HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 24 1994 PC Minutes5-24-94 1
May 24,1994
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, May 24, 1994, Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs
Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms.
Katherine Imhoff; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms.
Monica Vaughan (arrived 7:25). Other officials present were:
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr. Larry
Davis, County Attorney.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was
established. The minutes of May 10, 1994 were unanimously
approved as amended.
-----------------------------------------
ZTA-94-02 Westgate Limited Partnership - Petition to amend the
provisions of the Planned Residential District, Section 10.3.2,
to add by special use permit all uses permitted by special use
permit in the R-15 district under Section 18.2.2.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He pointed out those uses
in R-15 which are already permitted in the PRD: (Numbers 3, 4,
6, 7, 9, 13, 14 and 16 listed under Section 19.3.2)
Ms. Imhoff asked how many properties would be effected by this
amendment, i.e. "how many properties are not PRD which would have
this expanded list of special permits?" Mr. Keeler was unable to
provide a definitive anwser to this question. He did explain,
however, that "when we adopted the zoning map we designated all
properties that exceeded 20 units/acre as PRD's. ... When we
adopted the Zoning Ordinance and Map we took higher density
residential areas that had been designated with conventional
zoning, but because that was no longer available, we made them
planned developments and actually took away many of the uses that
were permitted. . Since the adoption of the Ordinance we have
not had a PRD application in the rural areas --it has all been
confined to growth areas. The largest PRD we have is Glenmore.
Because the PRD is intended for higher density areas, it should
be consistent in the uses that are permitted to other higher
density areas."
Ms. Imhoff agreed that staff had a good point, but she expressed
the belief that there is a difference between R-15 and PRD's in
that "PRD's give you a lot more flexibility." She felt a
convincing argument could be made that the two are different.
Ms. Huckle was of the understanding that the same types of
commercial uses (e.g. hospitals) would not be allowed in a PRD as
in a regular commercial area because of the residential aspect of
/7_6�
5-24-94
2
the PRD. She asked: "Why are you using a machine-gun to swat
this fly?" She asked: "Isn't it possible to add professional
offices to this, which I am sure would not have a bad effect on
the Planned Residential Community and it would take care of the
request that we have?" Mr. Keeler explained that all the uses
were by special permit so any request for a use which the
Commission may feel is inappropriate in a low density development
could be denied.
Mr. Imhoff commented: "I'd be more inclinced, rather than go
these machinations to make things fit, if it's more appropriately
zoned R-15 rather than PRD, rezone it to R-15." Mr. Keeler
responded: "The problem is you can't ever get above 20
units/acre unless you go to a PRD." Ms. Imhoff felt this
supported her previous point that the two (R-15 and PRD) are not
identical "and to say that they have to be consistent in uses, I
think, is stretching it." She expressed no particular concern
about adding professional offices to the Westgate development,
but she did have concerns about "what floodgate we're opening up
without having a sense of how many PRD's could possibly be
effected by this expanded use."
Ms. Huckle agreed that the R-15 and PRD are different. She read
.the purpose statement of the PRD from the Ordinance. She felt
that people who buy into PRD's should be able to have some feel
there is some guarantee that it is going to "stay like it was
when you bought into it." She expressed no concern about the
professional office use. She again expressed the feeling that
the best way to address this applicant's request was to simply
add professional offices to the special permit uses.
Mr. Cilimberg explained the staff's reasoning in presenting the
amendment as proposed and explained that the Board (through the
PRD and special permit process), ultimately, would have total
discretion in deciding if certain uses (e.g. clubs, private
schools, hospitals) would or would not be appropriate, depending
on the type of residential development. He confirmed that the
Commission could recommend something less than staff has proposed
(as sugested by Ms. Huckle). He concluded: "We were taking the
attack that it seemed to be something which left a lot of
discretion but still created a consistency between what
essentially can be a lower density residential district and the
PRD district."
Mr. Blue asked: "Is it true that what you were thinking is
really in terms of creation of another PRD and what they are
concerned with is what happens in an existing PRD?" Mr.
Cilimberg responded: "It could be; it could be a PRD that we
have now, as Westgate, where a private school could be
(appropriate)."
