HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 22 1992 PC Minutes12-22-92
1
DECEMBER 22, 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, December 22, 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
Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs
Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Bill Fritz,
Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr.
David Benish, Chief of Community Development. Absent: Jim
Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of
December 8, 1992 were approved as amended.
ZMA-92-07 Luck Stone Corporation - Proposal to apply the
NR, Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District to 107.54
acres currently zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described
as Tax Map 79, Parcel 36D, is located on the north side of
Milton Road (Rt. 732) approximately 1/4 mile west of the
intersection of North Milton Road and Milton Road (Rt. 729
and Rt. 732). The northern border of this site is the
Rivanna River. This site is located in the Scottsville
Magisterial District and is not within a designated growth
area (Rural Area 4).
The applicant was requesting deferral to January 26, 1993.
Mr. Joe Andrews, representing the applicant, explained the
reason for the deferral --to allow more time for the
applicant to make the public more knowledgable of the plan.
Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that ZMA-92-87
be deferred to January 26, 1993.
Mr. Blue noted that he is generally opposed to last-minute
deferrals, but since there were no members of the public
present in relation to this proposal, he stated he would
support the motion. He felt applicants should be advised
that requests for deferral, after notification of the public
has taken place, "is not a good idea."
The motion for deferral passed unanimously.
ZMA-92-08 Dominion Lands. Inc. - Proposal to amend ZMA-91-03
to reconfigure a building and to delete the residential use
of the property and to add a 16,000 square foot commercial
structure. Property, described as Tax Map 61M, Section 12,
Parcel 1B, is located in the southwest quadrant of the
/9..5-
12-22-92
2
intersection of Berkmar Drive and Rio Road in the
Charlottesville Magisterial District. Zoned PD-MC, Planned
Development Mixed Commercial (Neighborhood 1), and is
recommended for Community Service.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Andersen, that ZMA-92-08
be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
DISCUSSION - Procedure for Planning Commission Authorization
of Administrative Approval of Site Plans and Subdivisions
Mr. Keeler briefly described the following submittals: Crown
Orchard, Pflug Property, Old Ivy Road Office Building,
Waylands-Grant Preliminary Plat (previously Bargamin
property), Mill Creek Industrial Area - Building Supply
Sales, and Hollymead Middle School.
On the Waylands-Grant plan, it was noted that the road
identified as 682 should have been 827.
Mr. Blue noted that "Albemarle" was misspelled on the
Hollymead Middle School plan.
Mr. Keeler described briefly how the new administrative
approval process would work, with the Commission to be made
aware of new submittals on "day 8" of the process. He
confirmed that the presentation he had just completed was
the review that would be presented to the Commission on "day
8.19
In response to Mr. Johnson's question as to what was
expected of the Commission at this point, Mr. Keeler
explained that if the Commission wished to see any of the
items which were briefly reviewed, they would make that
request at this time.
Mr. Johnson expressed concern about being asked to comment
on items that had been presented in a "flash." He felt this
placed him in a "foreign" position in terms of making
comment. He stated he would abstain from any vote because
he did not want to "pass an opinion on anything he didn't
know anything about."
The proposed process was discussed at some length. Mr. Blue
viewed staff's presentation as a "courtesy" to give the
Commission the opportunity to identify those items which
they wished to review. He did not think the Commission was
being asked to approve the items. Rather, the purpose of
the administrative approval process is to trust staff to
exercise their judgment.
/0
12-22-92 3
Mr. Jenkins pointed out that all submittals are given to the
appropriate Commissioner (based on magisterial location),
and this gives each Commissioner the opportunity to request
that an item be reviewed by the Commission. He viewed the
new system as perhaps somewhat more responsibility on the
part of each Commissioner who receives the plans to make the
decision as to whether or not the Commission should see the
plan. He felt the new process should be given a chance to
work.
It was noted that Mr. Johnson, being the At -Large
representative on the Commission, did not receive any plans.
Mr. Johnson expressed the concern that problems might occur
with a project and the Commission might be criticized if
they did not raise questions about the project at the time
of the "day 8" presentation. It was Mr. Johnson's feeling
that he would not have enough information to raise questions
based on such a brief exposure to a plan.
There was brief consideration given to a "preview and
consent" type process, where the items would be presented to
the Commission twice.
Mr. Blue's position was: "We either delegate the
responsibility to staff or we don't."
Mr. Johnson responded: "Well, then let's delegate it to
them. Let's not bring it back here...." He stressed that
he was not in favor of lengthening the process; rather his
concern was related to being asked to comment on an item he
knew nothing about.
In response to Ms. Andersen's question, staff confirmed that
there were no legal problems in granting staff
administrative approval.
Mr. Nitchmann felt the intent had been to rely on the
technical capabilities of staff. He noted that the new
process could be reviewed after a length of time to see if
it is working satisfactorily. Staff was suggesting that a
quarterly monitoring report be provided during the first
year.
Staff confirmed that any applicant could request that an
item be brought before the Commission.
Sensing reluctance on the part of some Commissioners, Mr.
Keeler offered to develop 112 or 3 other options."
Mr. Nitchmann was not in favor of more options. He stated:
"I sav leave it alone."
/if
12-22-92
4
Ms. Andersen agreed, noting that any Commissioner could
request that an item be brought before the Commission. She
felt the process, as presented by staff, should be given a
chance.
Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the possibility that
Commissioners will have to spend more time going over plans
in order to better understand the details.
Mr. Blue disagreed. He felt the staff would continue to be
primarily responsible for the technical review of the plans.
He did not feel the proposed process would make him solely
responsible for everything happening in the Rivanna
District.
