a letter, which this Board has seen, relating to Section 4.15.10 on Page 18 of
the ordinance, dealing with Non-Conforming Signs. He read section "a," and he
stated that, ten years from now there would be no way that someone, who bought
a business a few months earlier, could submit verification within 60 days that
the sign was lawfully in existence at the time of the adoption of the s~gn
regulations. It seems to him that people are being judged guilty, until they
can prove their innocence. He thinks this draft is a tremendous improvement
over the existing ordinance, and he thinks the staff did an excellent job of
putting this ordinance together.
At this time Mr. Bowerman closed the public hearing.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the staff would comment on the three things
brought up by Mr. Myers. She said that Mr. Wagner's explanation may have
taken care of some of these things, but she would still like to hear from
staff about the wall s~gn requirements and the multi-business complex signs,
in particular.
Ms. Patterson answered that Mr. Myers' first comment related to the wall
sign per establishment regulation, and she believes this has been resolved
satisfactorily. She then referred to Mr. Myers' second comment about listing
separate franchises on mUlti-business complex signs, and she said Mr. Myers
was referring to Page 13. She stated that this regulation limits the identi-
M.B. 42, Pg. 14
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 14)
fying text on the sign to the name of the business or the name of the develop-
ment itself. She said there would certainly be some aesthetic basis for this,
but she added that it is really an attempt to reduce the number of items that
could be put on a sign to the extent where the sign could not be processed
properly. She said the staff is trying to limit visual clutter. She added
that, at one point, when this regulation was first written by the staff, the
staff was using some ideas that people in other localities had used, relating
to a certain number of bits of information, based on sign size. This seemed
too restrictive, and it did not seem to make much practical sense. She went
on to say that this proposed regulation seemed to be the best way to create a
sense of place, get the business named and get people to the entrance. Once
people get within the development, then, with the use of directories, they can
be directed to the individual businesses.
Mr. Marshall stated that he believes Mr. Myers' situation is different,
because he does not own a shopping center. He said people will not be going
into Mr. Myers' business and see the names of several different department
stores, each identified with separate logos and separate advertisements. He
pointed out that Mr. Myers is a car dealer, and each one of the car models has
a sign. He thinks that there should be a way that these signs can be dis-
played. He noted that Mr. Myers will stand a good chance of losing his
franchise, if he cannot display these signs. He knows Mr. Myers has the
Lincoln dealership for that very reason. He said the Ford Motor Company
wanted the Lincoln dealership moved into an area where the signs could be seen
and automobiles could be sold. The Ford Motor Company would not renew the
franchise where the MacGregor Motor Company was previously located. Mr.
Marshall reiterated that Mr. Myers' situation is an exception, and he (Mr.
Marshall) said doubts there will be many exceptions. Mr. Marshall added that
he expects these exceptions will have to be made, especially for existing
businesses. Albemarle County officials certainly cannot put their vendors in
any more hardship than they are already in.
Ms. Patterson replied that there will be cause for exceptions, and those
exceptions should be available. She hopes wall slgnage advertising with
individual franchises will provide the opportunity to name the separate
franchises so that the businesses will not just use free standing signs. She
went on to say the staff was trying to prevent the signs being overloaded with
too much information. The staff has seen a lot of signs where this has
happened in other areas.
Mr. Marshall responded that he can understand a situation such as Ms.
Patterson mentioned, if there were several fast food restaurants within a
limited space, such as McDonald's and Wendy's, etc. He said the area would be
inundated with big logos.
Mrs. Humphris then asked Ms. Patterson to respond to Mr. Wagner's
comments on Section 4.15.10 relating to non-conforming signs, and the notifi-
cation of lawful existence of signs within sixty days.
Ms. Patterson answered that Mr. St. John had spoken about this situation
at some length at a previous meeting. She said that it would not be a
situation where, once this ordinance goes into effect, everybody who has a
sign which does not meet the ordinance, will immediately have to send in such
verification. This regulation comes into play when there is a question which
the staff has been asked to investigate, or someone is going to put up a new
sign° It would, then, have to be decided whether or not that sign is lawful.
In the Commonwealth of Virginia, the burden is on the person who has the
non-conformity. She stated that Mr. St. John could speak to this subject,
from a legal perspective.
Mrs. Humphris commented that, if this is the case, it seems to her the
key to the situation is the language of the ordinance which states, "upon
notice from the Zoning Administrator." She added that the Zoning Administra-
tor would not get involved, unless a question arises.
Mr. Bain commented that when there is a site plan development for a
business or multi-business, a lot of things are considered at that time and
are identified and tied to the site plan, itself. The County has records
pertaining to when property was developed, etc., even if there is no record of
the sign, itself.
Ms. Patterson noted that there is language with this ordinance,
particularly for development in entrance corridors, relative to site plans, so
they are not designed without a sign site in mind. There can also be future
variances. She emphasized that the staff will be asking that signs be located
on site plans, and she added that Mrs. Humphris' and Mr. Bain's points are
well taken. She said that some localities have a process for non-conformity
certificates which go through an investigation. There would be a procedure
for non-conforming signs, when the case arises.
Mr. St. John remarked that Mr. Wagner's fundamental suggestion goes to
the simple question of who has the burden of proof when a question arises. He
added it is the general rule throughout Virginia, and to his knowledge in
every state in the United States, that, when a question arises, the burden is
not on the Zoning Administrator to prove that a certain business does not
enjoy grandfather status. The burden is on the owner. He likened the
M.B. 42, Pg. 15
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 15)
situation to self defense as a defense to assault or murder. It is a defense
that the owner has to raise and prove. If this regulation is changed for the
Sign Ordinance, and the burden is put on the Zoning Administrator, it will be
a 180 degree departure from all of the established laws of non-conformities in
Virginia.
Ms. Patterson wondered if Mrs. Humphris included Mr. Myers' third point
relating to spotlights in her request for the staff's response. Mrs. Humphris
replied that she did not need a response to the spotliqht regulation, but she
would be glad to hear what Ms. Patterson has to say. Ms. Patterson responded
that the staff believes spotlights are a problem. Numerous complaints are
received every time spotlights .are used in any location in the County. A lot
of complaints relate to concerns people have about what is happening, and she
pointed out that spotlights are distracting. This is a~good business tech-
nique, but the staff is hearing that spotlights are distracting to the point
of taking the motorists' eyes off the road and possibly causing traffic
accidents. Mrs. Humphris said that this is why she did not require an answer
about spotlights. She stated that she has heard a lot about spotlights. Ms.
Patterson stated that she does not believe spotlights are expected, and
fireworks on the Fourth of July are expected.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he thinks the ordinance is excellent. He
said the staff worked extremely long and hard with the business elements in
the communityto develop an ordinance that is ~effective and will work. One of
the things in the ordinance that he is not happy with, is the larger sign
closer to the street. He understands, however, that the ARB looked at this
issue, and the ARB was willing to accept this type of sign, in exchange for
some stricter regulations on heights, where signs would, otherwise, be
permitted. He thinks that there are probably some small things in this
ordinance that all of the supervisors would like to change, but as a package,
he is more than satisfied with the entire content. He is willing to support
the ordinance.
Mr. Bain remarked that he concurs with the comment on the signage and the
closeness to the road. He thinks overall there ~s no question that this is a
vast improvement, and a lot of people in the bus,ness community, the staff and
the citizens of the County have spent months and years to come to this point.
He was on a committee in 1979 or 1980 which studied this issue, but the
committee did not get very far. He is prepared to support the ordinance.
Ms. Patterson called attention to an error on pages eight and nine of the
last draft of the Sign Ordinance. She said that "m" and "n" are shown at the
bottom of page eight, but they are repeated at the top of page nine.
Mrs. Humphris commented that she thinks the staff and the public have
done an excellent job of representing a partnership between the business
community and the obligation to preserve the uniqueness of the County. She
congratulated the staff, as well as all of the people from the public, who
helped the staff.
Mr. Marshall stated that Mr. Myers has not had his question answered.
Mr. Marshall added that he wants to support this ordinance, and he concurs
with everything that has been said by the other supervisors relating to the
excellent job that has been done with this ordinance by the staff and communi-
ty. He feels strongly, however, about the different franchises. He said
there are businesses in the County which are in existence, and they have to be
protected.
Mr. Bain stated that he feels good about the ordinance. He said the
different franchises will be permitted to have wall signs~ He added that
shopping centers or individual establishments can put up an identification
sign, and he pointed out that identification s~gns are large. He went on to
say the different franchises can be elevated on a wall. He emphasized that
wall signage gives plenty of identification, but not necessarily at the road.
There will be a large identification sign at the road. He went on to say that
the wall signage is more lenient than he would like, but he thinks it is a
reasonable compromise.
Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Myers if this regulation in the Sign Ordinance
will be detrimental to him. Mr. Martin said Mr. Myers is wondering if his
signs will be grandfathered because he already has the plaque in place. Mr.
Marshall stated that he believes this is the only business in the community
which will be affected in this manner.
Mrs. Humphris commented that there is no way the supervisors can know for
sure if this is the only business that will be affected. There is no way to
know what business might fall into a similar category, and someone else might
also ask for an exception. She thinks the supervisors should leave well
enough alone. She thinks there is ample opportunity for the various franchis-
es to be shown on the wall, but she is unsure how to handle the situation that
Mr. Myers is currently discussing. Mr. Bowerman asked to what situation Mrs.
Humphris is referring. Mr. Marshall stated that Mr. Myers wants to add two
more franchises to the sign.
Mr. Bain responded that if Mr. Myers does not have an application to that
effect, then the franchises will not be added. He said Mr. Myers will have to
M.B. 42, Pg. 16
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 16)
go normal legal route and ask for a variance, if the franchises do not fit the
required space.
Mr. St. John stated that the Zoning Administrator cannot make such a
ruling at this time. He said she will need a few more facts about the signs
which are already there.
Ms. Patterson remarked that the free standing sign is already covered
under the ordinance, but she cannot be certain about adding the extra fran-
chises, at this time. Mr. St. John reiterated that Ms. Patterson should not
make a ruling, at this time, about whether or not the existing sign is
grandfathered.
Mr. Marshall stated that he will ~support the ordinance,~if signs, such as
Mr. Myers', can be grandfathered.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he would like to correct the record. He said
when the staff presented this ordinance, he had thought the ARB advocated a
taller sign. He has since been informed that while the ARB might have
accepted a compromise, the ARB did not advocate a bigger si~n than is now
allowed further back on properties. For the interest of many who participated
in this process, the people involved looked at the whole picture, and it was
something that could be accepted, in return for some of the other concessions
that were made by others. He thinks this point is important. He pointed out
that if people start picking apart a document such as this ordinance, the
whole thing will unravel.
Mr. Marshall stated that it is his understanding this slgn is already in
existence. He said Mr. Myers has two more spaces available on the sign, and
he is not changing the size of the sign, so it will not be affected by this
ordinance. He asked if this is correct. Ms. Patterson replied this is also
her understanding, but she would have to give the situation more thought
before she could say something for certain. She pointed out that Mr. Myers'
free standing sign is already covered by a variance, and she said there is no
limitation relating to variances, as to the number of businesses which can be
advertised.
At this time, Mrs. Humphris offered motion to adopt an Ordinance to amend
and reenact the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance in Section 3, Definitions;
in Section 4.15 entitled "Signs" by repealing the existing language and
adopting new language in its place; and by amending and reenacting Sections
21.7, 26.0, 30.5, 30.6 and 35.0. Mr. Martin seconded the motion.
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
NAYS: None.
(The adopted Ordinance is set out in full below:)
An Ordinance to Amend and Reenact
the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
in Section 3, Definitions;
in Section 4.15 entitled "Signs"
by repealing the existing
language and adopting new language in its place;
and by amending and reenacting
Sections 21.7, 26~0, 30.5, 30.6 and 35.0
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County,
Virginia, that the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance is hereby amended and
reenacted in Section 3.0, Definitions, by repealing all existing definitions
related to "Signs", with the adoption of one new definition entitled "Signs";
by the adoption of a new Section 4.15 entitled "Signs"; that the existing
Section 4.15 be repealed in its entirety; and that Sections 21.7.1, 27.7.2,
26.10.1, 26.10.2, and 35.0 are hereby amended and reenacted as follows:
3.0
DEFINITIONS. Amend and reenact Section 3.0 by enacting the follow-
in~ changes:
Sign: (Repeal the definition of)
Sign, Area of: (Repeal the definition of)
Sign, Auction: (Repeal the definition of)
Sign, Business: (Repeal the definition of)
Sign, Directional: (Repeal the definition of)
sign, Free-standing: (Repeal the definition of)
Si~n, General Outdoor Advertising: (Repeal the definition of)
Sign, Home Occupation: (Repeal the definition of)
Sign, Hunting, Fishing or Trespassing: (Repeal the definition of)
Sign, Identification: (Repeal the definition of)
Sign, Illuminated: (Repeal the definition of)
Sign, Location: (Repeal the definition of)
Sign, Political: (Repeal the definition of)
Sign, Projecting: (Repeal the definition of)
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(page 17)
M.B. 42, Pg. 17
Sign, Public: (Repeal the definition of)
Sign, Roof: (Repeal the definition of)
Sign, Sale or Rental: (Repeal the definition of)
Sign, Subdivision: (Repeal the definition of)
Sign, Temporary Directional: (Repeal the definition of)
Sign, Temporary Event: (Repeal the definition of)
Sign, Wall: (Repeal the definition of)
Adopt new lan,quake reading:
Sign(s): Reference section 4.15.
