Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 29 1994 PC MinutesI 1-29-94 NOVEMBER 29, 1994 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on. Tuesday, November 29, 1994, Room 7; County Office Building, Charlottesville; Virginia, Those members, present were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Torn Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhoff; and Mr. Bruce Dotson. Other officials present were: David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr, Bill Fritz, Senior Plaiffler, and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attomey. Absent: Commissioners Jenkins and Vaughan. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. N 5 Mi t - After staff confirmed that the statement on the top of page 2 related to the County's share of the cost of improvements to Rt. 250 (in relation to the outdoor theater) was accurate, the minutes of November 15, 1994 were unanimously approved as submitted. (Ms.Imhoff and Mr. Dotson abstained from the action on the minutes because they had not been present at the November 15th meeting ) ----------------------------------------- Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the November 16th and November 22nd Board meetings. ZMA-94-14 Ladv W-Wi _(owned - Petition to rezone approximately 120 acres from RA, Rural Areas to R-4, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 56, parcel 93, is located on the south side of Route 240 approximately 0.4 miles west of the entrance to highlands at Mechums River in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Open Space and Industrial Service in the Community of Crozet. Staff was requesting deferral to December 13, 1994, MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that ZMA-94-14 be deferred to December 13, 1994. The motion passed unanimously. SP-94-25 James and Becky Johnston - Petition to amend SP-84-38 to permit the further division of a lot. Property, described as Tax Map 47, parcel 8, is located on. the east side of Rt. 649 about 1/2 mile southeast of the intersection of Rt. 649 and Rt. 643 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Property consists of 67.485 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 2). Deferred from November 1, 1994 Commission meeting. 11-29-94 2 Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that this request is consistent with the provisions of Section 31.2.4.1 and 10.3.3.2 of the ordinance. In addition, this request is in harmony with the original intent of SP-84-38 and therefore, staff is able to support this request subject to conditions." It was determined that the applicant owns none of the other existing „interior" lots in Fall Fields. Mr. Fritz pointed out the location of the preservation tract and the location of the two lots which are to be added. Mr. Dotson asked when a final decision will be made on "how the re -division tract is to be handled" -- would that come at the redivision stage? Mr. Fritz replied affirmatively. Mr. Fritz confirmed that 2 buildings currently exist on Parcel 8 and they were in existence in 1988 when the special permit was approved. Ms. Huckle believed the Zoning Ordinance regulations permitted only one mouse on rural preservation tracts and said tracts were "not supposed to wrap around existing lots." Mr. Fritz explained that this is not a "clean slate" type of situation. He stated that in 1984, when this was approved, there was no rural preservation development. However, this was essentially a rural preservation development long before there were guidelines. He explained: "What we're trying to do is make the best proposal, possible_" Mr. Cilirnberg noted that the main dwelling and the guest house are on "what amounts to, the rural preservation tract right now, so there is no change in circumstance by having them remain on a future preservation tract." Mr. Blue later noted that this development had been approved before the viral preservation development was in effect and at that time the Beard of Supervisors had allowed the applicant to keep two houses on the farm tract. It was his understanding that "what we are doing now, if the Board approves it, is continuing what would have been an exeeptinn to the rural preservation development by letting them have their house and rental or guest cottage M. a small tract of iarid." He pointed out an alternative which staff had failed to mention, i.e. "they could do that and also have another commercially developed lot and they could separate those completely and then have a rural preservation tract with no houses allowed. They could sell that with a separate deed --they would not have to attach it to any of the others. By these conditions you have given them that option. And because they are transferring the two acres and the small one outside the original farm, we have, in essence, transferred a development right, but we are doing it through the vehicle of the rural preservation development." He wanted this to be understood by all and the fact that "they will, at some future time, be able to cutout the two houses that are there now, but never be able to divide them. That is going to be a package deal (in that) anybody that buys the main house will have to buy the guest house." Mr. Fritz replied: "I have not confirmed that with the Zoning Administrator but I believe that is correct." Mr. Dotson asked if it was correct that this proposal would result in no net gain in development potential, rather it is a re -configuration. Mr. Fritz responded affirmatively. 