Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 21 1992 PC Minutes4-21-92 1 APRIL 21, 1992 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 21, 1992, 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; and Ms. Ellen Andersen. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; Mr. Ken Baker; Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Jenkins and Huckle. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of April 7, 1992 were approved as submitted. Mr. Keeler presented a brief summary of the Board of Supervisors April 15th meeting. SP -92-09 David D. Allen - Petition to permit a day care for 25 children on 5.0 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(7)]. Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 4 is located on the west side of Rt. 743 approximately 900 feet north of Whitewood Road in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 1). GAI 1a7 SP-91-71 Unity Church in Charlottesville (applicant); David Allen (ownerk - Proposal to construct a 300 seat church with offices, fellowship hall and educational facilities on 5 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 4 is located on the west side of Rt. 743 approximately 900 feet north of Whitewood Road in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 1). Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question regarding the limitation of 20 children for the day care, Ms. Hipski explained this was tied to the Health Department's determination that the septic system could accommodate 20 children. [NOTE: This issue generated further discussion_ later in the meeting.] 1r7 4-21-92 2 It was determined no sanctuary services were proposed until the completion of Phase 2. In response to Mr. Johnson's questions regarding the limitation on the number of adult education classes (condition No. 1), Ms. Hipski explained that the condition was based on what the applicant had requested, i.e. the applicant had proposed 3 classes/week. Mr. Johnson wondered if this was sufficient reason to limit the number to 3 classes. He felt the applicant (and applicants in general) will base their requests on what they feel can be approved and not necessarily on what they actually would like to have. Ms. Hipski explained that the staff's review had been based on the request as submitted by the applicant. Mr. Johnson made the same comment, and staff offered the same response, in relation to condition No. 3 which required that the interim sanctuary convert to a fellowship hall "at issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the 300 seat sanctuary." Mr. Johnson also questioned the need for Commission approval of the site plan (condition No. 6). Ms. Hipski had included this condition because she felt there were some outstanding issues, such as the actual location of the buildings on the site and paving over the septic field. Mr. Johnson felt staff was capable of addressing these issues. Regarding the recommendation for a right -turn lane, Mr. Johnson felt that the turn lane would not be needed until Phase 2 (with the CO for the sanctuary) and since the State already has plans to widen the road, the applicant should not be required to install a turn lane at this time (with the additional expense involved) when it would have to be reconstructed after VDOT has made improvements. Mr. Cilimberg felt that a right -turn may not be necessary after VDOT's improvements. He explained further that VDOT would negotiate with the landowner regarding the location of the entrance and right-of-way acquisition and "it would not fall back on the landowner to install another right -turn lane." Mr. Cilimberg stated that the recommendation was that the right -turn lane be installed with Phase 1. Mr. Johnson questioned that the need for the turn lane could be caused by the 20-child day care use. (The applicant's representative later explained that VDOT's comments had been based on 25 children.) Mr. Johnson wondered if VDOT had considered the timing of the two separate uses --day care and sanctuary --when making their recommendations. Ms. Hipski stated that VDOT had been aware of the phasing plans. Ms. Hipski felt VDOT's recommendation had been based partly on the fact that the traffic would be occurring at peak hours. (Staff could not say when VDOT improvements would take place.) Mr. Johnson felt that "VDOT was spending the church's money" and he felt that should be given careful consideration. MAI 4-21-92 3 Ms. Hipski confirmed that the limitation of 20 in the adult education classes had been based on the applicant's request. Mr. Nitchmann wondered about the basis for this number. Mr. Grimm explained that conditions are typically tied to the applicant's description of the use "based on the fact that...they have voluntarily designed their plan for a certain level of activity." The applicant was represented by Ms. Susan Riddle, Engineer. [NOTE: Ms. Riddle was very difficult to hear and some of her comments could not be understood by the Recording Secretary either during the meeting or on the recording equipment.] She described the history of the proposal and the status of the site as it currently exists. She also explained the applicant's building and use plans and presented a drawing of the proposed site plan. Significant comments and answers to Commission questions included the following: --This is a concept plan and is "not necessarily going to be the exact final site plan." --Staff will have ample opportunity to ensure compliance with all ordinances during the site plan review process. --It is possible that, after further testing, it will be determined that the septic fields can support more than 20 children. --According to the Health Department, that portion of the drainfield which will be "driven over" will have to be paved, but not the parking area. --She described the square footage of the buildings. (Her description is not included in this record because it could not be heard clearly.) --The day care center will initially be limited to 10 children for an addition of 9 vehicle trips/day during peak hours. --The applicant would like the flexibility to work with VDOT regarding the entrance and turn -lane issue. --Right-of-way for Hydraulic Road improvements will be reserved. --The Water Resources Manager has been contacted and is satisfied that stormwater management and water quality controls can be met on the site. --The applicant is fully aware of the existing water line on the property and fully intends to incorporate it on the final site plan. --The applicant requests administrative approval of the site plan. Rev. Tony Roebuck, Minister of the church, addressed the Commission. He explained the history of the church including its search for a permanant location. Answers to Commission questions included the following: /YC? 4-21-92 4 --Current membership is 120 with 80-90 attending Sunday services (including children). --Only 10 children will be in day care until the third phase of the development. (Ms. Riddle noted that construction of the interim sanctuary will begin within 2 years and of the permanent sanctuary within 4 years.) --The applicant hopes that construction of a turn lane will not be required, but is prepared to meet that requirement if necessary. --The applicant's request for 3 adult classes of 20 persons per week was based on the existing situation and is anticipated to remain the same for the "foreseeable future." He stressed, however, that it is the hope of the church (as with all churches) that the membership will grow and that the 20 person restriction will not be imposed. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Jim Ballard, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission. He described problems he has experienced with the water line easement which extends across the applicant's property. The main point of Mr. Ballard's comments was unclear but seemed to be related to problems he has had with Mr. David Allen (the owner of the property) in relation to the recordation of the water line easement. He stressed that he had no objection to the church use but felt it would be difficult to fit the four proposed buildings on the parcel without interferring with the easement. He hoped that approval of the special permit did not mean automatic approval of the site plan. He was concerned because the proposed site plan showed construction on top of the water line. Because of the past history of the line, he was certain there would be future problems which would require maintenance from time to time. [Ms. Riddle commented: "The Church is fully aware of this water line. ... Accommodating and ensuring that Mr. Ballard will have water service is well within the intent of the church.] It was determined that Mr. Allen is the current owner of the property and the church has an option to buy the property contingent upon approval of the special permits. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Johnson stated he felt consideration must be given to "the financial effects of any decisions on the applicant as well as the County and also consider the social effects on the community." He noted that Health Department involvement in this type of proposal is automatic and that the Health Department controls the level of occupancy. He stated he was suppor_.tative of the request subject to several changes in the recommended conditions of approval. He outlined these changes in his subsequent motion for approval. /'?0 4-21-92 Mr. Johnson moved that SP-91-71 (Unity Church/applicant - David Allen/owern) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: I. The property may not be further divided. 2. The interim sanctuary shall not exceed 150 person seating capacity. 3. Construction of the 300 seat sanctuary shall commence within four (4) years or approval for the new structure shall expire. Construction of the 150 seat sanctuary shall commence within two years of approval of the special use permit or approval for the structure shall expire. 4. There shall be only one residential dwelling on this property. 5. Administrative approval of the site plan. 6. Reservation of land for additional right-of-way to accommodate road improvements as outlined in VDOT letter dated January 16, 1992. 7. Expansion of any use or construction not outlined in this report shall require additional review and approval by the Board of Supervisors. [The above -stated conditions are the result of the following amendments to staff's suggested conditions: Deletion of No. 1; amendment of No. 3 so as to end after the word "capacity;" amendment of No. 6 so as to grant administrative approval of the site plan; amendment of No. 7 to delete the requirement for "dedication upon County demand of additional right-of-way;" change the word "approval" to "report" in No. 8.] Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Blue asked if staff had any reason, other than the fact that "the applicant said this was what he was going to need," for the condition limiting adult classes to 20 people, 3 times/week. (staff's original condition No. 1 which Mr. Johnson's motion had deleted.) Mr. Cilimberg responded: "It's been very typical for numbers to be included in approvals because they do relate to the intensity of the use. It is not just a question of whether the building can accommodate the use or not, but rather how much use or activity is going to be made of the buildings over a period of time --what you or the Board is willing to accept. ... They relate to two things --intensity and traffic 191 4-21-92 6 generation. ... If it becomes a multi -use community facility without any restrictions then you can have traffic in and out different times of the day at many different levels...." Mr. Keeler added that it can also effect the particulars of the design of certain facilities such as the sewage disposal facility. He stated the Board had recently directed staff to "get as extensive a description of the activities intended at churches as possible" because they often become meeting places for a wide variety of activities. Mr. Nitchmann suggested that the proper place for this information might be in staff comments rather than as a condition of approval.. Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that if limitations are not included as conditions, then there are no limitations and thus no control of the use. Mr. Nitchmann noted that trying to envision every possible use for a church could result in a very long list of conditions. Mr. Blue stated that he could see the benefit, from a traffic and health standpoint, of knowing the number of people that will be served. Though he felt it was not reasonable (in this instance) to bar that 21st person from a Sunday School class, he did see the reason for specifying the size of the sanctuary and also including some general statement related to activities which are normally associated with a church. Mr. Bowling pointed out that some restrictions are enforceable (such as those related to Health Department matters) but others are not (such as the number of persons attending a particular class). Mr. Keeler offered to meet with the Health Department before the Board hearing to see if any number restrictions were needed except those related to the seating capacity of the sanctuary and the day care. Mr. Blue made the following comment: "I think the County is a little remiss in what we're doing. As I understand it, the area on that side of Hydraulic Road is not in the Ablemarle County Service Authority jurisdiction for sewer .... The reason being that they want to discourage, as I understand it, intense development that would drain into the watershed. That's fine, but if we're going to go ahead and allow this sort of thing, and perhaps we should, I think it is absolutely ridiculous and counter -productive to say that we want to discourage having churches there with congregations or other things similar to that and yet we'll go ahead and approve it and approve it on septic tanks which are temporary at best. ... I think that the County ought to look at the policy, not necessarily saying that we don't want to discourage development there, but saying that if we're going to allow a church there, let's allow them to 4-21-92 7 connect to the public sewer. ... I suspect that it might even be cheaper ... and it certainly would be safer from the standpoint of public health. ... I'm not going to vote against this petition on account of that, but I think it's something that the County staff ought to look into. I haven't been on the Commission long enough to know the details of these things, but I have been reading the paper and we're doing it all the time. wherever there is public sewer available I think we ought to amend the rule that prevents the Service Authority from providing it and let them provide it." [NOTE: This issue was discussed again briefly at the end of the meeting. At that time Mr. Cilimberg explained the Board's position. He noted that one consideration is that of allowing development in the rural areas, outside the growth areas, to hook into public sewer will result in the capacity of the public utilities being used up by developments outside the growth area when it is supposed to be available to growth areas only. Mr. Blue acknowledged that this was another side of the issue, but strictly from a public health standpoint, he felt it was a mistake.] Mr. Cilimberg responded: "That is a matter than can be addressed by the Board, and is addressed by the Board in requests for jurisdictional area designation." Mr. Cilimberg advised: "If you remove certain conditions that accommodate the maximum or the activities there, then you can conceivably have an application for something larger than the approved drainfield can provide for." He also noted that by deleting the requirement for the conversion of the interim sanctuary to a fellowship hall (new condition No. 2) would result in the potential (though very unlikely) operation of two sanctuaries on the site. Mr. Johnson offered no changes to those conditions included in his motion. The previously stated motion for approval passed unanimously. Although Ms. Andersen supported the motion , she stated that she felt that staff had sound reasons for their recommendations and "when there is good reason for what the planning specialists recommend, I think we should abide by their advice." Mr. Johnson then moved that SP-92-09 for David Allen (Unity Church) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Day care shall not exceed 25 children or such lesser number as the Health Department may specify based on 11?2 4-21-92 8 adequacy of the septic system. [NOTE: Mr. Johnson initially suggested deletion of this condition entirely but later agreed to include it with a change in the number from 20 to 25.] 2. Administrative approval of the site plan. 3. No such use shall operate without licensure by the Virginia Department of Welfare as a child care center. It shall be the responsibility of the owner/operator to transmit to the zoning administrator a copy of the original license and all renewals thereafter and to notify the zoning administrator of any license expiration, suspension, or revocation within three (3) days of such event. Failure to do so shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance. 4. Periodic inspections of the premises shall be made by the Albemarle County fire official at his discretion. Failure to promptly admit the fire official for such inspection shall be deemed willful noncompliance with the provisions of this ordinance. 