Amend and reenact the def4~4tion of ,,Structure" so that it reads:
4.0
Structure: Anything constructed or erected, the use of which
requires permanent location on the ground, or attachment to some-
thing having a permanent location on the ground. This includes,
among other things, dwellings, buildings, etc. For the purpose of
the determination of setback, signs shall be excluded as a struc-
ture.
GENERAL REGULATIONS. Repeal existing section 4.15 entitled "Signs"
and adopt in its place the following lanqua~e:
4.15 SIGNS
4.15.1
PURPOSE AND INTENT
The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that signs are appro-
priate to the land, building, or use to which they are appurtenant
and are effective, yet not excessmve for their intended purpose.
These regulations are intended to accomplish the following goals:
-To promote the general health, safety and welfare by regulating
distracting signs that are not necessary for the identification of a
business location;
-To protect the public investment in the creation, main tenance,
safety and appearance of its streets and highways;
-To improve pedestrian and vehicular safety by avoiding saturation
and confusion in the field of vision;
-To enable businesses to promote and identify their establishments;
-To protect and enhance the county's attractiveness to tourists and
other visitors as sources of economic development; and
-To implement the comprehensive plan goal of creating an attractive
and harmonious environment.
4.15.2
SCOPE
This sign ordinance is adopted under the zoning authority of the
County.
These regulations shall apply to all existing signs and their
modifications and to new signs. All signs shall comply with these
regulations and it shall be unlawful for any person to erect or
maintain a sign that is not expressly permitted-by this ordinance.
4.15.3
DEFINITIONS
Abandoned Siqn: A sign which identifies or advertises a business,
lessor, service, owner, product or activity no longer in existence,
or for which no legal owner can be found.
Advertisement: Any writing, printing, picture, painting, display,
emblem, drawing, sign or similar device which ms posted or displayed
on real property and is intended to invite or to draw the attention
or to solicit the patronage or support of the public to any goods,
merchandise, property, real or personal, business, services, enter-
tainment or amusement, manufacture, produced, bought, sold or con-
ducted.
Advertisinq Structure: Any rigid or semirigid material, with or
without any advertisement display thereon, situated upon or attached
to real property outdoors, primarily for the purposes of furnishing
a background or base or support upon which an advertisement may be
posted or displayed.
Advertisinq Vehicle: Any motor vehicle which is not in operating
condition; or which for a period of sixty (60) days or longer, has
been partially or totally disassembled by the removal of tires and
wheels, the engine or other essential parts required for operation
of the vehicle; or on which there are displayed neither valid
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 18)
M.B. 42, Pg. 18
license plates nor a valid inspection decal, or not used for trans-
portation in the daily nonadvertising activities of the business at
which it is parked, and is parked in the public view for the purpose
of attracting attention. This includes any temporary or permanent
signs resting on or attached to vehicles.
Anchor Siqn: A sign identifying any specific business within a
multi-business complex.
Animated Si~n: Any sign which uses movement or change of lighting
to depict action or to create a special effect or scene.
Area of Siqn: The gross area of the sign as determined by the
,,calculation of sign~area" section herein ~(see sect~ion 4.15.7.1).
Auction Siqn: A sign advertising an on- or off-site auction to be
conducted.
Awninq Sic[n: A sign placed on the surface of an awning. For the
purposes of these regulations, it shall be considered a projecting
sign.
Banner: A sign that is constructed of a nonrigid surface such as
fabric or paper, with no enclosing framework.
Billboard: A freestanding off-site sign which exceeds thirty-two
(32) square feet.
Bulletin Board Siqn: A type of changeable copy sign enclosed in a
casement made of glass or plexiglass. A bulletin board sign shall
be a directory sign.
CanoD¥ Siqn: A sign attached to a structure which has a roof with
support but no walls, and which is either freestanding or attached
to a building.
Clearance (of a Siqn): The smallest vertical distance between the
grade of the adjacent street or street curb and the lowest point of
any sign, including framework and embellishments, extending over
that grade.
Construction Siqn: Temporary sign announcing new development and/or
the participating contractors, lending institution and the like.
CoDy: The characters, letters or illustrations displayed on a sign
face.
Directory Siqn: A sign which displays the names and/or the address-
es of the establishments or uses of a building or group of build-
ings.
Double-face Siqn: A sign with two (2) parallel or nearly parallel
faces, separated by an angle not to exceed forty-five (45) degrees.
Electric Messaqe Center: A sign on which the copy display changes
automatically to display public service, time and weather messages.
Estate Siqn: A sign which identifies the name of a private resi-
dence.
Farm Siqn: A sign which identifies the name of the property and/or
its products, for property in agricultural or forestal use.
Flaq: A singular section of fabric, banner or bunting containing
distinctive color, size, pattern and symbol used as a symbol of a
government or political subdivision. If the flag connotes the
business it shall be considered a sign.
Flashinq Siqn: An illuminated sign on which the artificial or
reflected light is not maintained stationary or constant in intensi-
ty and color at all times. This includes any sign which revolves or
moves.
Freestandinq Siqn: The general term for any sign which is supported
from the ground and not attached to the building.
Frontaqe, Buildinq: The building length as determined by the
location of the main public entry that is adjacent to a public or
private travelway, as further calculated in section 4.15.7.5.
Heiqht, Siqn: The vertical distance from the normal grade directly
below the sign to the highest point of the sign. This shall include
the sign base, regardless of material, including earth used primari-
ly to elevate the sign, as calculated in section 4.15.7.
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 19)
M.B. 42, Pg. 19
Hiqhwa¥ Riqht-of-Wa¥: The property owned by the Commonwealth or
municipality for purposes of transportation.
Home Occupation Siqn: A sign directing attention to a home occupa-
tion Class B conducted on the premises.
Incidental Siqn: A sign that has a purpose secondary to the use of
the lot on which it is located, such as "handicap parking", "no
parking", ,,entrance", "loading only", .'telephone", and other similar
directives. No sign with a commercial message legible from a
position off the lot on which the sign is located shall be consid-
ered incidental. ~
Illuminated Siqn: A sign~.or any part of a signT~which is external-
ly or internally lighted.
Maintain, Maintenance: The cleaning, painting, repair or replace-
ment of defective parts of a sign in a manner that does not alter
even slightly the basic copy or design, nor the original structure
of the sign.
Marquee Siqn: A sign attached to the sides of a marquee or other
horizontal projection over an entrance.
No Huntinq, Fishinq or TresDassinq Siqn: A sign erected on the
appurtenant premises solely as a warning or notice.
Off-site Advertisinq Siqn: A sign that is used to attract attention
to a subject including, but not limited to, the following: an
object, person, product, organization, business, service or location
that is not located on the premises upon which the sign is located.
This shall not include directional, political, government, temporary
event signs or residential subdivision signs.
Pennant: A series of two (2) or more sections of plastic, fabric or
other material, whether or not containing a message of any kind,
suspended from a fixed structure, rope, wire or string, designed to
move in the wind such as streamers, tinsel and the like.
Pole Siqn: A freestanding sign which is supported from the ground
by a pole or a similar support structure of narrow width.
Political Siqn: A sign representing a candidate or issue subject to
a federal, state or local government plebiscite.
Portable Siqn: Any sign not permanently attached to the ground or
other permanent structure, or a sign designed to be transported,
including, but not limited to, signs designed to be transported by
means of trailers or wheels; signs converted to A-shaped"or T-shaped
frames; including advertising vehicles.
Projectinq Siqn: A sign, other than a wall sign, which is not
mounted horizontally to the building wall surface, but extends
beyond it.
Public Siqn: Any temporary or permanent sign erected and maintained
by a town, city, county, state or federal government for traffic
direction or for designation of or direction to any school, hospi-
tal, historical site or public service, property or facility.
Real Estate Siqn: Any sign which is used to offer for sale, lease,
rent and/or development, the property upon which the sign is placed.
Roof Siqn: Any sign erected and constructed wholly on and over the
top of the fascia or mansard of the building.
Service Road: An access primarily to a service area for loading of
refuse and the like.
Siqht Distance Trianqle: An area designated at an intersection of a
site where signs are not permitted. This is a sign setback as
calculated in section 4.15.7.3.
Siqn: Any object, device or structure, or part thereof, which
exists primarily to advertise, identify, display, direct or attract
attention to an object, person, institution, organization, business,
product, service, event or location by any means, including words,
letters, figures, designs, projected images, symbols, fixtures,
colors, illumination, minerals, pictures or any part or combination
thereof, which display is visible beyond the boundaries of the
parcel of land on which the same is made. This shall include
banners, balloons, three-dimensional figures, pennants, streamers,
certain flags and the like.
Subdivision Siqn: A sign identifying a residential development
located at the entrances to such development.
July 8~ 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 20)
4.15.4
M.B. 42, Pg. 20
Temporary Siqn: A sign that is displayed for only a specified
period of time, describing or identifying participants in a season-
al, brief or particular event or activity to be or being conducted
upon the property. Temporary direction signs may be permitted as
accessory to such use. Such signs may include special event signs,
farm product signs and construction signs (reference 4.15.11).
Visible: Capable of being seen, whether or not legible, by a person
of normal visual acuity.
Wall Siqn: A sig/~ painted on or attached to a wall of a building
and parallel to the wall. -For purposes of these regulations, this
shall include a canopy and marquee.
EXEMPTED FROM PERMIT~REQUIREMENT
The following shall be subject to the regulations of this sign
ordinance but shall not require a sign permit:
do
Name and/or address of resident, estate or farm sign, not
including commercial identification, which does not exceed four
(4) square feet in area.
Temporary directional signs which do not exceed two (2) square
feet in area, located no closer than five (5) feet to a front
property line.
Incidental signs, not to exceed four (4) square feet, and not
to be placed at the entrance to the property.
Private drive signs, which are on-premise signs limited to one
(1) per entrance, which do not exceed two (2) square feet in
area and limited to the words "private drive."
Public signs.
Security and warning signs, such as no hunting, no trespassing
and warning signs used by a private landowner, which do not to
exceed two (2) square feet.
Commemorative plaques which do not to exceed four (4) square
feet.
Special decorative displays used for holidays, public events or
promotion for nonpartisan civic purposes, which are removed
within seven (7) days of said event.
Political signs presenting a candidate or issue subject to a
federal, state or local government plebiscite, not illuminated,
which do not exceed four (4) square feet or less in area,
erected not more than thirty (30) days prior and removed within
seven (7) days thereafter.
Temporary real estate signs which do not exceed thirty-two (32)
square feet. These shall be removed from the site within seven
(7) days of sale or lease.
Auction signs which do not exceed four (4) square feet, to
advertise an on- or off-site auction to be conducted. These
shall be removed within seven (7) days after date of auction.
Construction signs, which: (1) do not exceed one (1) sign per
lot, (2) do not exceed maximum thirty-two (32) square feet, and
(3) are removed within seven (7) days of issuance of a certifi-
cate of occupancy.
Farm products signs, on property properly zoned for such use,
which do not exceed eight (8) square feet.
n. Road name and number signs.
~.15.5 BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT
The authority to administer signs by special use permit is hereby
granted to the board of zoning appeals.
The following signs shall be permitted by special use permit within
any underlying district:
a. Off-site advertising signs.
b. Electric message signs.
4.15.6 PROHIBITED SIGNS
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 21)
M.B. 42, Pg. 21
Signs with any of the following characteristics are prohibited
within Albemarle County. This includes any sign:
Which violates any provisions of the law of Virginia relating
to outdoor advertising, including Sections 33.1-351 to 33.1-
381, inclusive, and Section 46.1-174 of the Code.
bo
Which violates federal law including U.S.C. Sec. 131 control of
outdoor advertising and provisions concerning Virginia byways.
Co
Which obstructs free or clear vision, or otherwise causes
hazards for vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian traffic by reason
of location, shape, illumination or color.
do
Which casts glare or light, directly or indirectly, on any
public roadway, or on any adjacent property within a residen-
tial district.
so
Which imitates an official traffic sign or signal, or conflicts
with traffic safety needs due to location, color, movement,
shape or illumination.
fo
Which is located or illuminated in such a manner as to cause a
traffic hazard.
Which outlines any building, sign or part thereof with neon or
other light.
Which uses exposed, bare or uncovered neon illumination.
Which contains or consists of a searchlight, beacon or strobe
light, or the like, unless by an authorized government activi-
ty.
Which contains or consists of pennants, ribbons, spinners,
streamers or other similar moving devices. These devices, when
not part of any sign, are similarly prohibited.
k. Which is an advertising vehicle.
Which contains or consists of strings of light bulbs, not part
of a decorative display but used as a means of attracting
attention.
m. Which is a billboard.
Which moves, flashes, blinks or changes color except as other-
wise specifically listed.
o. Which are moored balloons or other tethered floating signs.
ro
Which are banners, except as a permitted temporary event sign.
Which is any sign, except those so placed by a duly authorized
government agency, or as a no hunting, fishing, or trespassing
sign, which is nailed, tacked, painted or in any other manner
attached to any tree, cliff, fence, utility pole or support,
utility tower, rack, curbstone, sidewalk, lamp post, hydrant,
bridge or public property of any descriptIon.