/74P
5-24-94 3
Mr. Blue asked why someone would want to create a PRD now if he
could go ahead and get R-15. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "More
density." Mr. Keeler described PRD's and PUD's as "hybrid
animals where we can sit down with a developer and tailor it to
meet our mutual needs. The developer obtains certain things and
the public, ideally, gets a better plan. ... What we're trying to
do is develop incentives for developers to use a planned
approach." He concluded: "I think these amendments would allow a
PRD of any density --and I don't think there is anything that
precludes the Commission, in a particular case, from disapproving
a special use ...."
Ms. Imhoff again expressed concern about "trying to draw an
analogy between R-15 and PRD when they are really two very
different tools." She again stated her concern about the lack of
information on how many existing PRD's this could impact. She
also expressed the desire to look at the uses allowed in PRD's in
other localities, before "really getting into the PRD" question.
Ms. Huckle felt adding all these uses would "raise the
expectations of the developer that they could have these things
and then they will be disappointed when they are turned down."
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Davis if it was possible to approve only the
addition of professional offices, or does the whole package have
to go together? Mr. Davis replied: "You could reduce the number
of uses that are permitted from the draft ordinance to what you
approve. You have that flexibility. Addressing some earlier
comments, he stated: "I don't think you are mandated to put in
the same requirements in the PRD as there are in the R-15. I
think they can be legally defended as different zoning districts
with different uses. But Ron makes a good point that you need to
be able to articulate those differences and I think you could do
that justifiably. I think this is really a planning decision.
The reasons that they give, if they are good planning reasons,
you should adopt it, but it is not a legally mandated change."
Mr. Blue said that though he did not really see anything wrong
with the proposed amendment, he understood Ms. Imhoff's concern
that perhaps there is something out there which might cause a
problem. He pointed out that there are two professional planners
on the Commission (Ms. Imhoff and Mr. Dotson), and he asked Mr.
Dotson to comment.
Mr. Dotson noted that the uses proposed would still be by special
permit, which are discretionary, not ministerial. There is no
obligation that they be approved. Mr. Blue understood that
aspect of the proposed amendment. He asked Mr. Dotson to comment
on whether he felt the reasons described by staff were sufficient
to justify approval. Mr. Dotson expressed the desire to hear
from the applicant. (Staff confirmed that the proposed amendment
was initiated by the applicant.) In response to Mr. Blue's
/77
5-24-94 4
question, Mr. Dotson stated: "The way I view this is in two
ways: (1) The PRD is our (second) most flexible district --this
adds flexibility; and (2) To the extent that this does apply to
higher densities, I think an office would be a compatible use and
we have all the controls we need through the discretionary
authority of the special permit. I, quite frankly, don't have
any concern that we retain controls by doing this."
The applicant, Mr. Don Wagner, addressed the Commission. He
described the zoning history of the Westgate development. He
stated that offices were allowed with the original R-3 zoning,
but R-3 had been done away with in the comprehensive county
rezoning in 1978. The existing offices are now a grandfathered,
non -conforming use. Consultations with staff had resulted in the
amendment presently under discussion, though "what we had
originally asked for was what some of you are suggesting, --for
the PRD zone to be amended to allow office use." Staff felt
this was a chance to "fix something that maybe was wrong with the
Ordinance." Mr. Wagner explained all he was concerned with was
expanding his office space. He added, however, that he felt the
argument that these are the two zoning classifications which
allow high density uses is a valid one. He explained: "It
seemed to us that it was unreasonable that offices were allowed
in R-15 but not allowed in PRD, which could be a higher
density...."
Mr. Dotson suggested that once the Comprehensive Plan Review is
well along, the next major activity should be to look at the
ordinances to see how well they implement the Plan. He later
added to this suggestion: "At that point we might want to
consider a by -right higher density as an incentive in order to
encourage higher density."
Ms. Huckle asked: "In the meantime, do we want to make such a
big change in enabling this applicant to do what we all agree he
should be able to do?"
