HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 17 2013 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
September 17, 2013
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting on Tuesday,
September 17, 2013, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Auditorium, Second
Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Ed Smith, Thomas Loach, Bruce Dotson, Don Franco, Calvin
Morris, Chair; and Russell (Mac) Lafferty, Vice Chair. Absent was Richard Randolph.
Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia was absent.
Other officials present were Amanda Burbage, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley,
Director of Zoning/Zoning Administrator; Sharon Taylor, Clerk to Planning Commission;
and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.
Call to Order and Establish Quorum:
Mr. Morris, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a
quorum.
Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda from the Public:
Mr. Morris invited comment from the public on other matters not listed on the agenda.
There being no public comment, the meeting moved to the next item.
Item Requesting Deferral
ZMA-2013-00009 Albemarle Place/Stonefield Proffer Amendment
PROPOSAL: Request to amend proffers on property zoned NMD which allows
residential (3 — 34 units/acre) mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses. No
new dwellings or change in residential density proposed.
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
PROFFERS: Yes
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Designated Urban Mixed Use (in Destination Center) —
retail, residential, commercial, employment, office, institutional, and open space; Urban
Mixed Use (in areas around Centers) — commercial and retail uses that are not
accommodated in Centers; and Commercial Mixed Use — commercial, retail,
employment uses, with supporting residential, office, or institutional uses.
LOCATION: Northwest corner Hydraulic Road (Rt. 743) and Seminole Trail (US 29) in
Neighborhood 1.
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 061 WO-03-00-019AO, 061 WO-03-00-019BO, 061 WO-03-00-02300,
061 WO-03-00-02400, 061 WO-03-00-02500
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Jack Jouett
(Sarah Baldwin)
DEFER DUE TO ADVERTISING ERROR. TO BE RESCHEDULED.
Mr. Morris noted a deferral was being requested for ZMA-2013-00009, Stonefield
Proffer Amendment. He asked staff to explain the deferral request.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEBMER 17, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. McCulley explained when staff checked the legal advertisement they realized that it
was not sufficient to fully describe what was being proposed. Therefore, they needed to
readvertise and set a later public hearing date.
Motion: Mr. Lafferty moved and Mr. Smith seconded to defer ZMA-2013-00009,
Albemarle Place/Stonefield Proffer Amendment to October 8, 2013.
The motion passed by a vote of 6:0.
Mr. Morris said ZMA-2013-00009, Albemarle Place/Stonefield Proffer Amendment was
deferred to October 8, 2013.
Deferred Item
ZTA-2013-00005 Inoperable Vehicles.
Amend Secs. 3.1, Definitions, 4.12.3, Prohibited activities in parking, stacking and
loading areas, 4.15.7, Prohibited signs and sign characteristics, of Chapter 18, Zoning,
of the Albemarle County Code. This ordinance would amend Sec. 3.1 to add definitions
related to the regulation of inoperable vehicles; amend Sec. 4.12.3 regarding parking or
storing inoperable vehicles, reducing the number of inoperable vehicles from 2 to 1 that
may be stored outside of a fully enclosed building on lots less than 5 acres having a
Rural Areas or a residential zoning designation (with a limited exception for active
vehicle restoration or repair), and requiring that businesses authorized to keep
inoperable vehicles outside of a fully enclosed building do so only in the location
designated for that use on an approved site plan; and amend Sec. 4.15.7 to clarify the
reference to inoperable vehicles. A copy of the full text of the ordinance is on file in the
office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Department of Community
Development, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
(Mandy Burbage)
DEFERRED FROM THE AUGUST 6, 2013 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING.
The Planning Commission held a work session to set general direction and provide
feedback on ZTA-2013-00005 Inoperable Vehicles.
Amanda Burbage presented a PowerPoint presentation regarding ZTA-2013-00005
Inoperable Vehicles. Staff explained background information, the proposed changes
and asked for feedback and comments.