Which is any sound-producing sign intended to attract attention
regardless of whether or not the sign has a written message
content.
s. Which is a roof sign.
t. Which is erected in or over a public right-of-way.
u. Which is prohibited along state scenic highways.
4.15.7 CALCULATIONS
The following calculations shall be used to determine limits as
regulated in this ordinance.
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 22)
4.15.7.1 SIGN AREA
The area of a sign face
computed by means of the
area of the smallest square,
circle, rectangle, triangle
or combination thereof,
which will encompass the
extreme limits of the
writing, representation,
emblem or other display,
together with any material
or color forming an integral
part of the background of
the display or used to
differentiate the sign from
the backdrop or structure
M.B. 42, Pg. 22
TABLE I, Measuring Sign Area
'
against which it is placed.
This calculation shall not include any supporting framework, bracing
or decorative fence or wall when such feature otherwise complies
with other regulations of this ordinance and is clearly incidental
to the display itself, as shown in Table I. Two-sided sign faces
shall be counted as single face provided the angle separating them
does not exceed forty-five (45) degrees.
The maximum combined size of
freestanding sign and its
support structure shall not
exceed two and one-half (2.5)
times the maximum allowable
sign size.
TABLE II, Measuring Structure
4.15.7.2 SIGN HEIGHT
In the determination of the highest point of the sign and structure,
the normal grade from which to measure the bottom of the sign height
shall be that which is either:
bo
Existing prior to con-
struction, or
Newly established after
construction depending
on which is more consis-
tent with the surround-
lng elevation of the lot
on which it is located.
(Any fill or excavation
which serves primarily
to elevate the sign
shall be included in the
height of the sign.)
TABLE III, Measuring Height
I
July 8 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
'
(Page 23)
M.B. 42, Pg. 23
4.15.7.3 SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLE
The purpose of this regulation is to protect public safety by
prohibiting obstructions of sight distances. A triangular diagram
area that is included between the lines of an intersecting exterior
street and/or a street commercial entrance, and a straight line
connecting them at a point ten (!0) feet distance from the edge of
the exterior road. The driveway for a single-family or two-family
residence shall not be included in this calculation. This obstruc-
tion-free area may be extended to conform to minimum Virginia
Department of Transportation sight distance standards.
4.15.7.4 SETBACK
Setback shall be measured
from the property line
or, in the case of an
access easement, from the
edge of the easement, to
the closest point of the
sign. A pole sign shall
be measured from the edge
of the sign or the pole,
whichever is closest to
the property line.
TABLE IV, Measuring Setback
4.15.7.5 BUILDING FRONTAGE FOR WALL SIGNAGE
Building frontage used for calculating the allowable wall sign area
shall be measured along the horizontal length of an outside building
wall, for that business, in one plane on which is located the
establishment's primary entrance. In cases where an establishment
has two (2) or more walls adjacent to a highway or private right-of-
way this additional parallel wall may be used to calculate one (1)
accessory frontage at one-third (1/3) the rate as allowed on the
primary entrance frontage. Sign areas calculated on building
frontage may be used only on those frontages from which they were
calculated, although the total area may be split between them.
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 24)
M.B. 42, Pg. 24
4.15.7.6 MULTI-BUSINESS COMPLEX SIGNS
One (1) freestanding sign is allowed for a shopping center, office
park or other similar groups of business establishments collectively
assembled on one (1) parcel. Only the collective establishment's
name may be located on the sign. For example, in a shopping center,
only the shopping center name may be identified on the freestanding
sign, except as further provided below.
Anchor signs shall be provided as an accessory sign attached to the
structure of a multi-business complex sign, as allowed by the
following calculations: --
One~ (fl anchor sign,-~not to exceed six ~'~6')~ ~square feet, shall
be permitted for shopping centers exceeding one hundred thou-
sand (100,000) square feet in floor area.
Additional anchor signs shall be permitted at the rate of one
(1) per one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet above and
beyond the initial one hundred thousand (100,000) square feet
of floor area, not to exceed four (4) such anchor signs in
total.
4.15.8 CONTENT AND ADVERTISING MESSAGE
The content or advertising message carried by exterior signs shall
be limited to one (1) or more of the following:
so
The name of the owner, occupant and/or management of the prin-
cipal or collective establishment, except as provided in sec-
tion 4.15.7.6.
b. The address of the establishment.
Co
The kind of business, the brand name of the principal commodity
sold on the premises and/or the brand name of the principal
service or activity involved in the conduct of the business.
Any otherwise lawful noncommercial message which does not
direct attention to a business operated for profit, or to a
commodity or service for sale.
So
Changeable messages concerning any lawful business-related
activities on the premises and/or goods and services offered in
connection therewith.
Services offered in connection with a business on the premises,
such as, but not limited to, automobile travel clubs and credit
card agency acceptance.
Logo or other identification symbol for the business.
4.15.9 ADMINISTRATION
The zoning administrator shall have primary responsibility for the
administration and enforcement of this ordinance and is hereby given
full authority to enforce any and all provisions of this ordinance.
In addition to the duties specified in other portions of this
ordinance, the zoning administrator shall have the power to:
Receive sign applications and approve or deny such applica-
tions;
Make inspections of all signs and premises upon which signs are
situated or proposed to be situated to confirm information
contained in an application or any other information relating
to a permit application;
c. Maintain records, inventories and maps concerning signs;
d. Register nonconforming signs;
Make such other inspections as are necessary to ensure compli-
ance with the provisions of this ordinance, any other applica-
ble regulations, and the terms of any permit;
Issue the requisite notice and take the appropriate, authorized
steps to enforce this ordinance;
Interpret the general intent or meaning of any provision of
this ordinance; and
Assign to staff such duties as deemed appropriate. The zoning
administrator may designate agents for the administration of
this ordinance.
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 25)
M.B. 42, Pg. 25
4.15.9.1 PERMIT REQUIRED
No person shall erect or cause to be erected nor shall significantly
alter, replace or relocate any sign, except those exempt from a
permit pursuant to section 4.15.4, unless and until a permit there-
for shall have been issued by the zoning administrator in accordance
with these regulations.
Ail signs shall be located on the same lot with the principal use to
which they pertain, except as provided for with a special use permit
for an off-site sign.
4.15.9.2 APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS
No permit shall'be issued unless all of the requirements contained in
this ordinance shall have been met and complied with, including the
following:
so
An application provided by the county must be filed with the
zoning administrator. This application shall include the follow-
lng information together with the applicable fee:
The sign owner's name, address and daytime telephone number;
and, if different, the name and signature of the owner of
premises where the sign is located or is to be located;
The name, address and daytime telephone number of the person
who will be performing the work requested;
Location, tax map and parcel number, and zoning designation
of the parcel on which the sign is or will be located;
Any other information the zoning administrator shall require
to ensure compliance with this and all other applicable
county ordinances;
A site plan legibly drawn to scale and sufficiently detailed
showing the location and dimensions of the sign;
Signed statement by the applicant that the proposed sign will
not violate the standards of this ordinance;
7. A photograph of the proposed location;
Plans, specifications and details, as applicable. These
shall include the construction materials to be used, manner
of illumination, components, methods of support, and condi-
tion and age of the sign; and
9. Written consent of the landowner.
No permit shall be issued unless the applicant has paid the
requisite fees approved by the board of supervisors.
The zoning administrator shall revzew the application and either
approve, deny or refer the application for more information back
to the applicant or to the board of zoning appeals or architectur
al review board or both. If the application is denied, the
reasons shall be specified in writing.
4.15.9.3 ISSUANCE OF PERMIT
Each site inspected to verify the information in a completed
application and a decision on the permit shall be made within
thirty (30) days of the receipt in the zoning administrator's
office of all required documents, plans and fees as may be re-
quired pursuant to section 4.15.9.1; or the application shall be
deemed approved as submitted.
Each sign permit shall become null and void if the activity
approved in the permit is not completed within six (6) months
the date the permit or certificate of occupancy is issued, which-
ever is the later. Extensions are issued at the discretion of
zoning administrator.
The zoning administrator shall maintain accurate records of all
sign permits issued by the locality, which records may serve as
the basis for a comprehensive inventory.
do
A permit number for an off-site sign issued by the zoning adminis
trator shall be affixed to the sign in a conspmcuous place.
The zoning administrator shall revoke a sign permit for failure
the holder to conform with any of the provisions of this ordi-
nance.
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 26)
M.B. 42, Pg. 26
4.15.9.4 SIGN MAINTENANCE AND REMOVAL
Ail signs and their components shall be maintained in good repair
and in a safe condition.
The zoning administrator may cause to have altered, removed or
repaired immediately without written notice any sign which, in hi:
or her opinion, is unsafe and presents an eminent threat to public
safety.
Co
Any sign that is erected without a required permit or is otherwis.
erected, used or maintained in violation of the provisions of thi~
ordinance is hereby declared to be a public nuisance. The sign
owner, or'the owner or lessee ~of the~prouerty~-on which the sign it
located, shall remove the 'sign within fifteen (15) days of notifi-
cation by the zoning administrator of its illegal status, and, if
removal has not been accomplished within the prescribed time, the
zoning administrator may cause the sign to be removed. The
administrator may remove or order the removal of any sign he or
she deems to be a public nuisance at the expense of the property
owner. Cardboard and paper signs which have been removed by the
county shall be destroyed upon removal. All other signs which
have been removed by the county shall be held for a period of
thirty (30) days and may be reclaimed within that time by payment
of the costs of removal. Thereafter, such signs shall be deemed
to have been forfeited by the owner and shall be destroyed.
do
Any sign face or structure advertising an abandoned use (see
section 6.0, nonconformities) shall be removed within ninety (90)
days of discontinuance of the advertised activity. If the owner
or lessee fails to remove the sign, the zoning administrator may
cause the sign to be removed or initiate such other action as may
be necessary to gain compliance with the provisions of this
ordinance.
Whenever the zoning administrator causes a sign to be removed or
repaired under the provisions of this subsection, the cost of suc!
removal or repair shall be chargeable to the owner of the sign or
the owner or lessee of the property and shall constitute a lien
upon the property upon which the sign was located until paid.
4.15.9.5 REPLACEMENT OR CONSOLIDATION OF EXISTING NONCONFORMING SIGNS
To encourage the attractive and effective maintenance of slgnage,
the zoning administrator may allow existing, nonconforming signage
to be altered when the alteration makes them more in compliance with
the purpose and intent of the ordinance.
Each time an existing nonconforming sign is replaced, remodeled or
consolidated, the maximum sign area, height or setback shall be
reduced by twenty-five (25) percent until such sign is brought into
conformity with these regulations. Under no circumstances shall the
new consolidated sign be larger in height, or have an area greater
than the largest of any of the signs being removed. The existing
sign dimensions shall not be applied towards a different type of new
sign.
4.15.10 NONCONFORMING SIGNS
The owner of any property on which there is located a noncon-
forming sign shall, upon notice from the zonin9 administrator,
submit verification within sixty (60) days that the sign was
lawfully in existence at the time of adoption of these s~gn
regulations.
Nonconforming signs shall be kept in good repair and condition.
However, any sign which is declared to be unsafe or unlawful by
any authorized county official as a result of physical condition
may not be restored, repaired, or rebuilt, but must be removed.
Nonconforming signs shall not be displayed on any other portion
the property or building other than its original location, and
not be displayed on another property.
do
Nonconforming signs shall not be enlarged, extended or struc-
turally altered unless in compliance with section 4.15.9.5.
A nonconforming sign which is destroyed or damaged to an extent
exceedin9 fifty (50) percent of its appraised value shall not be
altered, replaced or reinstalled unless it is in conformance with
this ordinance. If the damage or destruction is fifty (50)
percent or less of the appraised value, the s~gn may be restored
within two (2) years of the damage, but shall not be enlarged in
any manner.
A nonconforming sign shall be removed if the structure, building
or use to which it advertises is abandoned (see section 6.0,
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meetihg)
(Page 27)
M.B. 42, Pg. 27
nonconformities), destroyed or demolished to an extent exceeding
fifty (50) percent of the appraised value of the principal struc-
ture, building or use.
The sign copy of nonconforming signs may be maintained and reface~
using the same colors but the structure shall not be altered.
However, whenever a substantial change of sign use or structural
alterations occurs upon a lot containing a sign, such sign shall
not be permitted unless modified to be in full compliance with
this ordinance.
4.15.11
TEMPORARY SIGNS
The zoning~administrator upon application, may-'~sSu~'temporary permits
for the following signs and-displays~-when in his or her opinion the
use of such signs or displays would not result in additional adverse
impact on adjacent properties or public facilities. However, prohib-
ited signs (section 4.15.6) are in no way-allowed as temporary signs,
with the exception of banners (section 4.15.6). If the temporary sign
used is a portable sig-n, then it shall be anchored. The anchoring
method shall be approved by the zoning administrator prior to its use.
a. Signs not exceeding thirty-two (32) square feet, advertising a
special civic or cultural event such as a fair or exposition,
play, concert or meeting sponsored by a governmental, charitable
or nonprofit organization. No more than four (4) such permits
shall be issued in one (1) year. Each shall be valid for a perio
not to exceed fifteen (15) days following issuance and shall be
removed within seven (7) days of the termination of the stated
use.