Mr. Blue expressed support for the applicant's being enabled to
do what he wants to do. In terms of the entire amendment as
presented by staff, he explained that he generally relies on
staff's expertise, but in this case, he was "bothered" by the
fact that at least one of the professional planners on the
Commission does not agree with staff on this proposal.
Ms. Imhoff stressed that she and Mr. Dotson are "here as Planning
Commissioners, not as planners.'
Mr. Blue stated Ms. Imhoff and Mr. Dotson could not deny that
they had the same expertise as staff and while he welcomes that
expertise, in situations such as this where there is a conflict
with the staff's recommendation, it "bothers" him.
17V
5-24-94
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that this is a policy question, and not
purely a planning question. She repeated her two concerns: (1)
The unknown impact this would have on existing PRD's; and (2)
What do we want the PRD really to do --what uses do we really want
in them?" She concluded: "I think if the staff report had more
depth, I might be feeling more comfortable." She expressed the
feeling that if PRD's are to be amended, "we should do a good job
of it, (rather than) running in and doing it because we all agree
it makes sense to have professional offices."
Mr. Nitchmann commented: "I guess I agree with everybody that
has said something up here so far. I guess we have two
situations--(1) There are PRD's already established out there;
(2) If we're truly looking at the future to try to get higher
density and more planned residential developments, then there
should be more options available to people trying to put PRD's
in. Whether we should jump forward at this point in time and
just put a wish list down there without looking into it a little
more deeply, even though the staff has looked at it, I think we
are moving into this Comprehensive Plan review plan and we are
going to look at land use and so forth, so it may be best at that
time that we look at some of these things that Bruce recommended,
after the fact instead of before the fact."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZTA 94-02 (Westgate Limited
Partnership), be approved as follows:
ADD to Section 19.3.2 (PRD District), BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT:
9. Professional offices.
Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Blue clarified: "So we are actually adding No. 11, which is
already in the R-15, and making it No. 9."
The motion passed unanimously.
SP-94-18 West ate Limited Partnership - Petition to allow
expansion of office space in the existing Westgate Apartment
Complex. (This use is proposed by ZTA-94-02). Property,
described as Tax Map 61, parcel 42D is located on the west side
of Rt. 743 approximately 0.23 miles north of the Rt. 743/Rt. 656
intersection in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District.
5-24-94
6
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if condition No. 3 [Use shall be limited to
property management services.] was necessary, and, if so, could
it be changed to say "limited to administrative office use?" Ms.
Imhoff added: "Especially in light of the change just made to the
PRD zone (adding) professional office." Mr. Cilimberg explained:
"We were trying to identify what they were trying to do so there
would be some expectation and understanding of the use that would
occur there." He was uncertain as to how the term
"administrative uses" would be interpreted by the Zoning
Administrator since it is not a term that is defined in the
Ordinance. Mr. Nitchmann defined an administrative use as "one
not offering a service, like a doctor." Mr. Cilimberg explained
that "property management services are pretty specific (and) they
have been identified by the applicant as to what they want to do
there so we felt comfortable that we could identify that pretty
clearly by the application."
Mr. Wagner commented that he had raised the question of the
definition of professional office with the Zoning Administrator
because it is not defined in the Zoning Ordinance. [It was later
clarified that the term is defined in the Zoning Ordinance, but
the definition is very difficult to understand.] Ms. McCulley
had determined that the offices at Westgate are professional
offices. He stated he was satisfied with the conditions as
worded, or with the change suggested by Mr. Nitchmann.
Mr. Dotson asked for a clarification of condition No. 1 [Use
shall be limited to 2619 and 2621 Hydraulic Road plus the
addition shown on Attachment C, initialed 5/17/94]. He was of
the impression that the Commission was acting only on the
addition shown on Attachment C. It was explained that Attachment
C is an addition to the existing two units which are presently
used as office space. Ms. Imhoff added: "Its the little back
porches of these two yards that they are going to build over."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-94-18 for Westgate Limited
partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Use shall be limited to 2619 and 2621 Hydraulic Road plus the
addition shown on Attachment C, initialed 5/17/94 W.D.F.
2.
Addition
shall be of
similar facade to the
existing building.
3.
Use shall
be limited
to property management
services.