- The only change from the last version the Commission saw is the addition of
language that inoperable vehicles are kept on some kind of improved parking
surface in the area that is behind the face of the house if the face of the house is
relative to the street. On a corner lot it would be both faces of the building that
are next to the street. This was in response to several Commissioners' concerns
at the last meeting and also a citizen who spoke about the concern with
inoperable vehicles being visible from the street even if they are covered. Even if
there is fencing or some sort of cover over the vehicles it is right there in the front
yard and it is still a visible blight. Staff wanted to address that with this setback
requirement.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEBMER 17, 2013 2
FINAL MINUTES
- Another thing staff felt was important, particularly in the Development Area, was
requiring that vehicles be kept on some sort of an improved parking surface. It
would prevent vehicles being parked anywhere in someone's yard potentially
leaking fluids directly into the grass. That is where that language came from.
- The staff report alluded to paved surfaces. In visiting sites in the Development
Area staff realized there are a lot of alternatives to asphalt that exist for
driveways such as gravel and pervious pavers. Staff wants to expand that
acceptable surface to include all types.
Staff reviewed graphics and actual examples (attached to executive summary) to
help the Commission visualize what these recommendations would look like in
practice.
To summarize, the requirement that inoperable vehicles be kept to the side or
rear of lots does help address some issues, but also raises some issues. It
certainly accomplishes limiting visibility from the street. However, it also might
end up pushing those vehicles closer to adjacent properties, which may end up
being a visual blight to neighbors.
Staff found in driving around that a lot of driveways end right in front of their
houses. With the existing lot situations, unless someone is willing to create a
new area for parking a vehicle, many of these lots would have difficulty
complying. The requirement that the vehicle be kept on some kind of improved
parking surface keeps vehicles off the grass as mentioned before; prevents fluids
from draining directly into the ground; and also further limits where on the lot the
inoperable vehicle may be kept. If they are requiring certain surfaces be used,
then that further limits where those vehicles can go.
Staff will walk through four questions to get consensus and clarity from the
Commission so they can move forward in drafting ordinance language.
Mr. Morris invited questions for staff.
Mr. Lafferty asked if a car can operate and does not have tags would that be an
inoperable vehicle.
Ms. Burbage replied yes. Staff uses the State Code definition of an inoperable vehicle,
which is any motor vehicle, trailer, or semi -trailer which is not in operating conditions or
does not display valid license plates or does not display an inspection decal that is valid
or has been expired for more than 60 days.
Mr. Loach asked about Code Section 15.2.905 where it says the County must allow
actively engaged repair or restoration. He asked is there any additional language in the
Code that defines what the County can do and what limits they have to impose.
Mr. Kamptner replied staff will get to that discussion later. However, they have already
had the discussion about the limitation on the 180 days of being the period of active
restoration. That is what the draft currently has. They also need to work out what kind
of information they are going to ask the person who is claiming to restore to provide that
demonstrates that.
Mr. Smith asked who makes the determination the vehicle is inoperable.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEBMER 17, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
on
Mr. Morris invited Lisa Green, Code Enforcement Officer, to come forward and answer
the question from an inspector's point of view.
Lisa Green, Code Enforcement Officer, noted they had a court case where the Judge
asked if the car was actually running. If the inspector finds the engine or the
transmission is in the vehicle where you sit it is a no brainer. In each situation the
inspector has to make a judgment call. There have been times the inspector has asked
that the vehicle be cranked. If it cranks and has an inspection, then it is operable.
Mr. Morris noted that the Commission would review each question with public comment
taken separately on each question. He opened the hearing and invited public comment
on question #1.
Bob Garland, resident of Canterbury Hills, said requiring inoperable vehicles to be on
the side or rear yards, in his opinion, can actually aggravate the situation. If they don't
require a setback for that vehicle, the vehicle can be set against the neighbor's yard. In
his neighborhood the side setback requirement was 10' to the house, which is one
issue. The second issue is if they are required to be on a paved surface, then leaking
material can then pool that can be toxic material. He pointed out in an email to the
Commission that the main toxic material in cars is antifreeze, which is an extremely
toxic subject to both pets and children. Impervious material, such as gravel, would
simply allow that to go into the environment directly. Therefore, he really is not crazy
about this at all. The only exception would be if they can properly screen it, which is
another issue.
There being no further public comment on question #1, Mr. Morris asked for input from
the Commission.