Special decorative displays used for purposes of advertising the
opening of a new store, business or profession not exceeding
thirty-two (32) square feet, for a period not to exceed thirty
(30) days. Such displays must be removed within seven (7) days
the termination of the stated use.
Sales event signs not exceeding thirty-two (32) square feet. No
more than four (4) such permits shall be issued in one (1) year.
Each shall be valid for a period not to exceed fifteen (15) days
following issuance.
4.15.12 SIGNS PERMITTED BY ZONING DISTRICT, GENERALLY
The following signs, unless otherwise regulated elsewhere in this
ordinance, shall be permitted in all zoning districts with the follow-
ing provisions:
a. Temporary signs in accordance with section 4.15.11.
b. Exempted signs in accordance with section 4.15.4.
Freestanding signs shall be permitted in all districts to those
lots with one hundred (100) feet or more of continuous highway
right-of-way frontage.
Sites containing acreage greater than four (4) acres and having
more than one Virginia Department of Transportation approved
entrance shall receive and additional freestanding sign. The
total signage allowed shall not exceed two (2) per highway right-
of-way frontage; and these signs must be placed where Virginia
Department of Transportation approved entrances exist. All lots
with less than one hundred (100) feet of frontage, on which there
is located a freestanding sign at the date of the adoption of thi~
regulation, shall be permitted one (1) freestanding sign.
For the purposes of these regulations:
Bulletin board signs and menu signs shall be regulated as
directory signs.
Outdoor menu boards are only allowed on lots with a permitte(
drive-through use, and under the following condition:
The menu board shall not be clearly visible from the highway
right-of-way.
Gasoline service stations shall be permitted additional sign
area for the exclusive purpose of displaying fuel prices.
This sign area shall be calculated at a maximum of fifty (50)
percent of the principal sign area to which it is attached o~
sixteen (16) square feet, whichever is less.
Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to allow the placement
within any district of any sign, or other structure within the sight
distance triangle of a public road, or highway as calculated in
M.B. 42, Pg. 28
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(page 28)
section 4.15.7, or within the minimum setback or above the height
limits set forth below, and calculated in section 4.15.7.
Sections 4.15.12.1 through 4.15.12.7 provide the sign type, area,
height, setback and number allowed by zoning district.
4.15.12.1 RESIDENTIAL AND AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS (RA, VR, R-1 AND R-2)
The following are permitted within these districts as further
regulated below:
SIGN TYPE AREA -HEIGHT,. SETBACK. :#ALLOWED ,~ ~.~ · ..L;.~ OTHER
' (Maximum) . (Minimum) ~ (Maximum) (Maximum) '
FOR EACH LOT
Freestanding 24 sq ft 10 ft 10 ft 1 per highway One sign is allowed for
right-of-way each lot with 100 feet
frontage of continuous highway
right-of-way frontage.*
FOR EACH
ESTABLISHMENT
Directory 24 sq ft 6 ft 10 ft 1
Wall 20 sq ft Maximum height Same as N/A
20 ft below building
top of fascia
or mansard
Subdivision 32 sq ft 6 ft 10 ft 2 per
aggregate per entrance
entrance
Temporary 32 sq ft 10 ft 10 ft I per lot See section 4.15.11
per highway
right-of-way
frontage
Siqns by Special Use Permit:
a) Off-site advertising signs;
b) Electric message signs.
All signage except subdivision signs refer to nonresidential uses
only.
Nonresidential uses including but not limited to: agricultural uses,
church, fire/rescue squad, civic clubs, schools, daycare centers and
retirement centers may be permitted.
Forty (40) square feet in Rural Areas District (WALL SIGN ONLY).
*See section 4.15.12.d.
4.15.12.2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (R-4 AlqD R-6)
The following are permitted within these districts as further
regulated below:
SIGN TYPE AREA HEIGHT SETBACK # ALLOWED OTHER
(Maximum) (Minimum) (Maximum) (Maximum)
FOR EACH LOT
Freestanding 24 sq ft 10 ft 10 ft 1 per highway One sign is allowed for
right-of-way each lot with 100 feet
frontage of continuous highway
right-of-way frontage.*
FOR EACH
ESTABLISHMENT
Directory 24 sq ft 6 ft 10 ft
Wall 20 sq ft Maximum height N/A
20 ft below
top of fascia
or mansard
Subdivision 52 sq ft 6 ft 10 ft 2 per
aggregate per entrance
entrance
Temporary 32 sq ft 10 ft 10 ft 1 per lot 4 per year for 60 days
per highway See section 4.15.11
right-of-way
frontage
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 29)
M.B. 42, Pg. 29
Siqns by SDecial Use Permit:
a) Off-site advertising signs;
b) Electric message signs.
All signage except subdivision signs refer to nonresidential uses
only.
Nonresidential uses including but not limited to: agricultural uses,
church, fire/rescue squad, civic clubs, schools and daycare centers
may be permitted.
* See section 4.15.12.d.
4.15.12.3
RESIDENTIAL (R-10 AND R-15);
PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ~PRD)
The following are permitted within these districts as further
regulated below:
SIGN TYPE AREA HEIGHT SETBACK # ALLOWED OTHER
(Maximum) (Minimum) (Maximum) (Maximum)
FOR EACH LOT
Freestanding 24 sq ft 12 ft 5 ft I per highway One sign is allowed for
right-of-way each lot with 100 feet
frontage of continuous highway
right-of-way frontage.*
FOR EACH
ESTABLISHMENT
Directory 24 sq ft 6 ft 5 ft
Wall 32 sq ft Maximum height N/A 1 sq ft per 1 linear ft
20 ft below of building frontage
top of fascia
or mansard
Subdivision 32 sq ft 6 ft 5 ft 2 per
aggregate entrance
Temporary 32 sq ft 10 ft 5 ft 1 per lot 4 per year for 60 days
per highway See section 4.15.11
right-of-way
frontage
Siqns by Special Use Permit:
a) Off-site advertising signs;
b) Electric message signs.
All signage except subdivision signs refer to nonresidential uses
only.
* See section 4.15.12.d.
4.15.12.4 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
The following are permitted within this district as further
regulated below:
SIGN TYPE AREA HEIGHT SETBACK # ALLOWED OTHER
(Maximum) (Minimum) (Maximum) (Maximum)
FOR EACH LOT
Freestanding 24 sq ft 12 ft 5 ft 1 per highway One sign is allowed for
right-of-way each lot with 100 feet
frontage of continuous highway
right-of-way frontage.*
FOR EACH
ESTABLISHMENT
Directory 24 sq ft 6 ft 5 ft
Wall 32 sq ft Maximum height N/A I sq ft per 1 linear
20 ft below ft of building frontage
top of fascia
or mansard.
Subdivision 32 sq ft 6 ft 5 ft 2 per
aggregate entrance
Temporary 32 sq ft 10 ft 5 ft I per lot 4 per year for 60 days
per highway See section 4.15.11
right-of-way
frontage
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 30)
M.B. 42, Pg. 30
Siqns by Special Use Permit:
a) Off-site advertising signs;
b) Electric message signs.
All signage except subdivision signs refer to nonresidential uses
only.
Projecting signs, however, shall only be allowed when wall or
freestanding signs are impractical; except as provided in section
4.15.4.
* See section 4.15.12.d.
4.15.12.5 COMMERCTAL DISTRICT ~(C~I~AND CO) ....................
The following are permitted within these districts as further
regulated below:
SIGN TYPE AREA HEIGHT SETBACK # ALLOWED OTHER
(Maximum) (Minimum) (Maximum) (Maximum)
FOR EACH LOT
Freestanding 32 sq ft 12 ft 5 ft 1 per highway One sign is allowed for
right-of-way each lot with 100 feet
frontage of continuous highway
right-of-way frontage.*
FOR EACH
ESTABLISHMENT
Directory 24 sq ft 6 ft 5 ft 1 per
intersection
Projecting 32 sq ft Maximum height 1 per highway
20 ft below right-of-way
top of fascia frontage
or mansard
Wall 100 sq ft Maximum height N/A Per establishment,
maximum 20 ft below 1 sq ft per 1 linear
top of fascia ft of building frontage
or mansard
Temporary 32 sq ft 10 ft 5 ft 2 per lot 4 per year for 60 days
per highway See section 4.15.11
right-of-way
frontage
Siqns by Special Use Permit:
a) Off-site advertising signs;
b) Electric message signs.
Each establishment shall be limited to a choice of one (1) of the
following: wall or projecting.
* See section A.15.12.d
4.15.12.6
COMMERCIAL (HC) and MIXED COMMERCIAL (PD-SC and PD MC) DISTRICT
The following are permitted within these districts as further
regulated below:
M.B. 42, Pg. 31
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 31)
SIGN TYPE AREA HEIGHT SETBACK # ALLOWED OTHER
(Maximum) (Minimum) (Maximum) (Maximum)
FOR EACH LOT
Freestanding 32 sq ft 12 ft 5 ft 1 per highway One sign is allowed for
right-of-way each lot with 100 feet
frontage of continuous highway
right-of-wayfrontage.*
FOR EACH
ESTABLISHMENT ~
Directory 24sq ft 10 ft .... 5,.~t · I per ...... <
" intersection
Projecting 32 sq ft Maximum height 1 per highway
20 ft below right-of-way
top of fascia frontage
or mansard
Wall 200 sq ft Maximum height N/A Per establishment,
20 ft below 1.5 sq ft per 1 linear
top of fascia ft of building frontage
or mansard
Temporary -32 sq ft 10 ft 5 ft 2 per lot 4 per year for 60 days
per highway See section 4.15.11
right-of-way
frontage
Siqns by Special Use Permit:
a) Off-site advertising signs;
b) Electric message signs.
Each establishment shall be limited to a choice of one (1) of the
following: Projecting or wall.
* See section 4.15.12.d.
4.15.12.7 INDUSTRIAL (HI and LI) and MIXED INDUSTRIAL (PD-IP) DISTRICT
The following are permitted within these districts as further
regulated below:
SIGN TYPE AREA HEIGHT SETBACK # ALLOWED OTHER
(Maximum) (Minimum) (Maximum) (Maximum)
FOR EACH LOT
Freestanding 32 sq ft 12 ft 5 ft 1 per highway One sign is allowed for
right-of-way each lot with 100 feet
frontage of continuous highway
right-of-way frontage.*
FOR EACH
ESTABLISHMENT
Directory 24 sq ft 10 ft 5 ft 1 per
intersection
Projecting 32 sq ft Maximum height 5 ft 1 per highway
20 ft below right-of-way
top of fascia frontage
or mansard
Wall 200 sq ft Maximum height N/A Per establishment,
20 ~t below 1.5 sq ft per I linear
top of fascia ft of building frontage
or mansard
Temporary 32 sq ft 10 ft 5 ft 2 per lot 4 per year for 60 days
per highway See section 4.15.11
right-of-way
frontage
Siqns by Special Use Permit:
a) Off-site advertising signs;
b) Electronic message signs.
Each establishment shall be limited to a choice of one (1) of the
following: Wall or freestanding.
* See section 4.15.12.d.
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 32)
M.B. 42, Pgo 32
4.15.12.8
OVERLAY DISTRICTS
There are hereby established scenic areas and entrance corridor
overlays along the roads cited in those sections (sections 30.5
and 30.6).
No sign which would be visible from any entrance corridor street
shall be erected without issuance of a certificate of appropriate
ness by the architectural review board.
The location for all signs proposed for new development within the
entrance corridor overlay district shall be indicated on any site
plan submitted for a certificate of appropriateness.
Excessive window advertisement shall be discouraged. It shall be
subject to, and may be limited by, the architectural review board.
4.15.13 VIOLATION AND PENALTY
4.15.13 .1
ENFORCEMENT
The violation of any of the proviszons of this ordinance is hereby
declared to be a misdemeanor, for which the zoning administrator
or his/her designee shall cause a written notice of violation to
be issued to the owner, tenant or lessee of the property on which
the sign is located and/or the owner or lessee of the sign.
If such violation is not corrected within five (5) days after
receipt of the notice of violation, except violations involving
portable smgns, the zoning administrator shall remove or cause to
be removed at the owner's or tenant's expense such sign and/or
institute such other action as may be appropriate. If the viola-
tion involves a portable sign, such sign shall be removed immedi-
ately, and if not, the administrator, or his, designee, shall
remove or cause to be removed at the owner's or tenant's expense
such sign and/or institute such other action as may be appropri-
ate. Removal of a sign shall not affect any proceedings insti-
tuted prxor to removal of such sign. (See section 31.0, adminis-
tration, enforcement and interpretation.)
4.15.13.2
APPEALS
Reference section 34.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
4.15.14 SEVERABILITYAND CONFLICT
4.15.14.1
SEVERABILITY
This ordinance, and its varmous parts, are hereby declared to be
severable. If any section, clause, provision or portion of this
ordinance is declared invalid or unconstitutional by a court of
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validi-
ty of this ordinance as a whole. All parts not declared invalid
or unconstitutional shall remain in full force and effect.
4.15.14.2 CONFLICT
If any part of this ordinance is found to be in conflict with any
other ordinance or any other part of this ordinance, the most
stringent or highest standard as determined by the zoning adminis-
trator shall prevail. If any part of this ordinance is explicitly
prohibited by federal or state statute, it shall not be enforced.