0
5-24-94 7
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Dotson noted that parking did not seem to have been
addressed. He asked if added employees would effect the parking
requirements. Mr. Wagner stated there were no plans, at this
point, to add employees, (though there may be some added at some
future point). Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that any special use
permit must obtain a zoning clearance, but he was of the
understanding that the Zoning Administrator has determined there
to be sufficient parking in the Westgate complex to meet the
parking needs for this use.
Mr. Dotson asked about the total square footage, number of
employees, and nature of business. Mr. Wagner described the
square footage as 14' x 17' x 4. There are presently 12
employees. The business manages Westgate and other properties as
well. Mr. Wagner described the nature of the business in some
detail.
The previously stated motion for approval passed unanimously.
------------------------------------------
ZTA-94-4 Fees - Petition to permit the Board of Supervisors to
reduce fees in a particular case in order to provide access to
the review process by all citizens.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The proposed amendment
had originated with the Board of Supervisors and the Planning
Commission. The public purpose to be served: "To permit the
Board of Supervisors to reduce fees in a particular case in order
to provide access to the review process by all citizens."
The staff report also listed several other fee -related issues
which it felt the Commission might wish to discuss, if not at
this time, at some future time.
Mr. Blue expressed the feeling that "the people who need this the
most are not going to be in a position to know how to use it
unless there is some sort of advocate." He asked if the County
was going to be the advocate. Mr. Keeler called attention to
item #2 on page 2 of the staff report which stated that
"applicants would be notified at time of application submittal of
the availability of fee reduction by the Board." He added that
it was up to the Zoning Administrator to determine exactly how
this would be done.
At Mr. Dotson's request, Mr. Keeler related some cases which had
led to this proposed amendment.
,$1
5-24-94 8
Ms. Huckle asked if staff otters assistance to persons who have
not yet submitted a formal application. Mr. Cilimberg responded
that staff encourages "pre -application conferences," which
involve no fee. (Mr. Blue noted that though these pre -
conferences do not cost the individual applicant, they do cost
the taxpayer in terms of staff time.)
Ms. Imhoff clarified that the Commission was being asked to take
action only on the three items listed as a, b and c on pages 1
and 2 of the staff report. She felt that the other 7 related
topics listed on pages 2 and 3 should be taken up at some later
time, along with some other issues (e.g. the Historic District)
which have been "back burnered" for some time.
Ms. Huckle asked for a further explanation of item 2 on page 3,
related to the increase of fees for Home Occupation Class B. Mr.
Keeler explained that staff had been anticipating treating these
applications in the same manner as mobile homes, i.e. if there
are no objections the permit would be administratively approved
subject to a specified set of regulations. However, the County
Attorney has advised that is not an option because only the Board
of Supervisors, or the Board of Zoning Appeals can issue a
special permit. So, unless the use is permitted by right, with
standards, it has to be approved by the Board. Mr. Keeler asked
that the Commission comment on this additional matter, even if it
chose to postpone discussion of the other 6 issues listed. It
was Ms. Huckle's feeling that some Class B Home Occupations can
cause a considerable impact to a neighborhood; therefore she was
not in favor of them being permitted by right.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if discussion of ZTA 94-4 could be completed
before taking up any other issues.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Kevin Cox addressed the Commission. He expressed the feeling
that many fees are much too excessive. He was glad to see that
staff was attempting to address this problem. However, he was
concerned about the process the Board might use in making
eligibility determinations. He was opposed to persons being
required to make public "very personal aspects of their lives" in
order to get relief from the fees. He felt consideration must be
given to the privacy issue. Mr. Cox also commented on item 5 on
page 3 of the staff report. He pointed out that even though a
use may be considered beneficial to the community, there may be
no demonstrable hardship. He concluded: "So there are two
issues here." He felt the solution was "to reduce dramatically
some of these fees and let the taxpayers, as a whole, absorb the
cost and not to use the fees as a means to discourage certain
kinds of uses."
/P
5-24-94 9
Ms. Imhoff asked if Mr. Cox had any recommendations for a "guage"
which might be used in determining hardship. She was sympathetic
to Mr. Cox's comments about privacy. Mr. Cox replied: "There is
nothing that I would think is any of the government's business."