5. These provisions are supplementary and nothing stated herein shall be deemed to preclude application of the requirements of the Virginia Department of Welfare, Virginia Department of Health, Virginia State Fire Marshal, or any other local, state or federal agency. [Mr. Johnson's motion did not include the additional condition --No. 6--which had been added by staff during the staff report. This condition would have required a right turn lane. To explain his deletion of the requirement, Mr. Johnson stated: "It's hard for me to visualize that under any circumstances it would be required. It will not effect traffic going to the north but only going to the south. ... A right turn lane will facilitate nothing, will serve no useful purpose ... it's not going to effect coming out --all of this in view of the potential widening and change in the road, and (it is only) as a recommendation from VDOT. I would not be in favor of that at all, being superfluous, not required and an unwarranted expense on the part of the applicant.] Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. Discussion: Regarding Mr. Johnson's original recommendation to delete No. 1, Mr. Grimm stated he could not agree with that change. He noted that Health Department approval had been based on 20 children. (Ms. Hipski confirmed that this was accurate.) Mr. Johnson could find no such limitation in the Health Department's comments. This issue was discussed at some f �7 4-21-92 9 length. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the applicant had originally requested 25 children. He suggested that No. 1 be amended so as to say "...25 children or such lesser number as the Health Department may specify...." Mr. Keeler pointed out that this type of condition is necessary for a day care use on a spectic system for two reasons: (1) It advises the Zoning Administrator that the facility is on a septic system; and (2) If the facility offers lunches (involving on -site food preparation) it would reduce the number of children allowed. He stressed that staff would continue to recommend this type of condition because they feel it is appropriate. It was suggested that, in the future, the Health Department be asked to be more specific in their written comments. Mr. Johnson wanted to ask the applicant if 25 children was acceptable or if a higher number should be asked for. Mr. Grimm stated: "We have to assume that since they have requested 25 then that's how many they want to have." Mr. Johnson argued that he did not agree with that assumption because "when an applicant comes in we're sitting here as a jury [Mr. Grimm interjected that the Commission does not act as a jury but rather approves or disapproves what is requested.] --and they have set limits (based on) what they think they can get approved." Mr. Grimm stated he could agree with Mr. Cilimberg's recommendation for 25. The applicant stated: "We did decide that 25 was a number we felt was a fair number and if expansion is considered at some future time we have no problems with coming back." Mr. Johnson then agreed to amend his motion as suggested by Mr. Cilimberg and as previously stated in the motion. Regarding the recommended deletion of the right -turn lane, Mr. Blue asked: "Just because we don't require it as a condition now doesn't mean that it's not going to be built if VDOT determines it is necessary at site plan stage." Ms. Hipski confirmed that was accurate. The previously stated motion for approval passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson advised the applicant that they could present additional information before the Board if they so desired. CPA-92-03_Community Facilities Plan - County Government Administration - Proposal to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to include the County Government Administration section of the Community Facilities Plan. The purpose of this section of the Community Facilities Plan is to provide an evaluation of the office space needs for County employees. Mr. Baker presented the staff report. He was assisted by Mr. Benish. The main unresolved issue was that of whether /1�5- 4-21-92 10 or not to include the 250 square feet/employee as a reference for analyzing space needs. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. [NOTE: No members of the public were present.] Mr. Grimm stated he could support the document as presented by staff. Mr. Nitchmann's very extensive comments included the following: --He asked about the whereabouts of the "study." --" ... my major concern became the fact that it's a document that is going to spend somewhere between seven and nine million dollars of the taxpayers' money. Therefore, I have to be very concerned about how we go about that and how we go about establishing any pro forma type of number whatsoever that is going to lead anybody to believe, in any budgeting session whatsoever, that the requirements of the County are based upon this preliminary needs assessment.... So it's very important what we do in regards to the 250 square feet." --"The Service objective seems to skip one of the key indices of the objective, i.e. to identify whether or not we have a need. We move right into an action phase of providing a standard set of office space per employee." --Personal research conducted (by Mr. Nitchmann) indicated that figures are closer to 140 square foot net and 216 square foot gross, per employee. --"I cannot approve this document with the 250 