21.0
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS GENERALLY. Amend and reenact sections
21.7.1 and 21.7.2 to read as follows:
21.7
21.7.1
21.7.2
MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS
Adjacent to public streets: No portion of any structure, exclud-
ing signs, shall be erected closer than thirty (30) feet to any
public street right-of-way. No off-street parking or loading
space shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to any public
street right-of-way.
Adjacent to residential and rural areas districts: No portion of
any structure, excluding signs, shall be located closer than fifty
(50) feet to any residential or rural areas district. No off-
street parking or loading space shall be located closer than
twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural areas district.
26.0 INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS - GENERALLY. Amend and reenact sections
26.10.1 and 26.10.2 to read as follows:
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 33)
M.B. 42, Pg. 33
26.10
26.10.1
26.10.2
MINIMUM YARD REQUIREMENTS
Adjacent to public streets: No portion of any structure, exclud-
ing signs, shall be erected closer than fifty (50) feet to any
public street right-of-way. No off-street parking or loading
space shall be located closer than ten (10) feet to any public
street right-of-way.
Adjacent to residential districts: No portion of any structure,
excluding signs, shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet to
any rural areas or residential district and no off-street parking
shall be closer than thirty (30) feet to any rural areas or
residential district. For the heavy industry (HI) district, no
portion of. any-structure, ~excluding signs,-shall be located closer
than one hundred (100) feet to any rural areas or residential
district and no off-street parking shall be closer than thirty
(30) feet to any rural areas or residential district.
30.5
SCENIC AREAS OVERLAY DISTRICT SA. Amend and reenact this
30.5.7
30.5.7.1
30.5.7.2
30.6
section as follows:
SIGN REGULATIONS, SA-HIGHWAYS. Amend and reenact this title by
adding the following language: "Reference section 4.15."
GENERAL REGULATIONS (Repealed)
REGULATION OF NUMBER, HEIGHT, AREA, TYPES OF SIGNS
(Repealed)
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT - EC. Amend and reenact this
30.6.5
30.6.5.1
30.6.5.2
section as follows:
SIGN REGULATIONS. Amend and reenact this title by adding the
following language: "Reference section 4.15."
GENERAL REGULATIONS (Repealed)
REGULATION OF NUMBER, HEIGHT, AREA, TYPES OF SIGNS
(Repealed)
30.6.5.3 (Repealed)
35.0
FEES. Amend and reenact the following subsections to read as
follows:
a.14. Ail other uses except signs - $780.00.
d.1. Request for a variance or sign special use permit
$95.00.
Agenda Item No. 8. SP-92-18. Stephen Andrews. Public Hearing on a
request for a home occupation-Class B on 6.06 acs zoned R-1 & EC. Property on
W side Rt 742 approx 400 ft N of Rt 20. TM90,P29. Scottsville Dist. (Property
is located in a growth area, Neighborhood 4.) (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on June 23 and June 30, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: The site is currently developed with
several small outbuildings and two unoccupied dwellings. This
property is the last developed site on Avon Street before the
intersection with Route 20.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant has submitted a description
of the proposed activity (Attachment C). The home occupation will
take place in a new building of 1,296 square feet. The new
building will be used for both the home occupation and personal
use (lawn equipment and personal belongings). The northernmost
dwelling will be used by the applicant as his place of residence.
Planninq and Zoninq History:
1969 Request for a mobile home withdrawn by the applicant
(SP-69-33) .
February 7, 1992 A home occupation, Class A (H0-92-52) issued to
allow 'General Contracting - Painting, roofing, home repairs,
etc.'
February 10, 1992 A home occupation, Class A (HO-92-54) is
issued to allow 'Gifts, crafts, antiques, furniture merchandis-
ing.'
M.B. 42, Pg. 34
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 34)
Comprehensive Plan: This site is located in Neighborhood 4 and is
recommended for low density residential use.
Staff Comment: This application has not received any objection
and is scheduled for review due only to the fact that the entrance
to this site does not have adequate sight distance. The comments
of the Zoning Administrator and Department of Transportation are
included as Attachments D and E. Staff has reviewed this request
for compliance with Section 31.2.4.1 and the supplementary regula-
tions governing home occupations, 5.2.2.1 (Attachment F). It is
the opinion of staff that the proposed activity is consistent with
the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance except with regards to
access. Staff feels the use will not be in harmony with public
health?safety, and~general welfare due to lack of ?adequate sight
distance. "
The provision of safe and convenient access is included in the
intent of the Zoning Ordinance in several sections (1.4.1, 1.4.2,
1.4.4 and 1.4.6). Staff historically has not recommended approval
of requests that do not have adequate sight distance. This site
does not have adequate sight distance for a single family dwelling
and cannot obtain sight distance due to the need for substantial
grading most likely requiring an easement on adjacent property.
Route 742 is a high volume road (4,284 vehicle trips per day
according to 1991 traffic counts) and staff does not support the
increased usage of an entrance which does not have adequate sight
distance on Route 742. Staff is unable to determine the number of
vehicle trips per day this use would generate, but does note that
the request would permit two (2) employees who are not family
members residing on-site, and would permit customers.
Staff cannot support this request without adequate sight distance
and, therefore, staff recommends denial of SP-92-18.
Should the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this request, staff recommends the following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. Not more than two employees who are not family members who
reside on-site;
2. Compliance with the performance standards of Section 4.14 of
the Zoning Ordinance;
3. New structure to house the home occupation shall be located
approximately as shown on sketch initialled WDF and, dated
5/27/92, and shall be similar in facade to a single-family
dwelling, private garage, shed, barn or other structure
normally expected in a rural or residential area and shall
be specifically compatible in design and scale with other
development in the area in which it is located;
4. There shall be no sales on the premises, other than items
handcrafted on the premises, in connection with the home
occupation;
5. The conduct of the home occupation shall not commence until
the applicant resides on-site.
Additional staff comment - Condition 5 is not normally included in
home occupation permits. The condition is included here only due
to the fact that neither dwelling is occupied and both require
Improvement prior to occupancy."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 23,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-18, with the five conditions
recommended by staff, and a sixth condition reading: "Use shall not commence
until such time as 350 feet of sight distance has been achieved for the
entrance serving the home occupation." He also noted that in condition #3,
the date of 7/8/92 needs to be substituted for 5/27/92, which is the date on
this particular drawing.
Mr. Marshall said since he knew this matter was to come before the Board,
he visited Mr. Andrews' property this morning. He asked Mr. Andrews if his
property is the old Lynch property. He mentioned that he drove by two
buildings which are in disrepair on Mr. Andrews' property and will probably be
torn down. Mr. Andrews replied that some of the buildings will be torn down.
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing and asked the applicant for
comments. Mr. Andrews said he can accept all of the conditions recommended by
the Commission. He added that sight distance is still a problem, but condi-
tion number six gives him something with which to work.
M.B. 42, Pg. 35
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 35)
Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Andrews if he has talked with anyone from VDoT
about the appearance of the front of the property. He mentioned that, because
of the intersection, there will be passing lanes, acceleration lanes, etc., in
front of Mr. Andrews' property. Mr. Andrews replied that he had talked to
officials from V DoT approximately one year ago, because he had wanted to get
an easement for telephone lines, etc. The front of his property is past the
traffic patterns, and they are not supposed to affect his property, but he had
gotten this information before he realized there was a sight distance problem.
He could probably talk to VDoT officials, again, about the improvements along
that road. Mr. Marshall stated that he knows the road will be reali~yned to
the east, considerably. He said if this road is moved over, it might give Mr.
Andrews more visibility.
Mr. Cilimberg .pointed out the new alignment of Route 20 and the new
alignment of Route 742~at the intersection, and said the road is south of Mr.
Andrews' property. He added that the sight distance problem is in a northerly
direction, and not to the south. Mr. Marshall commented that he thought Avon
Street was going to be moved over, as well as Route 20. Mr. Cilimberg
responded that Avon Street and Route 20 are g. oing to be moved only in one
location, and he pointed out this location on the plan.
Since there was no other public comment, Mr. Bowerman closed the public
hearing.
Motion was offered by Mr. Marshall, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
SP-92-18 with the six conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Roll
was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
NAYS: None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out in full below:)
1. Not more than two employees who are not family members who reside
on-site;
2. Compliance with the performance standards of Section 4.14 of the
Zoning Ordinance;
3. New structure to house the home occupation shall be located
mately as shown on sketch initialled WDF and dated 7/8/92 and shall
be similar in facade to a single-family dwelling, private garage,
shed, barn or other structure normally expected in a rural or
residential area and shall be specifically compatible in design and
scale with other development in the area in which it is located;
4. There shall be no sales on the premises, other than items hand-
crafted on the premises, in connection with the home occupation;
5. The conduct of the home occupation shall not commence until the
applicant resides on-site.
6. Use shall not commence until such time as 350 feet of sight
has been achieved for the entrance serving the home occupation.
Agenda Item No. 9. SP-92-27. Stamm Family Trust. Public Hearing on a
request for a stream crossing in the flood plain of Muddy Run & Buck Mtn Creek.
Property of 30.70 acs zoned RA on N side of Rt 687 approx 1.0 mi E of Rt 810.
TM7,P29A. White Hall Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 23 and
June 30, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: The Muddy Run and Buck Mountain Creek
confluence is near the eastern property line. These streams
branch west for a majority of this property. As a result, the 100
year flood plain covers approximately one third of the property.
On the side opposite of the road, the property slopes upward at
approximately 20 percent and is mostly cleared. The area between
the road and the stream contains flat terrain and is scattered
with grasses, sycamore and shrub vegetation. An intermittent
stream bisects the area between the road and 'Buck Mountain Creek
approximately in half. There are no dwellings or buildings on
this property.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct
only one of the two crossings submitted. The 'low water crossing'
will consist of two sets of five corrugated metal pipes with a 24
inch diameter (see Attachment B). The 'high water crossing' will
consist of Six piers spaced 50 feet apart for a total of 350 feet
(see Attachment C) . The crossing will serve one proposed residen-
tial dwelling.
M.B. 42, Pg. 36
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 36)
Planninq and Zoninq History: On December 27, 1991, staff adminis-
tratively approved a boundary exchange. Division rights were not
affected by this plat.
Comprehensive Plan: This site is not located in a designated
growth area, but is located in Rural Area I. The Comprehensive
Plan states a number of concerns for activity in the flood plain
including 'Encroachment into flood plain lands by development and
other inappropriate uses can result in increased danger to life,
health and property; public costs for flood control measures,
rescue and relief efforts, soil erosion, sedimentation and silt-
ation; pollution of water resources and general degradation of the
natural and man-made environment' (page 61). The Comprehensive
Plan states as a strategy to preserve water quality ~Restrict all
clearing, grading and construction activities to the minimum
required for the proposed development' (page 67).
Summary and Recommendations: Both the County Engineer and the
Water Resources Manager have reviewed this request (see Attachment
D).
Staff opinion is that stream crossings should be permitted only
when no alternative building site is available or no alternative
access exists. This property does not contain a stream crossing.
There are approximately 4.1 acres between the road and the stream
flood plain. Soils in this area are identified as Craigsville
Loam by the Soil Survey of Albemarle County. This soil is listed
with severe limitations for building sites (Table 10) and experi-
ences frequent flooding (Table 16). Soils on the opposite side of
the stream are identified as Hayesville Loam. Although more
steep, this soil is identified as a more acceptable material for
construction. Therefore, staff believes the only practical
building site on the parcel involves crossing the stream(s).
Given the Water Resources Manager comment, the high water stream
crossing would have less impact on the resource protection area.
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with 31.2.4.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance. Given the Engineering and Water Resources
Manager final approval, the stream crossing should not harm
adjacent properties and should not change the character of the
district. Staff opinion is that a stream crossing to allow
residential construction away from the Craigsville Loam soil would
be in more harmony with the purposes and intent of the Zoning
Ordinance. Therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the
following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of ADDroval:
1.This approval shall allow construction of only one of the
two options outlined in this report;
2. A building permit to construct a crossing shall not be
issued until the following conditions are met:
a. Department of Engineering final approval;
b. Water Resource Manager approval of water quality
impact assessment plan;
c.Issuance of Virginia Marine Resource Commission (VMRC)
and Corps of Engineer permit or;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of an Erosion
Control Permit (Grading Permit)."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 23,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-27 subject to the conditions
recommended by staff. He then said staff has substitute language for condi-
tion number 2(c). He stated that after some consultation with the Watershed
Management Official, and looking at other stream crossing permits, he would
suggest that the changed language state: "Compliance with all local, state
and federal permit requirements pertaining to disturbance of a perennial
stream." He added that a permit may not actually be required, but the
requirements that an applicant would have to go through to prove whether or
not a permit is required, should be followed.