Mr. Franco said regarding paved surface that the patio was hard surface and the
inoperable vehicle could be parked on it. Then the point is back to what are we trying to
regulate — aesthetics? It is causing a lot of environmental concerns. If regulating
aesthetics, then getting the inoperable vehicle behind or beside the house and away
from the street view would work. He did not think he would require the paved surface. If
they are going to go that far they will basically be creating a scenario where no one can
comply so they can't have them. If that is the case, then he did not agree with it since it
goes to zero.
Mr. Loach said he thought they have to look at the potential environmental impacts if
they allow the inoperable vehicles to be parked on the grass. At least on the impervious
surface they can see it and know there is a problem to be taken care of.
Mr. Franco pointed out that he felt they are going too far.
Mr. Morris said he liked the language staff used as improved parking.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEBMER 17, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Franco noted that a drip pan would make him happy to recognize a problem exists
and then they can put the vehicle on a paved surface. In addition, they can put it on
plastic or a tarp.
Ms. Burbage pointed out there is another issue with the requirement that it is kept on a
surface. It would prevent someone putting their inoperable vehicles anywhere in the
back yard.
Mr. Morris noted that they still have the screening. He complimented staff on the
examples. It would be difficult for the inspectors to enforce anything they have said. He
asked how they get out and look at the improved or paved surface to see if there was
drainage. It is a problem that they are trying to deal with.
Mr. Lafferty suggested staff give some examples of improved surfaces and say that the
object is to keep chemicals from leaking into the ground.
Mr. Dotson said he was comfortable with the rear and side yard provision. However, he
has questions about the paved surface. He wondered if they could say either drain the
fluids or provide a drip pan. He wondered if that could be an approach rather than
requiring the surfacing. It would be hard for someone to have to create a parking pad or
put down an inch of gravel for a short term inoperable vehicle. He generally supports
#1.
*WW Ms. McCulley pointed out staff spent a lot of time debating whether they should require
that in addition to the parking for the inoperable, which actually becomes storage and
not an available parking space. They questioned whether they should still be able to
have their required parking in addition to whatever parking they have for an inoperable
vehicle. It just got so complicated and intrusive that they backed off of that. She asked
Mr. Kamptner if he saw any enabling question with being able to say either drain the
fluids or provide a drip pan. Generally, they don't do much at a local level in terms of
environmental regulation. She asked can they do something like that.
Mr. Kamptner replied that he would have to look at that in more detail.
Ms. McCulley said they would come back on that. She heard consensus that they are
not going to require an improved surface, but try to achieve the environmental concern
through other means like drip pans.
Mr. Franco added with the drip pans it would pool the fluids that would attract the
animals and provide access to it. Therefore, that is a problem. If there is a leak and a
problem there is a responsible party for that. He did not want to encourage that to
happen, but it is not like it just happens and then it is somebody else's problem. It is on
your lot and you did it. Therefore, it is the same as walking outside and pouring a gallon
of antifreeze on the ground.
Ms. Burbage asked if they have consensus on the side and rear lot discussion.
Mr. Lafferty asked if it was side and rear lot shielded, and Ms. Burbage agreed.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEBMER 17, 2013 5
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Morris replied that the Commission was in agreement. He asked to go to the next
question #2.
Ms. Burbage said question #2 was should form -fitting covers be allowed? At the last
meeting some of the Commissioners were comfortable allowing form -fitting covers and
some said they could be okay with them if the setbacks were imposed. Given the
conversation they just finished she asked if they have consensus that people are okay
with form fitting covers.
Mr. Morris agreed noting that the majority of the Commission supported allowing form
fitting covers in addition to other forms of screening. He opened for public comment on
question #2.
Bob Garland, resident of Canterbury Hills, said if they allow form fitting covers they
would propose they be required in addition to the vehicle being screened from view by a
fence or landscaping such that they can't be viewed from ground level. At least seven
of the enabled localities do not allow form fitting covers to satisfy the definition of
screening. So it is not unprecedented to have landscaping or fencing for the screening.
If they don't do that, then certainly they should provide some sort of setback limit. They
have a setback for houses, garages and for almost everything in this County. Certainly
a junk car should be set back from a neighboring property.
There being no further public comment on question #2, Mr. Morris asked for input from
the Commission for additional comments. From what he understands there is
consensus that they approve of the form fitting covers.
Mr. Dotson asked if this was for screening by fencing or landscaping, and Mr. Morris
replied yes it was included.
