Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 29 1993 PC Minutes6-29-93 1 JUNE 29, 1993 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 29, 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 Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; and Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner. Absent: County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of June 3, 1993 were approved as submitted. ZMA-92-14 Wendall Wood; SP-93-13 UnitedLand Corporation; ZMA-93-06 United Land Corporation; and SP-93-14 United Land Corporation - Deferral to July 13, 1993 was being requested. The Commission unanimously approved the deferral of all four items to July 13, 1993. WORK SESSION Housing Committee Report Recommendation to Establish a Standina Citizen's Committee on Housing Commission comments and recommendations: HUCKLE: She felt a person with expertise in "environmental impact" should be a part of the Committee. She expressed concerns about housing being built where the soil is unsuitable for septic systems. She felt an "environmental impact study should be included in any consideration. (Mr. Benish confirmed that any site would have to go through the normal approval procedures. Mr. Cilimberg added that the Housing Commission may look at the question of alternative sewage systems from a "policy" standpoint but not on an individual site.) ANDERSEN: She felt strongly that there should be a representative of the "minority community" on the Commission. BLUE: Though he was not opposed to Ms. Huckle's recommendation, he noted that it was his understanding that the proposed makeup of the Housing Commission was something the Planning Commission was "hoping for" but "not insisting 77 e7 6-29-93 2 on." He felt there should be no inference that any one particular field of expertise was more important than another. He also did not want the Commission to be "stacked." He agreed with Ms. Andersen's recommendation for a minority representative. NITCHMANN: He asked if any consideration had been given to staff time and cost involved with this proposed Commission. JOHNSON: He suggested that the Housing Commission submit quarterly "informal" interim reports. There was some disagreement as to whom these reports should be submitted. Mr. Nitchmann felt the Housing Commission should submit the reports to the Planning Commission and that they should be more often than quarterly. Mr. Blue pointed out that it had been decided that the Housing Commission would be equal to the Planning Commission and would report to the Board of Supervisors. (It was ultimately decided to recommend that brief quarterly reports to the Board be required, with copies to the Planning Commission.) There was a discussion about term limitations for members of the Housing Commission and process for appointment. It was the consensus of the Commission to recommend that the appointments be "at large", with staggered 2-year terms, with a maximum of 3 terms (6 years). NITCHMANN: He was skeptical that "complete evaluation of social/economic impacts" was possible (as stated in the Commission's proposed duties). BLUE: He suggested a re -wording of the paragraph describing Membership, i.e. deletion of the words "also bringing to the Commission." (There was no opposition to this suggested changed.) MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Johnson, that the Commission recommend the establishment of a standing committee on Housing as outlined in the staff's report, with changes as discussed by the Commission. The motion passed unanimously. WORK SESSION Neighborhood Three - Mr. Baker introduced the topic. Staff attempted to lead the Commission through the recommendations, beginning on page 15. Referring to the first recommendation, related to a landscaping plan for the Rt. 250 corridor, Mr. Johnson commented: "The more I read this the more I feel that this is an inappropriate way to 76 6-29-93 3 handle these statements, valid as they are." He felt this Neighborhood Three Study was "sneaking through" responsibilities to the Department of Parks and Recreation. He indicated he was questioning where the responsibilities of the Department of Parks and Recreation should be identified. He felt they should be contained in one document (charter) rather than scattered through several documents. He felt information was being "spread around here, there, and everywhere, without logic." Ms. Huckle felt that landscaping was a good idea, provided it can be paid for by businesses along 250 and not by tax dollars. There was disagreement (and a lack of understanding) among the Commission as to how these studies should be conducted and the relation of the reports to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff explained that the neighborhood studies are meant to serve as "reference" documents which are referred to in the Comprehensive Plan, but which are actually separate documents. Staff asked if the Commission agreed with the "philosophy" behind the neighborhood studies. ANDERSEN: "I agree, as long as we make a very strong statement that these