Mr. Perkins asked which crossing will be permitted. Mr. Cilimberg
replied that the Watershed Management Official has recommended the high water
route, and he showed the supervisors this route on the map. He noted that the
Commission is not recommending any particular route for the special use
permit. He said the applicant and Watershed Management Official could
determine the best choice, and he pointed out that the plan has to be approved
by the Watershed Management Official. He called attention to condition number
2(b), which pertained to this part of the approval. The applicant had
previously stated to the Commission that he is not sure which route will be
M.B. 42, Pg. 37
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 37)
chosen, but the route will be based on whether or not he resides on the
property full-time. He added that the applicant could probably speak to this
point at tonight's meeting.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner stated that he is with Gloeckner and Osborne, Inc.,
and is representing the Stamms. The Stamms asked for the option of two
crossings because they are worldwide consultants and are presently living in
Czechoslovakia and in England. They possibly will live in Albemarle County
part-time, or they might use this property as a full-time residence. He said
the high water bridge is an expensive solution, and. if they are here for
extended periods, they may want to use that route. He went on to say,
however, that if~the. Stamms .are here for shorter periods of time, the low
water crossing is much more practical. Mr. Gloeckner said in his opinion
either solution has approximately the same impact on the stream. The high
water bridge would require a great deal of fill from the State route to the
beginning of the bridge, which would present a dam effect for storm condi-
tions, whereas, the low water crossings would generally be where fords are
now. He went on to say that there is a farm access drive where vehicles are
actually driven through streams to get to higher ground. He stated that these
low water crossings would essentially be culverts with two concrete ramps into
and out of the approaches. He said the Stamms would like the option of
choosing the crossing when the time comes to actually begin the construction.
He added that he would be glad to answer questions.
There was no further public comment, so the Chairman closed the public
hearing.
At this time, Mr. Bain moved approval of SP-92-27 subject to the condi-
tions recommended by the Planning Commission, with the substitution of
condition number 2(c), as read into the record by Mr. Cilimberg. Mr. Perkins
seconded the motion.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she will support the motion. She noted that
this is a request for a stream crossing over a stream that feeds into the
proposed new reservoir, and she pointed out that this reservoir will probably
be needed sooner than planned. She asked for staff comment as to whether this
Board should be considering some particular kind of policy regarding permits
in this area. A tremendous amount of money is being spent to build a new
reservoir and already actions are being taken which will cause increased
erosion sedimentation that will detract from the reservoir.
Mr. Cilimberg answered that there are several ways this matter is
currently being addressed, although Board policy is probably not required.
First, Mr. Cilimberg stated there is a standard review which is required
with permitting by the State. More importantly, according to Mr. C±limberg,
is the Watershed Management Official's review of every stream crossing which
is subject to a special use permit. He noted that the Watershed Management
Official has always reviewed any stream crossing in a reservoir watershed for
its impact on water quality. He said this situation is being additionally
protected by the fact that this crosses a perennial stream which is subject to
the water quality impact assessment, which is a best management practices
erosion reduction type of plan. The staff also asked Mr. Robertson, the
Watershed Management Official, if he saw any effect of the ultimate damming of
the Buck Mountain Reservoir on this particular section of the streams feeding
that reservoir, and Mr. Robertson answered that the damming was well upstream,
and he did not see that this would have any effect. Mr. Cilimberg added that
if this stream crossing was closer to the reservoir, he is sure Mr. Robertson
would comment on that. He stated that this would then be something for this
Board's consideration, as to whether or not a special use permit would be
granted, if this Board felt that ultimately that bridge would be adversely
affected by the damming of the reservoir. In this case, however, Mr. Cilim-
berg pointed out that this is not an issue.
Mrs. Humphris asked if Mr. Cilimberg is saying that there are enough
things in effect to protect the ultimate reservoir without any additional
policy concerning this particular watershed. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirma-
tively. He said the staff made its decision based on Mr. Robertson's com-
ments.
At this time, roll was called, and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES:
Nays:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
(Note: The conditions of approval are set out below:)
This approval shall allow construction of only one of the two
options outlined in this report;
A building permit to construct a crossing shall not be issued
until the following conditions are met:
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 38)
M.B. 42, Pg. 38
Co
do
Department of Engineering final approval;
Water Resource Manager approval of water quality impact
assessment plan;
Compliance with all federal, state and local requirements
pertaining to a perennial stream;
Department of Engineering issuance of an Erosion Control
Permit (Grading Permit).
Agenda Item No. 10. SP-92-34. Townside East Limited Partnership.
Public ~earing on a ~request for~a'dr~ve-up window on 2.34-acs zoned HC & EC.
Property on N side of Rt"250W in Townside East Shopping Center. TM60,P40Cl.
Jack Jouett Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 23 and June 30,
1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report as follows:
"Character of the Area: The shopping center is completely con-
structed and partially occupied. Adjacent land uses include the
Shell gas station to the east, University Heights apartments to
the south and the West Ivy shops to the west.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to utilize an
existing loading space for vehicular access to a kiosk which will
allow for the transfer of prescriptions between the customer and
the pharmacy through a pressure/vacuum system.
Planninq and Zoninq History:
(SDP-88-061) Colonnade Center - A site plan to construct two buildings
totalling 16,659 square feet of retail space to be served by 157 parking
spaces. The plan was approved by the Planning Commission on October 11,
1988, and signed on June 8, 1989.
(VA-90-82) Mitchell, Matthews and Associates Variance request to
reduce the parking requirements by 35 spaces from 192 to the 157 parking
spaces which exist for a proposed rezoning to PD-SC. Denied by the
Board of Zoning Appeals on January 8, 1992.
(ZMA-90-25) Mitchell, Matthews and Associates - Request to rezone the
2.34 acre site from HC to PD-SC was withdrawn by the applicant.
Other variances applicable to this site were for parking and building
setback reductions from the scenic highway.
Similar requests in the area include: SP-86-90 approved for a drive-
through bank on Tax Map 60, Parcels 40B1 and 40B2 now occupied by F and
M Bank; and SP-87-73 approved for a drive-through bank on Tax Map 60,
Parcel 38. This project was never pursued.
ComDrehensive Plan: This site is recommended for Community
Service in Urban Ne±ghborhood 6.
Staff Comment: The Architectural Review Board (ARB) does not have
any comments to offer for the review of this application. The
dimensions of the kiosk referenced in the recommended condition of
approval simply restates the size proposed by the applicant.
Due to concerns regarding access and circulation patterns combined
within high traffic volumes, uses involving a drive-through
facility are permitted by special use permit only. The proposed
facility is unique as compared to previous applications involving
commercial uses having drive-in windows.
This facility will utilize a 21 inch by 10 inch kiosk located in
an existing parking island adjacent to and facing an existing
loading space (see Attachment C). A pressure/vacuum system will
allow for the transfer of prescriptions in a closed container-
between the customer and the pharmacy. The tubing for the system
between the kiosk and the building will be located underground.
The applicant has stated the system will be used for prescriptions
which are ordered by telephone in advance. The applicant has also
stated~ 'The proposed kiosk addresses the public interest and
safety by permitting pick up of prescriptions by patients who are
non ambulatory or with impaired mobility.'
Because a trip to the pharmacy for prescriptions is essentially a
fixed destination, staff opinion is this use will not result in a
substantial increase in vehicular traffic. Commercial uses such
as a bank or fast-food restaurant depend on drive-through facili-
ties for convenience and speed to attract customers who may not
have otherwise patronized their establishment. This results in a
significant difference in traffic generation between the use with
M.B. 42, Pg. 39
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 39)
a drive-through facility versus the use without the drive-through
facility. The proposed system will be used only by customers
phoning in orders in advance rather than the general public,
therefore, staff does not anticipate a significant traffic volume
impact over the expected generation for a small pharmacy.
Circulation through the existing shopping center is adequate,
however, an exclusive lane or area for stacking of cars waiting to
utilize the proposed system is not provided. It must be antici-
pated that a customer approaching the kiosk when it is in use will
utilize a separate parking space to wait or walk into the store.
The Virginia Department of Transportation's (VDOT's~ only comment
was to state the existing commercial entrances are adequate.
Staff opinion is the proposed drive-in system will not result in a
significant increase in traffic and that the circulation on-site
is adequate although not optimal. Staff recommends the Board of
Supervisors find, in accordance with Section 31.2.4.1, the pro-
posed use: (1) will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
properties; and, (2) will not change the character of the dis-
trict, and, therefore, the use will be in harmony with the purpose
and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the by-right uses within the
district, and with the public health, safety, and general welfare.
Staff opinion is this special use permit is consistent with
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive
Plan, therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the follow-
ing condition:
Summary and Recommendation:
1. The outdoor kiosk shall not exceed 21 inches in height and
10 inches in width."
Mr. Marshall excused himself from the Townside East Limited Partnership
discussion because he had a conflict of interest. He immediately left the
room.
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 23,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-34 subject to the condition
recommended by staff.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she had a different impression of a kiosk.
She asked if the kiosk would only be 21 inches in height by 10 inches in
width. Mr. Cilimberg answered affirmatively. He is assuming this places the
kiosk at an adequate height for someone in a car. He stated that eye level in
a car is approximately at the three feet level. Mrs. Humphris asked if this
would be a good height for reaching from a car window. Mr. Cilimberg an-
swered, "yes." He said the kioSk would be at hand height.
Mr. Bain asked if this window is not to be used for picking up prescrip-
tions. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the window will be used for picking up pre-
scriptions, and paying for them. Mr. Bain remarked that he would like to know
how long it will take for a particular transaction. Mrs. Humphris pointed out
that the staff report indicates that the kiosk is only for picking up pre-
scriptions. She noted that a person would have to pre-order prescriptions
before he or she got to the window. Mr. Cilimberg said he is unsure whether
or not a person will pay at the window. He said the applicant can respond to
that question. Mr. Bain commented that this is a concern.
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing. Mr. Johnny Baughman, Business
Manager for Marshall Pharmacies, stated the proposed kiosk is mainly going to
be used for handicapped persons who cannot get into the building, or it would
be difficult for them to exit their automobiles, and get into the facility to
drop off a prescription. He said no one will be waiting for prescriptions to
be filled, because there is not enough space, and he understands this is a
concern. He added that there will be a handicapped space to limit the use of
the kiosk, because more people are desired inside the store. He said this
will be a convenience for handicapped people or people who cannot get inside.
He mentioned mothers who have children in a safety seat who need to pick up a
prescription. He said the prescription can be sent through the vacuum system
and the payment can be sent back, or the prescription can be dropped off and
picked up later. He reiterated that there will not be a waiting situation.
He said that use of the kiosk will be restricted, because they cannot service
a lot of people in that area. He said the intent is to get the prescription
to people who cannot easily get inside the building.
Mr. Bain asked if a handicapped person could leave the prescription, and
come back at a later time to pick it up. Mr. Baughman answered, "yes." He
said this is the intent. He is unsure about the previous statement, because
his literature does not say that this window is just for prescriptions to be
picked up.
Mr. Bain read from the staff report which indicated that the prescrip-
tions would be ordered by phone in advance. He asked if Mr. Baughman is
saying that the window can also be used for dropping off prescriptions. Mr.
M.B. 42, Pg. 40
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 40)
Baughman answered, "yes." Mr. Bain then asked if a person could stay and wait
for a prescription. Mr. Baughman replied, "no."
Mr. Bowerman asked if people would be advised that they cannot wait for
the prescription when they place the order. Mr. Baughman answered affirma-
tively. He gave an example of a person who has a disability, and that person
has a new prescription or a refill that is sent through the vacuum system. He
explained this person would leave and then come back later to pick up the
prescription. Mr. Bowerman asked when the person would pay for the prescrip-
tion. Mr. Baughman responded the prescription would be paid for when it is
picked up.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the prescription was phoned in, and the person
comes by the. kiosk'~to pick up it up, would he,or-she pay for. i~t at the time of
pick up. He next wondered if a person drops off a prescription, and
comes back to pick it up, will it be paid for at that time. Mr. Baughman
answered, "yes," to both questions.
Mr. Bain asked if Mr. Baughman has a time estimate for the transaction
when the prescription is being picked up and paid for. Mr. Baughman answered
the time for someone to pick up and pay for a prescription would be no more
than three to five minutes, at the most. He said it would depend upon the
particular clerk who was at the window, and how many telephone calls she
received during the time that she is waiting on customers.
Mr. Bain asked if the other businesses located in that area have been
notified of this proposed kiosk. Mr. Baughman replied, "yes".
Mr. Bowerman asked if there will be a handicapped parking area within
the space~ Mr. Baughman answered, "yes." He has talked to the landlord and
this is what they came up with as a restrictive measure to keep everyone from
coming to the window. He added that the main purpose is to get more people
inside the building. He said the part of the building which holds prescrip-
tions takes up not quite 1,000 square feet, and there is over 3,000 square
feet of other merchandise for sale.
Mrs. Humphris read from the staff report which indicated that prescrip-
tions would only be called in and then picked up at the kiosk, which was an
indication to staff that more traffic would not be generated. She said now
the Board is hearing that prescriptions can be brought in and picked up later.
She asked how the customers can be kept happy, when they are told that there
may be a 15 minute wait, and the customer chooses to sit in the special place
and wait. She wondered how the customer can be invited to leave. Mr.
Baughman stated that this is a problem. He said the customer would have to be
informed of the use of the kiosk. He added that this could be done through
advertising or at the time the prescription is ordered.
Mrs. Humphris noted that if the special place is a normal handicapped
parking space, there is nothing which would indicate the customer would have
to leave it. Mr. Baughman responded that there would have to be wording on
the handicapped sign. He said it would not be just the basic handicapped
sign.