Ms. Burbage noted it was in addition to the other screening with the previous discussion
of setback from the face of the lot.
Ms. McCulley said they want to make sure they are talking about the same thing. They
are talking about methods of screening an inoperative vehicle and not just the location
with respect to the front face of the house from the street. This question is should a
form -fitting cover alone that would effectively screen the vehicle be allowed as the sole
means of shielding or screening. The reason they raise that question is because as
seen in the photos and some of the descriptions some of the lots are very tight and they
don't have room to put up a fence or evergreen screening. In rental situations some
people don't have the ability to install or erect necessary screening. On the other hand,
some people would say that if the vehicle is covered it is still objectionable. Some
localities don't allow form fitting covers.
Mr. Morris clarified it is strictly the form fitting cover not including the screening with a
fence or vegetation.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEBMER 17, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Franco said they are not talking about location as part of this since they have
already talked about location.
Mr. Loach said he agreed with the gentleman that if they are going to have form fitting
covers as the form of shielding, then there should be a setback. He noted that Suffolk
County allowed a 180 day limit on covers.
Mr. Kamptner said because they have the power under 905 to prohibit covers. They
can regulate that if they are going to allow covers however they choose. With covers
they can put a time limit on the vehicles using covers. It is different from those that are
just shielded or screened from view by landscaping or fencing.
Mr. Lafferty said he liked the Manassas definition, which instead of form fitting covers
they say a factory designed car cover.
Ms. Burbage pointed out that was the language staff was planning to use.
Mr. Morris said the Commission was in general agreement with a form -fitting cover
manufactured by a reputable dealer and on the side or in the rear in addition to the
other forms of screening.
Mr. Franco and Mr. Smith were in favor of form -fitting covers, but not for putting a
setback to it.
Mr. Dotson suggested a fifth question about the setback. He thinks it makes sense
visually if they have a setback for play equipment and storage sheds to have the same
setback for the inoperable vehicle, which typically would be 6'.
Ms. McCulley pointed out that play equipment if it was not a structure does not have a
setback. But, a swimming pool, shed and things like that do have a setback.
Mr. Dotson proposed that each Commissioner say whether they favor or don't favor
using the same setback as for storage sheds.
Mr. Franco said he was not in favor of that because he thinks if they can have a car with
no setback. When a driveway goes around the side of the house he would rather have
that car covered and parked in that driveway than pull around into the back. On the
practicality side he is for consistency and if it is a vehicle it is a vehicle. If there is no
setback, then there should not be a setback.
Mr. Dotson favored treating it like a storage shed with a setback.
Mr. Smith agreed with Mr. Franco.
Mr. Lafferty agreed with Mr. Dotson.
-r` Mr. Loach agreed to a setback in the front. He agreed to no setback if the car is on the
side or in the back.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEBMER 17, 2013 7
FINAL MINUTES
Ms. McCulley clarified that there would be a setback for any inoperative vehicle covered
or not regardless of the means of screening to be behind the front face of the house. If
they allow form fitting covers she asked if they are suggesting any additional setback
from the side of rear other than behind the front line of the house so that it puts it in the
side or rear yard.
Mr. Morris noted he had heard three say yes and three say no. He disagreed.
Mr. Loach said if it was set behind the front face of the house he would agree.
Mr. Morris noted that it was consensus by 4:2 that there would be no setbacks. Mr.
Dotson and Mr. Lafferty supported having a setback.
Mr. Kamptner asked if there was any durational limit on form fitted covered inoperable
vehicles. He asked if there was any desire to pursue that.
Mr. Loach replied no since it was almost redundant on the side or the back.
Mr. Lafferty replied no as long as the form fitted covers were in good repair.
Mr. Morris noted that they would move to question #3 regarding repair and restoration.
1111%W1 Ms. Burbage said as recommended in previous versions they are proposing a 180 day
time limit for active vehicle repair or restoration to keep a second inoperable vehicle in
the areas where they are otherwise restricted to one. The onerous would be on the
owner of the vehicle to demonstrate that progress is being made. If there were to be a
complaint and the Code Enforcement Officer visited the site they would need to show
some sort of evidence that parts are on order from one week to the next and that
progress is being made. The clock would essentially start when it is determined that
there is a violation. They are taking the State Code definition for an inoperable vehicle
that it is not in working condition, has no plates or inspection decal or expired inspection
for over 60 days. That second vehicle could be used for parts. She asked for feedback
whether that is an appropriate timeframe.