are plans and they are not to be pointed to (so that) people begin to think that (because) this became part of the Comprehensive Plan it is something that ultimately is going to happen or it is promised by the government." Given the state of the economy, she felt that referencing the use of County funds for landscaping was "superfluous." BLUE: He asked if staff was able to make these detailed studies with the current staff "without hurting yourself in (areas) that many of us might consider more important." (Mr. Cilimberg explained that staff could not do 4 or 5 at once. Mr. Benish estimated 2 or 3 could be done in a year. Work on the neighborhood studies would be suspended during the review of the Comprehensive Plan.) NITCHMANN: He asked about the manhours involved (and cost) in the preparation of this study. (Staff could not answer definitively.) Mr. Nitchmann stated: "We tried to move the Economic Development Program forward in order to help all the citizens of this County and what happens is we're told that we don't have any staff that can do it. Yet we're sitting here spending time on a neighborhood study that I will not agree to have part of the Comprehensive Plan. There are too many comments in here that I disagree with that I believe gets local government too involved in landowners' rights. ..." He expressed concern about the funding that would be required to carry out the recommendations made in the plan. "I for '71 6-29-93 4 one will not go for this to become part of the Comprehensive Plan. I think it is too much government intervention in private landowners business as well as the potential spending of funding that we don't have today and we don't even know if we're going to have tomorrow. I think we've gone entirely too far with this." He stated he viewed this as an "implementation document." GRIMM: He pointed out that the studies were instigated by the Board of Supervisors. "...the Board of Supervisors wants these studies to be carried out and modified as needed by the Planning Commission, forwarded on to public hearings and then in that modified form, whatever it might be, forwarded back to the Board of Supervisors for their approval. It is really not a question of whether we do it or not, it is a question of how we're going to do it." NITCHMANN: He questioned whether the studies had been directed by the County Executive or by the Board. (Mr. Cilimberg explained: "(There were) discussions in the County Executive's Office about how to approach more grassroots planning. The Board of Supervisors directed, and it was part of our work program to do this. Now, if you believe the effort of this kind of plan is not a high priority, then whatever the document is, you need to say that to the Board of Supervisors. There are people in particular neighborhoods who have a very keen interest in going through this process because they feel their particular area needs to be addressed in this manner..... If you, or the Board of Supervisors, which has the ultimate say, does not want us to undertake this, then we need to know because, obviously, we are structuring our work program with things that are directed out of that Comprehensive Plan document by our responsibilities as outlined by the Board of Supervisors..." JOHNSON: "I feel it's more a question of how we prefer to implement this statement of the Board of Supervisors." He felt "we would be better counseled to identify a bibliography or a list of those plans that are applicable...." Mr. Blue felt it should be determined whether or not the Commission was in support of the philosophy of the studies. MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that the Commission proceed with the neighborhood studies as directed by the Board. (This motion was later withdrawn.) `A- Discussion: ANDERSEN: She wondered if the study could "be accepted as another form rather than as a part of the Comprehensive Plan." (Mr. Benish explained that with these studies 6-29-93 1-1 NITCHMANN: He was in favor of deferring further review so that he would have time to study the report in more depth. He was in favor of scheduling another work session. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that the Neighborhood Three discussion be deferred to allow time for further study of the document. The motion passed (6:1) with Commissioner Blue casting the dissenting vote. Discussion: Mr. Johnson again expressed preference for "a cross-referenced list of applicable plans and requirements and specific characteristics identifying the implementing activity and schedule which are unique to the neighborhood." Comments on specific recommendations in the study were as follows: HUCKLE: She was very opposed to the "implementation" of a landscape plan for State Farm Blvd. 93-94 Work Program - Mr. Cilimberg called attention to the 93-94 Work Program. Mr. Nitchmann asked staff to identify those items which are required by state law. He also asked staff to provide information as to the number of staff hours involved with each item. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. DB U. 1