The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03 09 1993 PC Minutes3-9-93 04 MARCH 9, 1993 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session on Tuesday, March 9, 1993, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; and Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Community Development. Absent: Commissioner Jenkins and County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of February 9 were approved as amended by Mr. Blue. WORK SESSION Affordable Housing - Accessory Apartments The following members of the public expressed support for accessory apartments: Kevin Cox, Blake Hurt, Thomas McQueeney, Deloris Bradshaw. Though supportive of the idea, it was generally agreed that accessory apartments would probably have only a "marginal" effect on the supply of affordable housing. Ms. Eleanor Santic asked the question of whether accessory apartments would increase the stock of "affordable" housing, or rather just increase the housing stock generally. With the exception of Ms. Huckle who expressed some reservations, the Commission was in favor of pursuing the issue of accessory apartments and directed staff to gather information from other communities. Antec Site Plan - Mr. Keeler explained that the issue was related to the requirement for loading spaces. He stated the development is currently served by 2 full size loading bays (which meet the requirements of the ordinance) and 8 smaller spaces which do not meet the depth requirements. However, the Engineering Department has determined that the spaces provided are adequate. After determining that staff felt there were no safety issues involved, the Commission expressed no concerns about the situation. MOTION and VOTE: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that staff be granted administrative approval of the loading arrangements for the Antec Site Plan. The motion passed unanimously. 3-9-93 2 WORK SESSION Economic Development Policy - Mr. Cilimberg called attention to the third draft of a comprehensive plan amendment (initiated by Commissioner Nitchmann) related to the county's economic development. The following members of the public spoke in favor of the proposed amendment: Thomas McQueeney (representing AIDA, Albemarle Industrial Development Authority) - He noted that Albemarle County is often discounted by companies looking to re -locate because of its reputation for being inhospitable to industry. Steve Runkle (a member of the Chamber of Commerce) - "This area should have an aggressive and viable economic program if that provides us the ability to select carefully the businesses we want to retain and prosper, and to attract, in this area. ...it doesn't necessarily mean that you reduce your standards or permit rampant growth; I do think it means you can be more selective about how you grow." Kevin Cox - He supported an "aggressive, active, economic development policy that would enable more people to increase their income and afford what housing is available." He suggested that any economic policy should "somehow incorporate the framework for training people to fill some of the jobs." He suggested working with WA to develop training programs. He called attention to the high level of "under" employment in the area because of the lack of suitable jobs. Brand Eure, (a business owner and member of the Chamber of Commerce) - He applauded the Commission for addressing this issue and taking "a step in the right direction." He expressed concern about the area losing businesses which may not be replaced. Bob Tobey (a business owner and member of the Chamber of Commerce) - He, too, commended the Commission for its efforts. He noted that there are presently other groups forming who are "currently pushing for some sort of economic development in this community." He felt that growth would require the cooperation of the County, the City and the University. He also expressed concerns about the high rate of "under" employment in the community. Mr. Reggie Marshall expressed concern about an economic policy which would cause a "snowball" effect, i.e. new industry would entice others to move to the county resulting in population growth. He wondered if there was a way to insure that newly created jobs would be filled by local people. He also felt that any prospective new industry should be required to submit an environmental impact statement. He felt strongly that all proposals should be 3-9-93 3 considered on a "case -lay -case" basis with no "blanket" -type policy. Commission comments were as follows: Huckle--While she felt the proposed policy could have a good effect, "if done correctly," she felt it was not something which the County should "jump into." She felt that consideration of this amendment should take place along with the regular review of the Comprehensive Plan which will begin soon. She questioned the wisdom of "recruiting" businesses and wondered if it was not preferable to "wait for them to come to us as they always have." Ms. Huckle noted that she has livied in the County for 50 years and the quality of life has steadily decreased while taxes have increased. She expressed concern about potential impact on the school system. (Mr. McQueeney stated that "quality of life" is a subjective term and does not mean the same thing to all people. He stated that to the under -employed or unemployed, ""quality of life might be a 40-hour job with benefits, not more green trees.") Grimm - He stated he was a strong proponent of the proposed policy and felt it had the potential for tremendous good and could draw all the factions of the community together. He felt the policy would "set the tone for the type of industries which are desirable." Blue - He strongly disagreed with Ms. Huckle's statements. Having lived in the county all his life, he felt that life is much better now than when he was growing up, particularly for those persons at the middle and low --income end of the scale. Mr. Nitchmann was in favor of moving forward with the proposed amendment, with staff to incorporate some of the suggestions contained in Mr. Tucker's letter, and with a public hearing to be scheduled for May. He felt delaying action until the entire Comp Plan is reviewed is just "procrastinating on what we need to do today." He made the following comments in relation to Mr. Tucker's memo: --Regarding inclusion of UVA, he felt that the county should first get "its own house in order," while recognizing that there are other entities --surrounding counties, the city, the University --who will be included at some future time. --Regarding the items identified by the fiscal impact study and their relationship to the economic development policy, he felt the fiscal impact model was a "tool --one of the key indices" to be used for evaluation of the fiscal impact of a particular industry as it relates to the cash flow of the County. He was uncertain as to how this could be incorporated into the proposed amendment. --Regarding an up -front definition of the relationship between an Economic Development Office and the Industrial 3-9-93 4 Development Authority, Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors, he suggested the possible addition of language such as "...responsibility of the Economic Development Department with Board approval." This would recognize the Board's guidance. Mr. Johnson expressed his support for Mr. Nitchmann's suggestion. He stated he could see nothing in the proposed amendment that could be considered undersirable. MOTION: Ms. Andersen moved that staff proceed with the proposed economic development policy, incorporating suggestions made in Mr. Tucker's memo, and setting a public hearing for May. Mr. Johnson seconded the motion. Ms. Huckle again expressed the opinion that the issue should be addressed along with the regular review of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Nitchmann noted that the purpose of the policy was not only to attract new industry, but also to retain and help flourish those which already exist. VOTE: The motion to move the Economic Development policy forward passed (5:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Nitchmann requested that staff secure a copy of Culpeper's zoning and building code regulations. Mr. Benish's Letter Re: Assisted Rental Housing - It was the consensus of the Commission (with the exception of Ms. Huckle) to support Mr. Benish's letter which set forth the proposed change in the policy statement as discussed by the Commission. The letter also incorporated items from the Housing Coalition's Letter (by Rellen Perry). MOTION: Mr. Johnson moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that the letter be endorsed by the Commission and passed on to the Board of Supervisors. VOTE: The motion passed (5:1) with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting vote. The work sessions ended at 10:30 p.m. V. Wayn Cilimbe Secretary 1?B 477