Mrs. Humphris asked if the applicant has the right to designate a space
that is the applicant's alone for this particular purpose. Mr. Baughman
answered, "yes." He said the landlord of the shopping center chose this spot
for the kiosk. He said it was originally designated as a loading spot for
trucks to unload goods for whoever was occupying the various buildings. Mrs.
Humphris then wondered if there is another loading zone there. Mr. Baughman
replied that, to his knowledge, the landlord has not designated any other
loading zone, other than the normal parking spaces.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the staff reviewed elements to make sure
loading was still adequately taken care of on the site, and it was. He said
this request does not remove a loading area which was critical to the site
plan approval. Mr. Tucker noted that this space is in excess of the normal
requirement for handicapped spaces. Mr. Cilimberg agreed. He said handi-
capped requirements have already been met with other spaces at the shopping
center.
Mrs. Humphris wondered, if there is a problem with this situation, will
the public blame the owner, and not the supervisors. Mr. Baughman replied
that the owner will be blamed for problems.
There being no other public comment, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bain stated that he thinks there will be some administrative control
difficulties which will have to be addressed, and he does not think the
supervisors can do much in the way of addressing them, other than limiting the
size of the area. He added that if the kiosk gets to be a problem, the
applicant will hear about it from the other businesses and the landlord, so he
thinks that it will be a private matter.
At this time, Mr. Bain moved approval of SP-92-34 subject to the
condition recommended by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Humphris seconded the
motion.
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 41)
M.B. 42, Pg. 41
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris, Mr. Martin and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Marshall.
(Note: The condition of approval is set out in full below:)
1. The outdoor kiosk shall not exceed twenty-one (21) inches in
height and ten (10) inches in width.
(Mr. Marshall returned to the meeting at this time.-)
Agenda Item N~i 11. SP~92-38. Charlottesville Aquatics (applicant);
United Land Corp of America (owner). Public Hearing on a request for outdoor
storage & display of outdoor furniture items on 9.934 acs zoned HC & EC.
Property on E side of Rt 29 S of & adjacent to South Fork Rivanna River in
Federal Express Shopping Center. TM45B1,P1B,Sec 6. Charlottesville Dist.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on June 23 and June 30, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report:
"Character of the Area: This site is developed with a shopping
center. Slopes between the river and the northern edge of the
shopping center are in excess of 25 percent and are heavily
wooded.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to locate a 10'
x 50' deck display area on the building side closest to Route 29.
Items to be stored shall be limited to patio furniture. (Attach-
ment B).
Backqround: Originally, this proposal envisioned a pool as well
as a deck for outdoor display. On May 5, 1992, the Zoning Admin-
istrator informed the applicant and property owner of four viola-
tions on this site (see Attachment C). The applicant has with-
drawn the pool proposal and has removed it from the site. Approv-
al of this special use permit should be conditioned to rectify the
remaining violations.
Planninq and Zoninq History: The following outlines history
relevant to this application. The original site plan, (SDP-84-
067) Federal Express and Retail Office Building Site Plan, was
approved on December 20, 1984, by the Board of Supervisors.
Subsequently, additional phases were approved by the Planning
Commission on December 17, 1987, and December 13, 1988. Present-
ly~ the owner is reconfiguring the northern entrance in accordance
with SDP-91-085. None of the approved site plans show the im-
provements subject to this request.
Comprehensive Plan: This site is located in 'Urban Neighborhood 2
and designated Community Service.
Summary and Recommendations: This request is being reviewed
because of its location in the Entrance Corridor District. This
use is by-right in the underlying district. The Architectural
Review Board has granted a certificate of appropriateness subject
to conditions. (See Attachment D).
Staff has reviewed this special use permit for compliance with
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. Given the Architectural
Review Board's recommendation, staff opinion is that the use
should not otherwise be of detriment to adjacent properties nor
will the character of the district otherwise change. Given the
size and location of the deck, this use should be in harmony with
the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of SP-92-38 subject to the following condi-
tions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit and a Certifi-
cate of Occupancy within thirty (30) days of Board of Super-
visors approval or this special use permit approval shall
terminate. Until the applicant has obtained a Certificate
of Occupancy for the deck and a Certificate of Appropriate-
ness, there shall be no use, storage or occupancy of the
deck;
2. Staff approval of site plan amendment;
Compliance with Architectural Review Board action as out-
lined in letter dated May 19, 1992;
4. Expansion of or addition to the outdoor storage uses, activ-
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 42)
5o
M.B. 42, Pg. 42
ities or structures not outlined in this staff report shall
require additional review and approval by the Board of
Supervisors;
No banners, spinners, flyers, pennants, floats, tinsel or
other attention getting devices shall be allowed on the deck
or any other portion of the Charlottesville Aquatics
space in the associated building."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 30,
1992, unanimously recommended approval of SP-92-38 subject to the following
conditions:
1. Until the applicant has obtained a-Certificate of Appropri-
ateness and a Certificate of Occupancy for the deck, there
shall be no use, storage or occupancy of the deck;
Staff approval of site plan amendment;
Expansion of or addition to the outdoor storage uses, activ-
ities or structures not outlined in this staff report shall
require additional review and approval by the Board of
Supervisors;
No banners, spinners, flyers, pennants, floats, tinsel or
other attention getting devices shall be allowed on the deck
or any other portion of the Charlottesville Aquatics space
in the associated building;
5. Restoration of all landscaping removed.
Mr. Cilimberg said these conditions are intended to remedy all of the
violations which have occurred. He mentioned that there is a second notice of
violation, dated June 30, 1992, included in the Board members' packets which
is more recent than the original. He said this violation was corrected before
the night of the Planning Commission meeting. He added that this violation
related to storage on the deck without this special use permit's approval.
At this time, Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing.
Mr. Fred yon Lewinski, owner of Charlottesville Aquatics, stated that the
ma]or reason he had wanted to use the deck was to appropriately display
products that he is selling in a more natural manner. He said that, other
than things that have been previously discussed at other meetings and the
conditions with which he will have to comply, he does not think that he has
anything else to add.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Bowerman commented that he thinks the use is appropriate, and he
thinks the other matters deal with concerns that go beyond the request that is
before this Board. Me said that he would support this request, with the
recommended conditions.
Mr. Martin then made a motion to approve SP-92-38, subject to the
conditions recommended by the Planning Commission. Mrs. Humphris seconded the
motion.
AYES:
NAYS:
Roll was called, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mr.. Humphris, Messrs. Marshall, Martin and
Perkins.
None.
(The conditions of approval are set out below:)
Until the applicant has obtained a Certificate of Appropri-
ateness and a Certificate of Occupancy for the deck, there
shall be no use, storage or occupancy of the deck;
Staff approval of site plan amendment;
Expanszon of or addition to the outdoor storage uses, activ-
ities or structures not outlined in this staff report shall
require additional review and approval by the Board of
Supervisors;
No banners, spinners, flyers, pennants, floats, tinsel or
other attention getting devices shall be allowed on the deck
or any other portion of the Charlottesville Aquatics space
in the associated building;
5. Restoration of all landscaping removed.
July 8~ 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 43)
M.B. 42, Pg. 43
Agenda Item No. 12. SP-91-42. McDonald's Corporation. Public Hearing
on a request to locate a fast food restaurant with drive-through window on 1.7
acs zoned C-I, HC & EC. Property on W side of Rt 20 approx 250 ft N of Rt 250.
TM78,P's4(part) &4A. Rivanna Dist. (Advertised in the Daily Progress on June
23 and June 30, 1992.)
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff's report:
"Character of the Area: The property is located just north of the
Texaco site. The east side of Route 20 includes Berlin Imports
car dealership and Interstate Electric Supply Company. The Route
250 East widening project, which includes improvements to Route 20
North, is currently under construction.
Applicant's Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a
4,422 square foot restaurant with 59 parking spaces on a 1.76 acre
site. A reduced copy of the site plan is included herein as
Attachment G.
Summary and Recommendations: Staff has reviewed this request for
compliance with Section 31.2.4~1 of the Zoning Ordinance and
recommends approval subject to conditions.
Planninq and Zoninq History: The most recent application involv-
ing this site was a special use permit (SP-88-07) request to allow
fill in the floodway fringe of the Rivanna River as part of a plan
for a 22,500 square foot commercial development. The request was
denied by the Board of Supervisors on March 22, 1988. A full list
of past applications is included herein as Attachment D.
Comprehensive Plan: This area is recommended for Regional Service
in Urban Neighborhood 3. The Non-Residential Land Use Guidelines
(Table 46 of the Comprehensive Plan, p.161) indicate the restau-
rant is an appropriate use in the Regional Service Areas by
reference to the Community Service and Neighborhood Service
designations. Staff opinion is the existing adjacent land uses
and the physical constraints of this site lend the property to a
smaller scale development than the 250,000 square foot gross floor
area recommended for the Regional Service Areas.
Staff Comment: The proposed site is 1.76 acres with the southern
0.32 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial and the remaining 1.44
acres zoned C-I, Commercial (see Attachment B) . In the HC dis-
trict, fast food restaurants are permitted by-right [Section
24.2.1.30] with the drive-through window allowed by special use
permit [Section 24.2.2.13] . In the C-1 district, both the fast
food restaurant and the drive-through window require special use
permit approval [Sections 22.2.2.4 and 22.2.2.10].
The Architectural Review Board has issued a Certificate of Appro-
priateness for this project (see Attachment C). The preliminary
site plan has been reviewed concurrently with this petition. Site
plan related issues are presented in a separate staff report.
Due to concerns regarding access and circulation patterns combined
with high traffic volumes, uses involving a drive-through facility
are permitted by special use permit only. Staff opinion is the
site plan has been substantially revised to address these concerns
and incorporate the recommendations of the Site Review Committee.
The revisions include:
Relocation of the entrance approximately 100 feet to the
north on Route 20.
Provision of future access points for the properties to the
south and west.
· Improved on-site circulation patterns.
During the review of the original site plan submittal for this
project the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) stated,
'With the volume of traffic for this site and with the majority of
entering traffic anticipated to turn left from Route 20 into the
site, it will be difficult for a left turn to be provided at the
entrance location shown. Therefore, if this request is approved,
the entrance location should be further north on Route 20.
Obtaining a sufficient left turn lane length for this access and
still providin9 sufficient length for the left turn lane onto
Route 250 would determine the location of this entrance.' (From
Jeff Echols' site review comments of August 23, 1991.)
The plan was revised to show the entrance located 75 feet north-
ward from the original proposal. VDOT stated, 'This site plan was
reviewed for the necessary left turn stacking space for both the
Route 250/Route 20 intersection, as well as the McDonald's site.
It has been determined that the proposed entrance location will
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 44)
M.B. 42, Pg. 44
provide for adequate though minimal left turn lanes to serve both
the intersection and the site.' This letter of September 26,
1991, included herein as Attachment E, notes a northbound left
turn lane at McDonald's would result in the elimination of the
planned southbound left turn lane for the Interstate Electric
Supply Company and Ra'el auto shop. Staff opinion is the Route 20
southbound traffic turning into these sites is minimal and elimi-
nation of the left turn lane would not be detrimental to antici-
pated traffic patterns.
The plan was revised a second time shifting the entrance approxi-
mately 25 additional feet to the north for increased stacking
area. VDoT's comments and recommendations of September 26, 1991
are Still applicable to~.~this proposedentrance ~ocaticn'and
additional comments are included as Attachment F.
The 100 year flood plain (elevation 340') located along the north
side of the property restricts the location of the entrance road
from being moved further northward. As proposed, the toe of the
fill slope to construct the entrance road is located just outside
the flood plain limits.
To accommodate this proposal, this section of Route 20 is to have
a sixty foot pavement width with five lanes consisting of:
Two northbound lanes;
One southbound lane for right turns onto Route 250;
One southbound lane for through movements to Riverbend
Drive;
One center lane providing a 140' stacking lane and a 100'
taper lane for southbound traffic turning left on Route 250.
This lane will transition and provide an 88' stacking lane
and a 100' taper lane for northbound traffic turning left
into the McDonald's site.
As stated earlier, the proposed entrance location will provide
adequate though minimal left turn lanes to serve both the Route
250/Route 20 intersection and the McDonald's site. Final design
of the dimensions and pavement markings on Route 20 will be
subject to VDoT approval.
Staff opinion is the entrance location and interior circulation
pattern have been designed to provide the most safe and convenient
access to the site in consideration of the 100 year flood plain
location which restricts this site. Staff recommends the Board of
Supervisors find, in accordance with Section 31.2.4.1, the pro-
posed use: (1) will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
properties; and (2) will not change the character of the district,
and, therefore, the use will be in harmony with the purpose and
intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the by-right uses within the
district, and with the public health, safety, and general welfare.
Staff opinion is this special use permit is consistent with
Section 31.2.4.1 of the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive
Plan, therefore, staff recommends approval subject to the follow-
ing condition:
Recommended Condition of ADDroval:
The site plan shall be developed in general accord with the
plan prepared by Michael Baker Jr., Incorporated, prepared
August 19, 1991 and last revised April 3, 1992."
Mr. Cilimberg said the Planning Commission, at its meeting on June 9,
1992, by a vote of 6-1, recommended approval of SP-92-42 subject to the
condition recommended by staff.