He felt there was a legal question involved as to whether or not
the governing body has the right to ask for income information
from applicants for fee reduction.
Mr. Jenkins recalled that this had originated when the Board of
Supervisors directed staff to develop a revised fee schedule --
"that's how they got adjusted up, and now they are saying they
want them adjusted down."
Mr. Nitchmann suggested that perhaps staff should be asked to
justify the fees. It was pointed out by staff that that had
already been done. At the time the study was being performed by
staff the Board had been aware of, and understood, the procedure
staff was following.
Mr. Blue did not think the question was related to whether or not
the fees were justified. He had no doubt they could be
justified. He felt the question "boils down'to whether or not we
feel there are certain people who shouldn't have to pay those
fees and how do we determine who they are without invading their
privacy." He concluded: "I don't think we can do it."
Ms. Huckle pointed out that would be a determination to be made
by the Board, not the Commission. It was her understanding the
Board wanted the flexibility to reduce the fees in particular
cases, which they are not able to do at the present time.
Referring to Ms. Huckle's comments, Mr. Blue wondered why the
Board needed the Commission's comments. He stated: "They don't
have to get advice from us in order to have the legal right to do
this. They are asking us for advice to do just the sort of thing
that staff is recommending."
Mr. Nitchmann asked why the matter had come to the Commission.
Staff explained: "Because it is a zoning text amendment; it has
to come before you."
Mr. Cilimberg explained that staff had discussed this issue and
had found it "virtually impossible to identify a clear way to
establish ---what I think Kevin is asking is an honest question --
what do you expect to see from people? We felt at a loss too.
In a sense, we are kind of asking the Board, 'what do you expect
to try to get V because we couldn't identify anything that seemed
reasonable as a basis. So, in fact, we fell back on some of the
hardship language that is included for a completely different
reason in the Ordinance just to try to establish something that
the Board could go from. What we did keep coming back to is some
of these items these seven points raise, and that is rather than,
or in addition to, doing some hardship kind of cases, there may
/93
5-24-94
10
be some particular public interest in changing fees that exist
for other than trying to recover 100% of the average cost."
Ms. Imhoff suggested that it would be worth discussing these
issues with the Board during the joint meeting in June. She
wanted more guidance from the Board before addressing those other
seven points.
Mr. Nitchmann concluded that the item was before the Commission
as a procedural matter, i.e. "because it has to come before us."
He stated: "My opinion is just to take ZTA-94-4 and pass it on
to the Board with no recommendation. They have accomplished what
they wanted. They have got the staff to look into it and make
some recommendations. If it is the Board's desire to take this
path --I am certainly not in favor of passing something forward
that is going to cause someone some embarrassment. ... I think
what the Board wanted to get accomplished has been accomplished.
Now, if the Board disagrees with that, and they want our humble
opinions on a lot of things and want us to take a lot of time and
study this, then they can send it back to us."
Mr. Blue pointed out that the Commission does not have to
recommend approval of the proposed amendment.
Mr. Jenkins expressed no opposition to following either Mr.
Nitchmann's suggestion to pass it back to the Board with no
recommendation, or to pass it back to the Board with a negative
recommendation. Mr. Jenkins expressed an interest in knowing how
other localities handle this matter.
Mr. Davis explained that some ordinances "beg" the issue because
they say "The Board of Supervisors may reduce the fee and they
don't put any standards in it." He pointed out that the
recommended amendment does not contain any criteria that
applicant's have to produce certain documentation. He explained:
"The burden is really on the applicant to show that they have a
hardship. It is their choice whether or not they want to ask for
this waiver of fees." He pointed out that without this
amendment, the Board cannot grant a reduction in fees even if
someone chooses to claim a hardship. He did not think this was a
perfect solution, but it does give the Board a tool to deal with
the situation when it arrises.
Mr. Blue commented: "It gives them the legal right to be
benevolent if they choose to."
Ms. Huckle asked if it could be approved as: "The Board of
Supervisors may reduce fees in any particular case." Mr. Davis
commented: "It is always better to have some measurable standard
rather than just having it be totally discretionary." Mr.