square foot net in it. It's going to set a pro forma and you have already done that by applying that pro forma number to a preliminary needs assessment for the building. You've already used the number in this document." --The second objective should be to evaluate the existing office space in the current building. --"Your number 2... really belongs back in your recommendations and methodology of doing this and not part of the objectives." --"Number 3 (should include) something which says to prioritize the needs of space improvements based upon importance to the health and safety of the citizens of the County' which means, maybe, we should address the Police Department first and the Social and Welfare Departments second, in that order." --"If you just keep putting the word provide in there, it says that you did not do any work to identify or prove that they are deemed necessary. It says 'move forward to provide ancillary space.' There's no identifying of that need." --"The paragraph starting with 'Additional space needs' should be moved to the strategy section of,the Plan." 1116 4-21-92 11 --"I mention these changes to clarify the meanings of the objectives of this Plan. As written, it leads one to believe that the proper studies have been completed and that we know beyond a doubt that we must invest the money of the citizens of Albemarle in brick and mortar. I don't think that's the intent of this document. ... If someone can correct me I'll stand corrected." --He questioned why pages 5, 6 and 7 were included "if this is a plan document on how to get to these pages." --He questioned the consultant's credentials (Kurt Trane) " in regards to the design and construction of a facility of this nature." In response to Mr. Grimm's question, Mr. Nitchmann confirmed that, in his opinion, the document was "fatally flawed." Mr. Nitchmann referred to his rendition (See Attachment A of these minutes) of the same document which he described as being 113 pages instead of 7." He concluded: "The purpose of a planning document is to get us to identify needs in order for us to establish operational procedures and actions necessary to solve any problems identified. I cannot support this plan as written in it's entirety. I can support it if all references to the 250 square feet net are removed and we look at some of the wording to identify and provide specific 'space if deemed necessary' wording. ..." Based on Mr. Nitchmann's comments, Mr. Johnson suggested that the item be deferred to allow time for consideration to be given to those comments. (This was not a motion.) Mr. Blue questioned whether specific consideration to the cost of a project was going beyond the Commission's area of responsibility. He also asked how the document had been developed, i.e. entirely by staff with the assistance of a consultant or was the County Executive's office also involved? Mr. Benish replied: "All sections of the plan were developed with the lead agencies that we are talking about ... and the County Executive was aware of all those sections. The County Executive was the lead person with (that) section of the plan. So we were in contact, all through the drafting of it, with the County Executive's office." The question of the Commission's responsibility in relation to financial aspects of a proposal was discussed at length. Mr. Benish explained that typically the Commission does not get involved with budgetary and administrative issues but because this document is a part of the Comprehensive Plan (which is the Commission's document), it was brought to the Commission. He suggested that the two most relevant issues (for Commission consideration) were whether to centralize services and whether to provide services consistent with the County's growth management policy. Mr. Johnson quoted from 197 4-21-92 12 Article 6 - Capital Outlay Programs - Section 15.1-464 of the Code of Virginia: "Local commissions to prepare and submit annually capital improvements programs to governing body or official charged with the preparation of the budget. ... Such capital improvement programs shall include the commissioners' recommendations and estimates of costs of such a facility and the means of financing to be undertaken in the ensuing fiscal year. .. " Mr. Johnson pointed out that this was not the case during the Commission's last review of the CIP and he had been "summarily told that financing and cost were none of our business." Mr. Cilimberg stated that that question is presently being clarified with the County Attorney's Office. Mr. Benish added that it was his understanding that the Commission's "ultimate requirements are governed by the Board of Supervisors as to what you review." He noted that in some counties in the State the CIP is not reviewed by the Planning Commission. Mr. Nitchmann felt that, presently, budget concerns are within the Commission's jurisdiction "unless the Board of Supervisors or Mr. St. John, tells us that it is not so I have to look at it in that respect in regards to this particular document." Mr. Cilimberg described the process which had been followed during the last Comprehensive Plan review, particularly in regards to the Community Facilities aspect of the plan. He stated that staff had attempted to follow the same procedure, in terms of a needs assessment, with the County Government Administration Building as it had with all other aspects of the Community Facilities Plan. He stated: "I think what Mr. Nitchmann is saying is that he's not... comfortable with the 250 figure because it becomes a point that everybody works from. If 250 is not going to be the figure, then we need to know if there is a figure that you would be comfortable with because, if there is, then we will then use that to