Mr. Franco said he was in favor of documentation, but felt it should be the owner of the
property and not the car because the owner of the car could be somebody different. If
they are regulating aesthetics he is regulating where it can be and not what it is.
Mr. Dotson supported the 180 days.
Mr. Smith asked when the clock starts, and Ms. Burbage replied when it is determined
to be violation when the Code Enforcement Officer visits the site in response to a
complaint.
Mr. Franco asked if this above and beyond the one, and Ms. Burbage replied yes.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEBMER 17, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Morris said regarding restoration that it was going to go a lot longer generally than
, W 180 days. However, staff is asking for documentation that the car owner is actually
involved in restoring it.
Ms. Burbage replied that was correct.
Mr. Loach questioned if the vehicle was up on blocks. He had no problem with the 180
days, but is there a shorter time period if the vehicle cannot be moved.
Ms. McCulley pointed out the vehicle still has to be screened.
Mr. Lafferty agreed with Mr. Franco that it should be the car owner. He thinks the 180
days is adequate.
Mr. Morris noted the consensus of the Commission was that 180 days was fine.
However, they have a split since he feels it should be the owner of the automobile.
Mr. Smith agreed that it should be the owner of the automobile.
Mr. Franco pointed out it would be easier without tags and registration to figure out the
owner of the car.
Mr. Morris opened the hearing and invited public comment on question #3.
Bob Garland, resident of Canterbury Hills, commented on question #3. He said 180
days is a long, long time. He seconded what Mr. Morris said about a vehicle
restoration. Having a collectible car and having done this all his life he knows
something about vehicle restoration. First, it will take a lot longer than 180 days. It is
not realistic to expect somebody to restore a vehicle in their yard. Repairs would be a
different matter and 180 days would be an extremely long time to leave your car in the
shop. However, more importantly is a residential neighborhood the place that a car
repair taking six months should occur. They could have welding, the cars be up on
blocks or any number of visual blights, noise and various disturbances while this is
going on. He thinks 180 days is actually way too long. A more reasonable approach
would be 90 days, which is 3 months. It would be 3 months from the time the violation
occurred. Certainly there has been a time prior to that they had the car before it
became an inoperable vehicle. It is his opinion that by far the majority of inoperable
vehicles in Albemarle County are simply junk cars with no possibility or plans for repair
or restoration, which is what they are talking about here. If somebody is actively
repairing a car in a given period of time he thinks it should be 90 days. He was not fine
with a junk car sitting in his neighborhood forever or for 180 days.
Mr. Morris asked if he was saying he would like to have the timeframe cut in half.
Mr. Garland replied that actually he would like no timeframe. He did not think
inoperable vehicles or junk cars are appropriate for neighborhoods at all. He did not
think repairs are appropriate. They don't license garages in residential neighborhoods.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEBMER 17, 2013
FINAL MINUTES
Certainly a garage could be less obtrusive than having a car in somebody's side
driveway.
Mr. Morris invited further public comment.
Neil Williamson, with the Free Enterprise Forum, said this is fascinating in the context
with the conversations that he heard at Disk I and Disk II with regards to where the cars
go and how they place operating cars and not just inoperable cars. To take away
someone's ability to make a repair, particularly for a renter, and force them to take it to a
shop when they might be able to do the repair on their own is not really what he thinks
this is about. He thinks what they are talking about is junk cars sitting in the
Development Area causing problems. The Free Enterprise Forum has concerns that if
a car in a driveway is not attractive because it does not run what is a car in a driveway
look like that does run that is in the front of the house. He thinks it is important to
recognize there are impacts to people here or renters that are doing things to those
vehicles to keep them on the road. That is different than holding a car that should not
be held. However, that is a distinction that he encourages the County to make as they
put forth this ordinance.
There being no further public comment on question #3, Mr. Morris asked for input from
the Commission on a recommendation to staff.
Mr. Dotson commented on the 90 days versus 180 days. If the 90 days occurred in
winter, then that might not be a time when this would happen. With 180 days at least
there would be some warm weather.