Nitchmann said: "Brit this has no measurable standard." Mr.
Cilimberg pointed out that the amendment does outline procedure.
lg�
5-24-94 11
Mr. Nitchmann repeated his earlier feeling that we have
accomplished what the Board wanted, i.e. "some advice from
staff." He added: "This is a pretty board issue and they are
the elected officials. This matter has a lot of social
ramifications to it other than just cost and I think they are
best equipped to handle those issues as they see fit. If they
want us to spend more time on it, then they can send it back down
to us."
Ms. Huckle tried to determine if a request for a fee reduction
would actually be discussed as part of a public hearing before
the Board. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "I can't say what they will
discuss. I can say that anything that is part of a package for
the Board is public record." Mr. Davis added: "It could be
public record, but the procedures could be established by the
Board to consider it as part of their consent agenda, for
example. But anything on the consent agenda, can always be
pulled off for discussion. We envision that there would be a
justification and then a staff recommendation as to whether or
not it met the standard and it would not be something of
predominant importance on the Board's agenda."
Mr. Blue asked if there was any support from other Commissioners
for Mr. Cox's suggestion to lower the fee structure and "go back
to the time when it was paid for by the general public in the
form of taxes."
Mr. Nitchmann responded: "If it's the general public --Mr. John
Q. Citizen --coming before me to ask for a division right to give
to his family, I don't think he should be charged for that. But
if it's Mr. Developer walking in here wanting to put in 4,200
houses someplace and it is going to take up 1,500 hours of staff
time in site plan review, then that's part of doing business. So
if you can draw a line some place and say, 'this has to do with
personal issues and not issues of commerce, then I would say
personal issues get no charges, but commerce issues get charged.
That seems to me to serve the general public."
Mr. Blue expressed general agreement with that philosophy, but he
wondered how it could be implemented.
Ms. Imhoff again expressed the opinion that this would be a
worthwhile topic for the joint meeting with the Board.
Regarding ZTA-94--4, Ms. Imhoff expressed the feeling that it
would give the Board discretion to grant waivers which it does
not presently have. She concluded: "Even though I have concerns
about a person's privacy, I still think it might help somebody,
so I am kind of inclined, even with all our objections, to go
ahead and approve it... as outlined by staff and move it up to the
Board_"
5-24-94 12
Mr. Dotson felt it was important that the minutes reflect the
Commission's discussion. He sensed that "we are going to send it
on without enthusiasm as to the details but understanding of the
principles." He also stated: "I do support user fees, generally
speaking." He suggested that when staff next looks at fees,
"maybe you'll find there are a lot of really simple applications
you have been overcharging for. Maybe it's bi-modal... that there
are really major subdivisions and minor subdivisions, major day-
care, and minor day-care, and maybe you could legitimately make a
distinction." In trying to list possible criteria he had come up
with the following: (1) Whether or not it is for profit, or is
non profit; and (2) Consideration of the value of the real
estate that is of public record.
Ms. Vaughan expressed a dislike for the language of the amendment
as presented. She favored Mr. Nitchmann's suggestion to send the
item back to the Board with no recommendation. She stated: "I
understand the need for flexibility, but it also tends to add a
little bit of discrimination." She felt it was difficult to
define hardship.
Mr. Nitchmann concluded: "I can't vote for this thing because I
think it can be very subjective and at times can be very
discriminatory in nature. That's why I can't vote for it. ...
I'm not willing to vote for this as an affirmative; at the same
time, I don't want to deny it."
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZTA-94-4 be passed on to the
Board with no recommendation.
Ms. Vaughan seconded the motion which passed (6:1) with
Commissioner Blue casting the dissenting vote.
-----------------------------------------
Resolution of Intent Related to Home Occupations Class B - Staff
was asking that the Commission adopt a Resolution of Intent to
consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to make Class B Home
occupations by right.
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's request, Mr. Keeler explained
briefly the difference between Class A and Class B Home
Occupations.
Ms. Huckle was in favor of delaying discussion of this item until
the Commission had had more time to consider it.