try to identify what the needs would be and what the recommendation for facilities would be based on those needs." He stated that if no space figure is included, then it is very difficult to do a needs assessment and a figure would eventually have to be established before any needs assessment could be done. Mr. Cilimberg concluded: "There is nothing here that is inconsistent with good planning. The number may not be right but the approach was." Mr. Cilimberg also reminded the Commission, as staff had several times before, that the 250 figure was not a fixed number, but rather was a "reference point to work from." Mr. Grimm suggested a different approach, i.e. to insert the word "maximum" (... a maximum of 250 net and a maximum of 350 gross). Mr. Nitchmann stated he could not agree with 4-21-92 13 this suggestion because "maybe it should be 290 square feet." Mr. Baker pointed out that even without the inclusion of a specific figure, there is still language within the document recommending "that detailed study be conducted to come up with a number." Mr. Johnson felt an initial step should be for each department to conduct a preliminary space needs evaluation and then "establish our gross square footage for planning purposes on that basis." Mr. Nitchmann summarized what he felt the objective of the document should be: 11(1) Centralize the government; (2) Evaluate the existing office space in the current building and determine if this building, with remodeling, can adequately support what's needed or we move on to building a new building; and (3) Priortize the needs of the space improvements based upon the importance to the health and safety of the community." He concluded: "Then you can put 4, 5, 6, and 7 in any format that you wish." Mr. Grimm stated that though he could support the document as presented by staff, he understood that some Commissioner's had objections and he would prefer that the document be passed on to the Board with a majority of goodwill and good intentions. He concluded that he could support a deferral. Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Johnson, that CPA-92-03 be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. OLD BUSINESS Sign Ordinance - Mr. Johnson read a prepared statement, (See Attachment B) at the end of which he made the following motion: "To recommend to the Board that provisions be included in the Ordinance for the timely phasing out of all nonconforming signs. If an acceptable process for this is not currently available, appropriate implementation requirements should be identified, and actively pursued." Mr. Johnson felt that without such action the effectiveness of the sign ordinance would be "tremendously diluted." Mr. Nitchmann agreed with Mr. Johnson. Mr. Blue stated he could see no harm in such a motion. W2 4-21-92 14 Mr. Blue seconded the motion which passed unanimously Meeting with Board of Supervisors - Mr. Cilimberg reported that a joint meeting had been tentatively scheduled for May 6th at 4:00 in room 5-6. The date was agreeable to the majority of the Commission. (Mr. Nitchman would be unable to attend.) Topics to be considered for discussion included the CIP process and the Zoning Department's method of dealing with violations. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Mr. Cilimberg explained the Consent Agenda process. --------------- Mr. Johnson suggested the development of some type of checklist which could be used by applicants to help them through the approval process and which would help determine what the applicant really wants to achieve, rather than just what he thinks can be approved. He also expressed concern about unnecessary conditions of approval. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that conditions of approval are based on the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, information supplied by the applicant, and also on experience that comes from dealing with similar requests on a repeated basis. He also noted that different Commissions and different Boards often have different concerns. NEW BUSINESS Rural Preservation Development - Mr. Keeler described, for the Commission's information, a situation where an applicant has made a special use permit application for additional lots on a tract of land near the Fluvanna County line. (The applicant currently has two lots, one created in 1986 and one in 1988, before the development of the rural preservation development.) The applicant is interested in a RPD which would provide more benefits to the County than would a special permit, but because the ordinance does not allow the mixing of conventional and rural preservation development, the applicant is hesitant to withdraw his application for a special permit "without knowing whether or not the Commission is going to say 'no, you've done two lots and we're not even going to consider the rural preservation development."' He explained that the applicant "can meet all the design criteria on the property that he has remaining." Mr. Cilimberg explained that staff felt this was a discretionary decision but wanted some feedback from the Commission before going forward. 4--21-92 15 Mr. Blue stated that assuming that the RPD is of benefit to the County, there is "no way that we could be opposed to it. is Mr. Keeler pointed out: "That language truly is intended for people who divide their land after the rural preservation development regulations were in place." He further explained: "He can do by right what he is trying to do with a special permit, but the criteria of the special permit is very difficult to satisfy." The Commission expressed no opposition to staff's handling this type of request administratively. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. DB �Ql