Mr. Morris noted the consensus of the Commission was in favor of the 180 days.
Ms. Burbage said they would move to question #4. They talked about phasing at the
last meeting. They were proposing that residential districts be handled in phase one
and rural areas districts limiting to one on lots less than five acres be handled during
phase two. The question is should the introduction of screening standards occur in all
districts in phase one or just residential districts since acreage requirement won't
happen until phase 2?
Mr. Lafferty suggested they not include the screening standards in the rural area. He
noted in phase one they need to find out what impact that is going to have in the
Development Area so they might be able to adjust it some.
The Commission supported only changing regulations in the Development Area during
Phase one and leaving the Rural Areas until they have more information about how it
goes.
Mr. Morris opened the hearing and invited public comment on question #4.
Bob Garland, resident of Canterbury Hills, said they have actually found something they
'`' " can agree on. He thanked Ms. McCulley and Ms. Burbage for working with him over the
past several months. They have worked very hard on this and anything they can do to
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEBMER 17, 2013 10
FINAL MINUTES
make it easier on the staff to implement this policy would be a good thing. Therefore,
°4ww he supports this 100 percent. He agreed with what Mr. Williamson just said about the
difference between a junk car and a car that is truly there for repair or restoration. He
has no problems with restoration since he has done that himself. He has repaired his
car in his driveway. He has no problem with people actively repairing a car. He does
have a problem with the cars that have been in their neighborhood for years if not
decades. He was talking about the cars that have been there forever.
There being no further public comment on question #4, Mr. Morris brought the matter
back before the Commission for further discussion.
Mr. Franco said he opposed government getting involved with regulation of aesthetics.
The next thing coming up is going to be the weeds in front bed, grass height, and all
those kind of things that don't affect property values. However, if they are going to
regulate this he thinks they are heading the right direction.
Mr. Morris said the Commission's consensus is that it should be phased and phase one
is focused on the Development Area. He asked if staff had enough information to go
forward.
Ms. Burbage summarized what staff heard from the Commission, as follows.
1) Should inoperable vehicles be required to be kept behind any face of the
house oriented to a street & kept on an improved parking surface?
A majority of the Commission was in favor of relegating inoperable vehicles
behind the front face of the house, but not imposing an additional requirement
about the type of surface that the vehicle is kept on. Staff will bring some more
information about the environmental impacts of leaking vehicle fluids and
recommend potential measures that can be used to address that.
2) Should form -fitting covers be allowed?
The majority of the Commission supported allowing form fitting covers in addition
to the other forms of screening.
3) What is an acceptable timeframe for vehicle repair or restoration?
180 days was an acceptable timeframe provided the owner can demonstrate
they are actively working on their vehicle.
4) Should screening standards be applied in the Rural Area during Phase I?
The Commission supported only changing regulations in the Development Area
during Phase one and leaving the Rural Areas until they have more information
about how it goes.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEBMER 17, 2013 11
FINAL MINUTES
Mr. Morris agreed that the summary was correct. He asked if a motion was needed to
direct staff to draft an ordinance and set a date for public hearing.
Mr. Kamptner replied that all the Planning Commission needs to do is work with staff
about figuring out a date to bring it to public hearing.
Ms. Burbage replied that staff has October 22 reserved assuming the Commission
would be comfortable going forward with drafting ordinance language. Staff would like
to come back to the Commission on that date in public hearing.
Mr. Morris said the Planning Commission agreed with staff's recommendation and
suggested staff move forward with the draft taking their comments in consideration and
set a public hearing for October 22, 2013.
Old Business:
Mr. Morris asked if there was any old business. There being none, the meeting moved
to the next item.
New Business
Mr. Morris asked if there was any new business.
• The next Joint City/County Planning Commission meeting will be held on
Tuesday, September 24, 2013 at 6:00 p.m. on the Liveabililty Project.
Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Dotson seconded for adjournment to September 24, 2013.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6:0.
Adjournment:
With no further items, the meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m. to the Tuesday, September
24, 2013 Joint City/County Planning Commission meeting at 6:00 p.m. at the County
Office Building, Second Floor, Room #241, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
V. Wayne
(Recorded and transcribed by Sharon
Planning Boards)
>sion &
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION - SEPTEBMER 17, 2013 12
FINAL MINUTES