Ms. Imhoff expressed an interest in knowing which Class B
Occupations have caused problems in the past. She also asked for
more information on the proposed changes to restrictions on
churches.
ow
5-24-94 13
Mr. Keeler explained that as a minimum, the Ordinance needs to be
amended to reflect the deletion of a procedure which was deleted
from the ordinance, by action of the Board, a year ago (Section
5.6.1). Mr. Keeler explained that 5.6.1 "established a procedure
for handling a special use permit which was an administrative
procedure and which the County Attorney has told us is no longer
available."
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that the
Albemarle County Planning Commission, to serve the public
necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice,
adopt a Resolution of Intent to consider the amendment of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow Home Occupation: Class B as a use by -
right in all zoning districts in which it is currently provided
by special use permit.
There was a discussion as to whether or not the word "consider"
should be a part of the motion. Mr. Blue felt it was redundant
because a Resolution of Intent is just "intent, it is not a
resolution." Mr. Dotson and Ms. Imhoff disagreed because they
felt it could be misunderstood by the public.
It was explained that adoption of a Resolution of Intent was a
procedural requirement which allows the issue to be advertised
for public hearing. It does not mean that the adoption of the
proposed amendment is a foregone conclusion.
The previously stated motion passed (6:1) with Commissioner
Huckle casting the dissenting vote.
Staff could not say for certain when this item would be
rescheduled.
-----------------------------------------
MISCELLANEOUS
It was decided that staff's memo related to fees for church
applications would be discussed at a later time. Ms. Huckle
expressed the hope that fees for small churches, which are often
excessive, will be rectified. However, she noted that in the case
of large churches, they can sometimes have as much effect as a
shopping mall.
-----------------------------------------
There was a brief discussion of an upcoming application from
Covenant Church. Mr. Nitchmann pointed out this applicant has
made repeated applications and this is an example where a church
should not be exempt from fees.
-----------------------------------------
Ms. Imhoff asked if staff had any way to research whether
development has actually been taking place at its maximum
density. She was interested in determining "if we have a lot of
/Y
5-24-94 14
underbuilding for certain zones." Mr. Cilimberg explained that
staff had done such an analysis during the last Comp Plan review.
He also recalled that there had been a time when the Board of
Supervisors (a previous Board) "very seldom zoned to the maximum
density —so there was probably some zoning established over time
that was not at maximum density."
-----------------------------------------
Ms. Imhoff reported that the State has been working on a
statewide preservation plan and a public meeting is scheduled for
June 15th in Charlottesville (7:30 in Council Chambers, City
Hall) .
-----------------------------------------
Mr. Nitchmann asked if staff is preparing any maps for the Comp
Plan review which will show where staff feels growth areas should
be established. Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Commission that some
maps were developed when utilities were being studied. He
explained: "So what we will be providing for you probably is the
extent of areas that could reasonably be served by utilities and
that fit other infrastructure and natural resources constraints."
Mr. Cilimberg reported that the survey has been completed and the
results are currently being compiled. Response was excellent.
-----------------------------------------
Mr. Dotson distributed a possible agenda for the May 31st work
session. Ms. Imhoff felt it would be helpful to use flip charts
so that there could be a visual representation of people's
comments. It was hoped that the meeting could be held in room 5-
6.
Referring to the last statement on the agenda, Mr. Cilimberg
asked that there be no attempt to begin development of county
policy at this point. He explained that a staff committee is
presently working on a report which will set forth "those things
related to economic development and employment which arose last
year out of the first economic development policy which came to
the Board." He felt that group would "benefit greatly from
knowing where the Commission's emphasis and real issues lie."
-----------------------------------------
10
5-24-94
15
Ms. Huckle reported that she had attended the graduation for the
Apprenticeship Program at CA -TECH. She had found it very
interesting and stated that both Phillip Crocker (CA -TECH) and
Dennis Thomas, publisher of the Daily Progress, would be glad to
talk with the Commission about the program. Mr. Dotson suggested
this might be included in the session with the Education
Department.
-----------------------------------------
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15
p.m.
CJ
U."JItV,
V. Wayne ilimberg, etary
/ 9f