11-29-94 Mr. Nitchmann asked if this could in any way be interpreted as a "swapping of development rights from one area to another." Mr. ,Fritz responded: "You can't transfer development rights (but) the rural preservation development allows you to re -configure (rights) within the whole piece." Ms. Imhoff pointed out that this proposal "takes a small, non -conforming lot, and puts it into the whole. So in some ways it cleans up the lot layout " Mr. Blue agreed with staffs assessment that "we are not approving anything that gives a net increase in density from what they would be allowed by right, but we are doing it in a sort of roundabout way and if the Board had not permitted them to have those two houses on, what was called, the farm tract, we wouldn't be able to do this now --we wouldn't be able to leave those two on a separate lot." Mr. Blue pointed out that a development right is just being transferred and the density will not increase and it does the applicant a service in being able to do this_ (Ms. Imhoff felt it also does the county a service because it is preferable to have the lot internally located rather than on Rt. 649, and it gets rid of a .4 acre parcel which could potentially have been developable by locating well and septic on another lot.) The applicant, Mr. James Johnston, addressed the Commission. He explained it was his intent to place the property on the market and he asked the Commission to grant the flexibility to let the size of the lot be determined by a potential buyer (with a minimum being 40 acres), in the event a buyer cannot be located who can afford the entire 63,55 acres. (Mr. Johnston later stated that he does not have a buyer in mind and the property is not currently on the market.) If that were allowed, he stated that any land that was not sold would revert to the farm tract and would still fall under the RPD regulations and the purchaser of the land would only be able to put one dwelling on the lot, as is allowed now, and that would "extinguish the right which we are talking about." He confirmed that any remainder, after the 40 acres, would be retained by him and added to the farm tract. Mr. Nitchmann asked if staff had any problem with the applicant's request for flexibility. Mr. Fritz responded that staff had not reviewed that particular request. Mr. Fritz went on to explain that if the rural preservation tract was reduced to 40 acres, the result would be that the remainder would be added to one of the existing lots or one of the new development lots. He recalled: "One of the concerns, when the Zoning Ordinance was amended to establish a 31-acre maximum aggregate and a 6-acre average lot size, was not to add land to development lots which would make them rather large but not large enough for agriculture." Mr. Blue explained: "We're using the rural preservation tract to enable Mr. Johnston to get another development lot without raving to use the one on the road, which is good. But if we allow him the minimum of 40-acres for the preservation tract, -eve absohdely iftaease one of the other development lots in size. In essence, that is not exactly clustering of smaller lots -- what the rural preservation tract had in mind --so it may not meet the intent, but it certainly meets the legal language." Mr. Fritz confirmed the accuracy of Mr, Blue's statement. Mr. 11-29-94 4 Cilimberg added: "One important aspect of the rural preservation concept from the beginning was that the minimum was 40 acres, but that it in fact was incorporating important agricultural, water resource or open space character of the land. To just say it could go down to 40 acres, in and of itself, isn't as important as what is in the 40 acres, and we don't know that because that has not been determined by analysis." Mr. Blue noted that the proposed conditions of approval would preclude the applicant from reducing the preservation tract to 40 acres, "and yet if we remove that condition and he is allowed to, then you will have the argument, when this comes up for division, as to what land is being included, i.e. is it the good agricultural land or not?" Mr. Fritz noted that an analysis of the soils on the property shows there to be a mix of soils. He pointed out the areas of the best soils with the worst being in areas of steep slopes. Mr. Blue concluded: "There is probably enough flexibility for him to go down to 40 acres and meet those requirements. But it just seems to me if we approve this concept, at all, then we might as well approve what he wants as long as we know it is going to be 44 acres." Mr. Johnston explained that the original determination of what land was to be divided had taken into consideration the soil quality and the best of the agricultural land was reserved, so that which has not been subdivided is all good agricultural land. Public comment was invited. Mr. John Embry, a real estate agent, addressed the Commission. He described the characteristics of the lots which have been sold. He felt the "agricultural nature of the lots would in no way be effected by (the applicant's) proposal." There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission_ Ms. Imhoff expressed the opinion that this was an opportunity to make the most appropriate use of a development right. She explained that she supported the request in part because of the specificity of staffs proposed conditions of approval. However, she indicated she would not be as comfortable with the request if "we start being very loose about what acreage and what lots, etc." She stated she would not be able to support more specific language, particularly since such language has neither been developed nor reviewed by staff. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-94-25 for James and Becky Johnston be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: (She commented: "(This) will give the applicant the opportunity to go forward with it and make a better case with some language amendment before the Board if he so chooses." She felt both conditions 2 and 3 would have to be amended to meet the applicant's request.) 1. Approval is restricted to nine lots (in addition to the preservation tract). 2. No further subdivision rights on the 110.4 acres of land. 11-29-94 3. Division of Tax Map 47, Parcel 8 shall be permitted only as part of a Rural Preservation Development which includes Tax Map 47, parcels 8, 8A and 9. Such development shall result in the combination of the three parcels to allow the creation of one new development lot and one preservation tract. The total acreage devoted to the development lot shall not exceed 6 acres and the Preservation Tract shall not be less than 63.55 acres. The bulding site shown on the Preservation Tract may be allowed as a development Iot provided that the balance of the Preservation Tract is added to Lots 8B, 8C, 8E, 8F, 8G, 8H, 81, or the development lot authorized by this permit resulting in a Preservation Tract with a minimum acreage of 64.55 acres. This provision allows transfer of the RPT acreage to only one of the aforementioned lots. 4. Any plat submitted for a Rural Preservation Development shall be reviewed under the administrative review procedures and no separate action by the PIanning Commission shall be required for the creation of a Rural Preservation Development unless review by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to the administrative review procedures. 5. Only one additional dwelling shall be allowed in the area of Parcel 8. Such additional dwelling shall be permitted only after approval of a Rural Preservation Development approved in accord with this permit on the Preservation Tract. Mr. Blue seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Huckle expressed agreement with Ms. Imhoff s comments. She expressed the feeling that the applicant had "finessed the system," Mr. Dotson asked the County Attorney to summarize the rural preservation portion of the Ordinance as it relates to the configuration of the 40 acres. Mr. Davis responded, quoting from Section 10.3.3.3(f). Mr. Dotson stated he would support the motion, though he was not really troubled by the 40- acre minimum request. Mr. Nitchmann indicated he was sympathetic to the applicant's request. He was not opposed to allowing the flexibility requested, since it would still meet the requirements of the ordinance (a minimum of 40 acres) and it would allow the applicant to satisfy "some economic reasons that he may have." He concluded: It bothers me that we are going to sit up here and control someone's life because we are not going to let him do 40 acres instead of 63 and because of this I can't support (the motion)." [NOTE: Mr. Nitchmann did support the motion when the vote was taken.] He felt the applicant would not have made this request for flexibility if he had not felt it was necessary to help him sell the property. 11-29-94 6 Ms. Imhoff pointed out that approval as recommended by staff allows the applicant a lot of flexibility so it is not a "lose -lose" situation. The motion for approval passed unanimously. Mr. Nitchmann noted that he had voted for the motion, but he hoped something would be done prior to the Board hearing to try to help the applicant. SP-94-30 James F. & Ester C. McDonald - Petition to amend SP-82-61 to allow the construction of tourist cabins. Property, described as Tax Map 71, parcel 3 is located on the south side of U.S. Route 250 approximately 0.75 miles west of 1-64, the site of the existing Jellystone Campground. This site is Icoated in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is zoned RA, Rural Areas in Rural Area 3. Deferred from November 8, 1994 Commission Meeting, Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Blue asked: "Does this mean, if approved like this, that there would be no way to divide off anything from this tract because all the development rights are used?" Mr. Fritz responded: "In fact, Section 10.2.1.1 is the section which addresses putting multiple units on a single rural area parcel and it refers to the bulk and area ratios and so forth, and so, in fact, it would allow for the division of these individual properties... without the need for variances, modifications, etc." Mr. Blue: "But we are construing these as being residences. That's pretty valuable property. if they ever wanted to divide, they would have to take those residences off before they could divide off anything else." Mr. Fritz responded: "Oh, anyplace else, yes, that's correct." Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Fritz to explain the difference between those which were considered residences and those which are not. Mr. Fritz responded: "None of them are complete but they appear to be adequate...they could have bath facilities and cooking facilities." He stated that none of the cabins would be heated. Ms. Huckle asked about the septic facilitites (individual or a mass drainfield). Mr. Fritz deferred to the applicant. Ms. Imhoff noted that 5 cabins (not 4 as referred to in the staff report) have already been constructed and the Zoning Department has determined a violation has occurred. Mr. Fritz clarified that 3 of those already constructed "appear to be dwelling units," and a fourth, new building is proposed. Noting that a number of these cabins were built without zoning authorization or building permits, Mr. Dotson asked the County Attorney to comment on the status of the zoning violation in relation to the possible approval of this request, e.g. "would the; then be v?a-7- t z-29-94 7 authorized to get building permits; would there be a penalty for having started without a building permit?" Mr. Davis explained that the Zoning Administrator and Building Official have determined there has been a violation because of the fact that the cabins were built without a building permit. The applicant has not been charged with that violation at this point, pending an attempt to resolve the issue. If this permit is approved as proposed, it will allow the applicant to make an application for a building permit and meet the requirements of the Building Code through that process, which may then mean that the County may not have to prosecute the case, depending on how the building official feels about the violation which has already occurred. He concluded: "If the permit is approved, it is a way for the applicant to resolve the legal dilemma that he is in." Ms. Imhoff noted that the applicant has also appealed the zoning violation and that appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals has been indefinitely deferred, pending action of the Commission and Board. Mr. Davis confirmed Ms. Imhoffs statement was correct. He explained further that there are two separate violations --the zoning violation (which has been appealed to the BZA and has been deferred) and the violation of the building code, which cannot be appealed to the BZA. The applcant was represented by Mr. Richard Carter. (He was accompanied by Mr. and Ms. McDonald.) He presented photographs of the cabins and of similar cabins at other campgrounds. He described two of the cabins (which qualify as dwellings) as being 12' x 16'. He compared them to much larger recreational vechicles which can presently use the campsites. He felt this made a big difference in terms of the intensity of the use. Regarding the question of septic facilities, he explained that the cabins do have a bathroom and will be served by one large, central drainfield. The applicant is aware that Health Department requirements will have to be met. He described how camping habits have changed over the years and how these cabins will meet the needs of many people. He emphasized the following points: there will be no change in the current use nor any increased usage; the sites already have water and septic; there is no violation of any setback requirements; the sites are not visible from any adjoining properties or from Rt. 250. He suggested that at some future time a zoning text amendment be considered which would add a specific reference to these types of structures which are "dwellings but are not dwellings." Mr. Blue asked how sewage would be handled with the 3 sites closest to Stockton Creek. Mr, McDonald responded to this question. He described a possible system which would involve a holding tank which would then be pumped to the existing drainfield. Though the issue has not yet been resolved, he explained that he is working with Mr. Gary Rice (the Health Department). In response to Ms. Huckle's inquiry, Mr. McDonald estimated the occupancy rate during the summer months to be approximately 50%. 11-29-94 Ms. Imhoff expressed concern about the violation which has occurred. She quoted from the Zoning Administrator's letter of March 10, 1993: "Thank you for consulting us on your plans to place movable cabins on existing campsites. It appears likely that the cabins will require some sort of foundation which would make moving them from site to site improbable.... (In the Zoning Administrator's opinion) the cabins represent a move away from the campsites authorized under your special use permit toward permanent building sites and guest cottages, not anticipated in the Board's approval. For this reason it is my determination that your proposal will require amending your special use permit." Ms. Imhoff noted: "In May of 1994, you went ahead and built them, in direct opposition to this advice. 1 really need to understand why you did that." Mr. McDonald replied: "I guess it was a communication problem on my part. I failed to convey to the Zoning Administrator what I really wanted to do." He explained that the cabins were not to be on permanent foundations and could be easily taken apart and moved. He stated that he had explained that he wanted the same type of permit as Montfair and had been told that they (Montfair) did not have a permit. Ms. Imhoff reported that she had reviewed the files and it was her feeling that this appeared to be a "willful violation —that you just decided to go and do it despite what the staff had recommended." She was very concerned about this type of approach. She pointed out that the files showed that staff had been straight -forward with the applicant. Mr. Carter responded to Ms. hnhoW. "I can assure you that Mr. and Ms. McDonald are paying dearly for this situation and we are trying to straighten it out as best we can. We are fighting this battle on many fronts. If a mistake was made, we admit it and we can't change it; it's done. All we can try to do is remedy the problem as best we can. This is the best way that we can do it and that's why we're here." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Blue acknowledged both Ms. Imhoffs and Mr. Carter's comments, but he felt whether or not it was a willful violation should not have significant bearing on trying resolve the matter. He explained his major concern was Health Department approval, but he pointed out that the applicant must get Health Department approval or "they can't do it." Mr. Blue stated he had spoken with staff about this issue and Mr. Fritz had been under the impression that septic connections already existed for these cabins. But the applicant has verified that there are no such connections. He was not at all certain that the Health Department was going to look favorably on this request. Ms. Huckle also expressed concern about the septic situation. She felt the performance rate for pump systems was not good. She pointed out that if the pumps fail, "it will go right into Stockton Creek," Mr. Blue noted that no greater density is proposed, "they are simply switching motor homes for semi -permanent cabins." He noted that the fact that the cabins will not be used in the winter "precludes the possibility of having them used as year round residences." He concluded: "So, I suppose, unless I hear some comment from somebody else on the Commission about this, 1 see that maybe we should approve it." 11-29-94 Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the use had been originally intended as campsites and she was not as comfortable with the cabins because they are dependent on septic drainfields. She stated: "Given the location by the creek, I would have preferred to have seen those particular sites used for the more mobile camping." She felt recreational vehicles were a less intense use, in relation to the environment, despite their size. Referring to language in suggested condition No. 1, ("as generally shown on Attachment G Page 3), Mr. Dotson asked if those particular locations were significant. He said he did not want to have to review this again if a site needs to be moved to the next site over. He pointed out that the Health Department also might decide that other sites are preferable. Though Mr. Fritz pointed out that all the cabins, except one, are already built, the applicant confirmed that they could be easily moved if that is necessary to get Health Department approval. Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Davis if he had said earlier that each of the cabins which are considered residences must be on 2 acres and have their own drainfields. Mr. Davis replied that he had not made that statement, but he believed the Zoning Administrator had made such a statement in the March 10, 1993 letter. He was under the impression the Zoning Administrator has determined that these sites (as presently located) do meet those requirements, if Health Department approval can be obtained. Referring to condition No. 2, Ms. Huckle asked if there were plans for new sites. Mr. Fritz responded negatively and explained that condition had been a carryover from the previous approval. Mr. Nitchmann stated that though he could not condone that the applicant had proceeded to build the cabins without permits, he could see no public good to be gained by denying the request. He concluded: "If he can satisfy the conditions of the special use permit that staff has put forth, I will go along with their recommendation to approve this. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP-94-30 for James F. & Ester C. McDonald be recommended to the Hoard of Supervisors for approval subject to the the following conditions: 1. No more than a total of 112 camping sites on property described as County Tax Map 71, Parcel 3, Samuel Miller Magisterial District, consisting of 47.11 acres zoned. RA Rural Areas. Not more than b of these camp sites may be used for cabins. These shall be located on the south side of Stockton Creek. Not more than 4 of these cabins may qualify as dwelling units. Any cabins constructed as dwelling units shall comply with the previsions of Section 10.2.1.1. No cabins shall be utilized until all appropriate Building Code and Health Department requirements have been met. 11-29-94 16 2. No new camping sites shall be located in the flood plain, as determined by the Army Corps of Engineers, 3. All such uses shall conform to- the requirements of the Virginia Department of Veal*h L t[icau Vt tll�'Ll i�t Y;�i.aVll« P- �- ♦ t.w 1„ a-. �hmeatt. Sa nitatioaa arid other applic.ab� Foquirements. 4. Provisions for outdoor cooking, campfires, cooking pits, etc., shall be subject to A1beramarle County Fire Official approval. 5. Conditions one and six of Conditional Use Permit #116 shall be met to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. 6. No, new camping sites or additional storage of parked trailers, campers and recreational vehicles within the 150-foot setback. New and additional vehicles shall be in compliance with a 150-foot setback from the edge of the Route 250 right of way. 7. The Cabins will not be used from November 15 to March 15. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Blue expressed. "great doubts" as to whether the local Health Department will approve the sites as they are presently being shown, based on the way the applicant has dcscrihed them. Thu motion for approval passed (3:2) with Commissioners Buckle and Imhoff casting the dissenting votes. Ms. Imhoff explained her vote: "I do believe this is an intensification of use which 1 cannot support." WORK SESSION - Economic Development (The meeting recessed _from 8.30 to 8AO to allow ttme for Cotn.m. Assioners to read written comments about the staff report which had been prepared by Commissioners Imhoff and. Dotson. Though they did not read their comments into the reword, they are made a part of these minutes as Attach�iFvFit3 � and ;a.) Staff answered Commission questions about the data -analysis items (shown as numbers 1-16 in the report). --Item 10 - The Commission asked about the definition of the term "membership organization as a type of industry." (Staff was uncertain and was to research the term further_) Mr. Nitchmann asked for a definition of "high income." There was a brief discussion about the difference be. Teen .p4/ II-29-94 11 income and wages. Mr. Dotson asked if the "wages paid in retailing" represents "the total retail wages divided by the number of retail employees, and, if so, does it include part-time employees?" He asked if this question could be answered at the next work session. --Mr. Nitchmann feat there were "rungs missing from the economic ladder which individuals can climb." He asked: "Is there enough economic vitality within this region for people to be able to go from the bottom and get up to the mid -range, let alone pursue the top levels?" He asked to see the "graphs" or data from which some of the information in the report was taken. --Ms. Huckie pointed out that some employers prefer to pay existing employees overtime rather than hiring new employees and thus it is difficult for persons seeking employment to compete with those who are already employed and are willing to work - overtime. Mr, Nitchmann felt this phenomenon has been around for a long time. He felt more diversification in job opportunities would be helpful. --Ms. Huckle felt the County should do all it can to encourage these businesses with apprenticeship programs,. -Item 2 (related to an increasing "older" population) - Mr. Dotson pointed out the following factors in relation to the influx of retirees into the Community: They represent population growth without job growth, and they add a market aspect because many of them have a certain amount of discretionary income to spend; They represent, growth- without. the the cost of educating additional children; They represent an additional housing market; They may favor a more "compact" type of development. --Mr. Nitchmann asked if any part of the report addresses the issue of the University's growth and the fact that as it grows it increases a "non -tax base." --Ms. Imhoff felt the "best fit" for inevitable growth is to "build on existing local businesses, to have businesses that come into the area that fit with local businesses, and to have diversification." She wanted there to be some discussion, at some time about the. "Positive effects on the local economy of supporting local businesses_" --Item 14 (related to agriculture and. forestry) - Ms. Imhoff was pleased to see these two areas addressed in the report. --Mr - Dotson was pleased to see that the report, in various places, "puts the County in a regional context." He felt this was important, both because of the regional economic development partnership and because of the community visioning. He felt it was important that the regional aspect of economic development be acknowledged, "probably to a much greater degree than we have done in previous Comprehensive Plans." Referring to Mr_ Dotson's written comments, Ms. Imhoff noted that Mr. Dotson suggests referencing the community vision statement and he also proposes "possibly extending the Area B Planning and Coordination Council" She stated she would like to see some of that worked into the final economic development goal. --Ms. Imhoff asked how far the economic development policy statement should go in terms of talking about "infrastructure and the amount of vacant land" which needs to be provided, i.e. "how much zoned vacant land do we need to have in reserve?" Mr. Nitchmann felt the location of the industrially zoned land needs to be looked at closely. He felt it would be helpful to have a map showing all the industrial sites along with a description g3� 11-29.94 12 of the nature of the site& Ms. Imhoff felt businesses expect to see an inventory of available land. Mr. Dotson felt the question of how much land to have in reserve (2x, 3x, 4x?) was a matter of "what land is available in the next 5 years because it is a 5-year Comp Plan" review. He was in favor of focusing on the next 5 years increment. Ms. Huckle cautioned against having tor, much industrial land available which might result in a situation which Loudon County is now exnenencina. --Ms. finhoff clarified that her comments about zoning were related to a land use map in the Comp Plan. Mr. Blue asked: "So you are suggesting that, maybe, if we determine there is not enough land presently zoned industrial that we would initiate that?" Ms. Imhoff responded: "For me, I am just focusing on the Comp Plan and the Comp Plan oftentimes shows land uses for the fixture that don't reflect base zoning. In fact, you don't want your zoning and your Comp Plan to be identical. I'm saying that there may be a need, when we change this economic d'ivelMnent policy I am assuming we `1 ill the-- as �xrith any