Mr. Cilimberg added that the ARB has issued a Certificate of Appropri-
ateness for the project, and a site plan was reviewed by the Commission, at
the same time as the special use permit was reviewed. He said the site plan
will be approved per the supervisors' approval of the special use permit
tonight. He commented that plans for the entrance have been changed, due to
concerns regarding access and circulation patterns of traffic.
Mr. Bain asked if the changes were made before the Commission's action.
Mr. Cilimberg answered, "yes". He noted that this application dates over more
than a year, and during that time with VDoT, the applicant has made two
changes. He went on to describe the changes, and said that the Commission
requested the applicant not to put in a deadend nub. He added that a decision
would be made at some future point, with the development of the adjoining
site, whether to make that connection. He said the applicant was agreeable to
the Planning Commission's request.
M.Bo 42, Pg. 45
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 45)
Mr. Bowerman asked if this change is covered either in the site plan or
in the conditions. Mr. Cilimberg replied that this particular change is cov-
ered in the site plan. Mr. Bowerman asked what is the terminology on the site
plan regarding this change. Mr. Cilimberg answered that the change will occur
based on the Commission's meeting and when the site plan is approved, the nub
will be removed from the site plan. He said that it does not have to be
covered in the special use permit.
Mr. Bain stated that when he read the Commission's minutes, he was
concerned about the discussion of these types of connections. He said these
types of connections have been encouraged for a long time. He pointed out
that Bill Nitchmann made comments about this situation,~-and Mr. Bain thinks it
would be good to elaborate on it. He said this needs to be encouraged at
Commission levet~.~ ~Mr. Cilimberg remarked that~he m~tioned'~hi~at the
Commission meeting during the site plan discussion. He said that closing off
this portion of the property is no problem because the allowance is still
there, and the requirement can still be made with the other site's develop-
ment. He did specifically tell the Commission that he felt it would be very
important to keep that allowance, even if it is not built as a nub, because
there has been experience in other locations where the opportunity to access
adjacent sites is not available through existing sites. He added that this
causes a proliferation of entrances on main roads, and in this case, the
Texaco property will have no crossover on Route 250. He said the Texaco
property's business will be based either on U-turn movements on Route 250 or
people taking a left and coming in another entrance. He likened this to a
situation at Rio Road and Route 29 with Hardee's and Bo]angles Restaurants,
where there is an interconnection provided there. He added that if this
interconnection was not provided, there would be a lot more trouble in
accessing those two businesses. He pointed out that the Commission did not
foreclose this access, but the Commission did not want to give the impression
that this was automatic by having the nub there. He noted that this was the
Commission's opinion, but it was not the staff's opinion, and the staff did
not offer this as a suggested change.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the supervisors may choose to disagree with the
Commission on this point. Mr. Cilimberg remarked that the staff also chose to
disagree with the Commission about this matter, to a certain extent. He said
the supervisors can call the site plan if they feel that this is a concern.
Mr. Bain mentioned that this is the preliminary plan and not the final
site plan. Mr. Cilimberg stated that he can take the supervisors' message
back to the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked about a certain property on the map. Mr. Cilimberg
replied that the property to which Mr. Bowerman referred was flood plain. He
showed, with use of the map, the fill area for the McDonald's parking lot and
the vegetation area. He said the applicant is filling the area to the edge of
the flood plain. Mr. Bowerman wondered what the zoning is north of that
site. Mr. Cilimberg replied that the zoning north of the McDonald's site, on
the other side of the flood plain, is residential.
Mr. Cilimberg added that the dissenting vote on the Commission was due
to concerns about the general traffic accessing McDonald's this close to the
intersection. He stated that this is the major item that the staff has been
addressing with V DoT for more than a year. He said the ARB wanted the
entrance closer to the site due to design considerations. He noted that the
staff informed the ARB that safety governs, so the entrance would have to be
moved further to the north.
Mr. Bowerman opened the public hearing.
Ms. Lisa Barnett, with McDonald's Corporation, said she would discuss
again Mr. Cilimberg's comments relating to the Commission's concern with the
entrance into the Texaco site. She added that, to eliminate the concern, it
was decided to terminate the curb on either side of the access, and the access
was not extended all the way, so that in the future, if the adjacent property
is developed, that access would be available. She went on to say that the
Commission's concern related to traffic coming on to that site, even though
the first site was not developed. In addition to terminating the curb on
either side of the nub, she said that a tree has been placed in the middle of
the non-curbed area, to try to prohibit vehicles from coming into that
existing entrance. She said she was available for questions.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the McDonald's Corporation objects to having access
through the Texaco property. He noted that whatever develops on this property
could access through McDonald's property. Ms. Barnett indicated that McDon-
ald's Corporation was not concerned about this situation. Mr. Bowerman then
wondered if the nub is not required now, and eighteen months from now a
connection is made between the two properties, would McDonald's officials have
an objection. Ms. Barnett again answered, "no." She went on to say that in
McDonald's contract there is a stipulation for an easement agreement with the
adjacent property owner for access to and from the two properties.
Mr. Bowerman wondered if this would be something that McDonald's offi-
cials would look favorably upon. Ms. Barnett answered affirmatively.
M.B. 42, Pg. 46
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 46)
Mr. Bowerman stated that whenever a road is not approved, and it is to be
built later, it never gets built. He is trying to make it as clear as
possible what this Board thinks about good planning.
There being no other public comments, the public hearing was closed.
At this time, Mr. Martin made a motion to approve SP-91-42 subject to the
condition recommended by the Planning Commission. Mr. Bain seconded the
motion.
Mrs. Humphris stated that she is a regular user of all three of the local
McDonald's Restaurants. From the first time she heard-of the building of a
McDonald's on this site, however, she thought it would not work. She went on
to say that everytime she' went by the site, she'was concer'~ed~ She recalled
that the McDonald's in-Shopper's World-accesses from inside the shopping
center, the one at Barracks Road accesses from a road off of the main road,
but interior to the shopping center, and the one at McIntire Road has two
entrances and exit roads, plus an additional exit for the drive-through
window. She also thought of the nightmare of the Hardee's that is located at
Rio Road. She even visualized the proposed McDonald's as being moved back the
extra appropriate number of feet, with the road widenred, and with a left turn
lane. She has been thinking about this all along, and when she ran across Mr.
Johnson's comments from the Commission minutes, he echoed her feeling exactly.
She read in the staff report that, "It has been determined that the proposed
entrance location will provide for adequate though minimal left turn lanes to
serve both the intersection and the site." She recalled the supervisors'
discussion about what it would be like when all of the apartment complexes got
into place and everything that was going to happen in the Pantops Shopping
Center was there, and she thought about all of the undeveloped space up the
hill from the McDonald's site. She can see a continual series of accidents
happening at these two left turn lanes. She really thinks this is poor
planning to put a business with the tremendous volume that this McDonald's
will have on that particular site. She knows she will be a minority of one,
and she does not mind, because she feels strongly that it is bad when so much
emphasis is put on planning and there is a noticeable problem, and the
supervisors ignore it, even though it is a McDonald's Corporation, and it has
such a good reputation. She thinks, however, that approval of this special
use permit will be doing McDonald's Corporation and this County a disservice.
Mr. Marshall agreed with Mrs. Humphris. He loves and also used McDon-
ald's Restaurants, but he thinks that this is a poor location. He would
prefer to see the restaurant further up the mountain where there is better
accessibility. There is a bad curve at the proposed site. He uses that area
a great deal, and it is extremely difficult negotiating under the present
circumstances. He cannot imagine the volume of traffic that this restaurant
will create. He does not even go to the Hardee's Restaurant in that area,
because he has to go across Free Bridge to get in and to get out of there. He
emphasized that this is a terribly congested area, and this proposed restau-
rant will pull more volumes of traffic into that intersection. He will not
support the motion.
Mr. Martin stated that he understands the problem involved with this
site, and he thinks that, at times, there will be a traffic issue there. He
added, however, that he believes VDoT has done its job and the staff has done
its job, and both of them feel comfortable that traffic can be accommodated.
He travels the road a lot, and he understands the problems there, but he is
assuming the roads will be changed to meet VDoT's specifications.
Mr. Perkins commented that he believes that if a McDonald's Restaurant
does not locate at this site, there will just be something else there six
months or a year from now. He said something will be built there, because it
is too valuable a piece of property to just sit there.
Mr. Bain responded that this may be true, but it may not be something
with as much traffic volume as McDonald's. He added that Mrs. Humphris and
Mr. Marshall have pointed out how much business is involved with McDonald's
restaurants, and how much traffic the restaurants generate. He reiterated
that another business can be located there, but there would not be the traffic
problem. He then asked Mr. Cilimberg what is the total distance for the
entrance when it is moved up 100 feet. He asked how far north from the
intersection is that entrance. Ms. Barnett responded from the audience that
there is a total of 250 feet involved with the entrance. Mr. Cilimberg
explained that there would be a 140 foot stacking lane and a 100 foot taper
lane for southbound traffic, an 88 foot stacking lane and a 100 foot taper
lane for northbound traffic. He added that the total would be approximately
220 to 230 feet.
Mr. Bain mentioned that if a vehicle was coming east on Route 250 and was
going to turn onto Route 20 North, the vehicle would move right away into the
left turn lane. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out the area on the map, as he de-
scribed the different lanes of traffic and the improvements that will be done
there.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the area will be improved similarly to the way
Rio Road and Route 29 North will be improved. He said there will be a left
turn stacking lane on Rio, where there is not one, currently. Mr. Cilimberg
M.B. 42, Pg. 47
July 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 47)
then corrected his previous statement by saying there are approximately 330
total feet at the entrance. He pointed out the northern most point where
access could be to provide any kind of suitable left turn lanes in either
direction, before getting into the flood plain. He said this arrangement
could be for any business, but the volumes of traffic will vary based on what
business goes in that area.
Mr. Bain asked if there is a left turn lane, if the property is exited
and a vehicle goes across traffic to go north on Route 20. Mr. Cilimberg
replied there is no left turn lane, in the situation to which Mr. Bain
referred, shown on the plan. He added that it was not recommended by VDoT.
Mr. Bob Smith commented from the audience that this problem has been
addressed'by the ARB at least three times, and there have been-several
meetings with VDoT to address these concerns. He said VDoT officials would
have liked to had a better solution, but he believes that this plan will
satisfy their concerns.
Mr. Bain stated that he will support the motion. He said the McDonald's
Corporation has been in business in other places with much tighter situations
than this. He thinks, however, this type of business is not interested in
going to a place where there will be difficulties on site. He added that when
there are difficulties on site, it will cut McDonald's' business, and that is
not what it is after. He went on to say that before he was on this Board,
probably in 1980 or 1981, when Wendy's was trying to locate on Route 29 North,
he was involved in that representation. He and the County staff discussed
over and over the one-way circulation, and this was not something that the
staff wanted. He said that out-of-state traffic people were brought in to
show how it would work, and he does think it has worked at that particular
location. He added that this was something that had not been tried in that
location, but the Wendy's representatives convinced the staff that it would
work. He stated that this location for McDonald's is not an ideal situation,
as Mr. Smith has indicated, but Mr. Bain commented that he thinks it is more
than adequate.
Roll was then called, and the motion carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Bain, Bowerman, Martin and Perkins.
NAYS: Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Marshall.
(The condition of approval is set out below:)
1. The site plan shall be developed in general accord with the
plan prepared by Michael Baker Jr., Incorporated, prepared
August 19, 1991, and last revised April 3, 1992.
Agenda Item No. 13. Approval of Minutes: October 9 and November 13,
1991.
Mr. Bowerman had read October 9, 1991, pages 1 13 (end at $10) and
found them to be in order.
Mr. Bain had read November 13, 1991, pages 15 ($7d) - 26, and found them
to be in order.
Motion was offered by Mr. Bain, seconded by Mrs. Humphris, to approve
the minutes as read. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following
recorded vote:
AYES: Mr. Bain, Mr. Bowerman, Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Perkins.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAIN: Mr. Marshall and Mr. Martin.
Agenda Item No. 14. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the
BOARD.
Mr. Tucker said the staff had been requested to look into the question
of the redistricting proposed by the Virginia Association of Counties (VACo).
As could have been expected, the redistricting is completed and the VACo Board
of Directors has made all of the decisions
Mr. Tucker noted that through Mrs. Humphris and Mr. Drewary Brown, staff
had been made aware of a grant from the state for a summer youth program. The
County will be able to use about 25 young people in Parks and Recreation, and
Staff Services.
Mr. Tucker said that a dilemma had arisen concerning the proposed addi-
tion to the Joint Security Complex (Jail) property. Physically, the County
owns one-half of the property and the other half is owned by the City. The
new addition would straddle that line. He has talked to the County Attorney
about this situation, and they are proposing that the property be jointly
M.B. 42, Pg. 48
JUly 8, 1992 (Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 48)
owned by the County and City. In the near future, the Board will be requested
to approve a new deed correcting this situation.
Mr. Bowerman said he would like to have a report on zoning enforcement
and there is no particular issue involved, but he knows that warrants are
filed and nothing seems to happen. The use, it seems like, continues forever.
He feels that with adoption of the new Sign Ordinance, this practice will be
more prevalent, He knows there is a lot of frustration involved, and his
remarks are not directed toward staff. Mr. Tucker said he would have a report
prepared for the August 5 meeting. ~
Agenda Item'No-~15- Adjourning. With no further bus,ness to come before
the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.