lid o policy J 1-Iy7 g" back and look at the land use snap and make sure that all the staff' fits." --Mr. Dotson asked if staff felt the term "underemployment" had Uecu thoroughly researched. Staff responded a.Pfifinatively. Mi'. Dotson felt star had made a good effort and it was time to "acknowledge it, accept it, and move on." Commission comments on "Directions for the County's Economic Development Policy," items 1 through 6, pages 7 and 8 of the report were as follows: --item I - Mr. Dotson commented: "If the end result is for overall growth in wealth, that's great, but if the goal is more overall wealth, then that leads to a kind of indiscriminate boosterism. Growth in overall wealth, in and of itself; should not be our p-nivary goal." --Ms. Imhoff suggested that staff "may need to go further in talking about some of the limitations of existing infrastructure, or where some of the catches are," e.g. "we don't have a lot of water so we should not be to-ying to attract a l��rge wa` using industry." She painted out that the couAty is in a clean ail' airshed acid wants to retain that designation. are response to Mr. Blue's question to Ms. Imhoff, "Do we want to attract industries?", Ms. Imhoff replied: "Industries that fit within existing businesses. My first priority is to build off of the businesses that are already in place; the second priority, in my mind, would be to attract new businesses that compliment what's in place. To me, industry is a very broad, generic term that includes industry, commercial, and office..._ We should be setting forth good information, have in place excellent education, preserve our natural environment, and that will, indeed attract business to Albemarle Comity." She added: "When I say promote and attract new business, I don't see the County in a position where we give money or we market, or we recruit, or do aw yo= those thirxgs.... We have acl owledged in this report, and all along, that we are going to have a certain amount of growth." --Mr. Dotson suggested that the County's policy be one of as "open door as opposed to a red carpet." --Ms. Imhoff expressed agreement with all Mr. Dotson's written comments. (Attachment B to these minutes.) She hoped staff would take those comments under consideration in the development of the final draft of the policy. I1-29-94 13 It was determined the Commission was generally in agreement with the 6 items listed as "Directions for the County's Economic Development Policy." The question of whether or not the Board was expecting a recommendation from the Commission on the Regional Economic Development Partnership was briefly discussed. Staff felt that it is anticipated that this Economic Development Policy will clearly address the issue of a regional approach. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Board is waiting for the Commission's Economic Development Policy "so that they can move forward in their decision on the Regional Partnership." Though staff was hopeful that the Policy would be ready for public hearing on December 20th, it was later decided that a more realistic date would be January loth. Public comment was invited. Mr. Jim Ballheim advised against holding a public hearing on December 20th (the Tuesday before Christmas). He felt this was the type of thing which "creates a lot of cynicism towards government" and would be an "awful time to do it." Ms. Jane Ditmar, representing the Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Commission. She felt staffs report was excellent. Addressing comments made earlier in the meeting about the impact of the growing retiree citizenry, she reported that a study has revealed that often senior citizens "leave their assets home (in the town from which ) they come." Referring to item 1, page 7, she felt another reason to be proactive in economic development is to maximize the revenue for government to provide services. She felt the management of the tax base should be addressed in the report and she felt the "regional component" was very important and should be expanded upon in the final policy. She also stated thatwhile chain stores use local banks, their loans are usually secured outside this area. Mr. Tom Olivier offered some personal observations. He felt "it is important that our economic policy emerge from a process based in a rigorous analysis of needs, an understanding of the side effects of economic decisions, and constant reflection on the proper role of government." He suggested that the policy "focus fundamentally on identification of those in economic need and provision of on -going educational opportunities that keep our citizens equipped to meet changing employment opportunities." Mr. Carter Myers addressed the Commission. His comments centered on four main topics— (1) County budget and tax base; (2) Poverty rate; (3) Good jobs; and (4) Strategy. Ms. Nancy O'Brien asked for a clarification of the schedule for completion of the Policy. Staff described the following tentative schedule: December 10th - Work Session January 10th - Public Hearing, followed by another work session, date to be determined 11-29-94 14 The work session ended after the public comment. MISCELLANEOUS Ms. Huclde suggested that consideration be given to updating the Ordinance as it relates to campground uses. She was concerned particularly about the fact that there are so many people concentrated in an area without sanitary facilities. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Ws