Mr. Johnson stated: "I'm not sure that we can absolve
ourselves leagally from any responsibility. That's the part
that bothers me. ... To bring (an item) up before the
Commission, officially, I'm not sure that we're not legally
(answerable)." He felt there was, at least, a moral
responsibility.
Mr. Grimm stated that it had been his understanding that
site plans and subdivisions would not be brought to the
Commission at all unless some problem was identified, e.g.
citizen complaint, variances.
Some Commissioners indicated they too had had this
understanding.
Mr. Blue felt that staff's presentation was only a courtesy
and the Commission was not expected to make any comment.
Mr. Keeler explained it was his intent that the "day 8"
presentation be for information only so that Commissioners
are aware of what is taking place in the County in the event
they receive questions from the public. He explained that
no action is required by the Commission.
Mr. Grimm asked if a memo listing the projects could serve
the same purpose. Commissioners would look at the list and
notify staff if there were any items which they felt should
be reviewed by the Commission.
Mr. Keeler was agreeable to Mr. Grimm's suggestion.
Mr. Johnson commented: "That sounds good to me; and the
full package would go to the individual Commissioner
concerned."
It was agreed that of the projects just reviewed by Mr.
Keeler, the Commission wished to review the school project.
12-22-92 5
WORK SESSION - Assisted Rental Housing
Mr. Benish lead the discussion, assisted by Ms. Kobby
Hoffman. Ms. Kathy Rolston answered the Commission's
questions about the Section VIII subsidized housing program.
The issue of how to get more landlords involved in the
Section VIII program was discussed. Mr. Blue felt the main
problem is related to the "fair market rent," which is set
by HUD, i.e. a landlord has little incentive to get involved
in the program when he/she can get higher rents on the
private market.
Ms. Andersen wondered if some landlords might get more of a
tax advantage by letting property remain vacant than they
would by renting it through the Section VIII program. Mr.
Nitchmann responded to Ms. Andersen's question. He was
unaware of any tax break for vacant property. He felt the
reason more rental units are not being built is because it
takes longer to realize any return on an investment.
Mr. Johnson felt the fact that there are no standards for
rental property in the County contributes to the problems
because landlords are reluctant to get involved in Section
VIII if they know they will have to pass regular inspections
and meet certain standards, when no such standards exist for
non -subsidized rental property. He felt the creation of
some type of standards would put the Section VIII program
more on a par with other rentals. (Mr. Nitchmann did not
think this would be accomplishable because it would take
away people's property rights. He also felt such a program
would be very difficult to enforce.)
Mr. Johnson felt his suggestion deserved consideration by
the committee.
The main topic for the work session was the formation of a
committee to study ways to make the Section VIII Program
more attractive to landlords.
Commission comments and recommendations included the
following:
Johnson: He felt staff's proposal for the committee
was too detailed and the proposed size of the committee was
too large. He suggested the following simplification of the
proposed charter: "Identify procedures and conditions which
will make the Section VIII certificate program more
attractive to area landlords." He felt it should be left to
the committee to expand on this. He felt the committee
should be no more than 3 to 5 members and should be,
"ideally, retirees representing the issues that are
important,... and could be obtained by direct contact ._.."
He suggested the following make-up of the committee: "a
landlord, somebody representing finance as an economist, an
12-22-92 6
insurance representative, and a Section VIII
representative." ( He was adamant about the recruitment of
retirees because he felt they would have more time to devote
to the work. Mr. Blue felt it was more important that the
persons selected have an interest in the topic, than that
they necessarily be retirees.) Mr. Johnson felt the
committee's work, including the completion of a report,
could be accomplished in three months. He feared that the
staff's proposal would be "too restrictive as far as the
scope and the makeup of the committee." He felt it would be
more effective if those persons suggested by staff as
committee members offer input by appearing before the
committee rather than actually serving on the committee.
He felt this would result in a more objective approach.
Blue: He again stated that he felt the key to the
whole issue was to arrive at a method to raise the HUD "fair
market rate." (Ms. Ralston agreed that this was a
significant part of the problem, but she also felt
"marketing" played a role. Mr. Nitchmann suggested some
type of quarterly newsletter which would be sent to
landlords. Mr. Blue questioned whether this would have any
impact on smaller landlords. Ms. Ralston indicated she did
not see the marketing issue as one which could be addressed
through the Rental Assistance Unit of the Social Services
Department. She explained that the Rental Assistance Unit
is not a housing office, rather it is an office to
"establish eligibility of tenants." She stated there has
never been the direction, nor the staff, to do marketing or
training of tenants, etc. An unidentified member of the
public suggested that a notice could be included with the
April tax statements.) It was noted that presently there
are only 50 "licensed" landlords in the County, though many
more actually exist.
Huckle: She felt staff's "guide" would be very helpful
to the Committee. Mr. Grimm agreed.
Johnson: He felt the committee should consider
"life -cycle cost" of the program.
Grimm: He felt the County should do what it could to
ensure that it's citizens have "places to stay."
Johnson: He cautioned "We want to help but we don't
want to sentence."
Nitchmann: He suggested that the committee study the
type of persons who participate in the Section VIII program
with the goal of determining "underlying causes."
It was ultimately decided that the Committee would be made
up of the following: a landlord, a representative from
VDHA, HUD and the Section VIII Advisory Board, a financial
sector representative, and a representative from the UVA
Housing Office.
Ms. Andersen moved that it be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors that a committee be formed to study ways to make
the Section VIII Housing Program more effective.
1470
12-22-92
7
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
It was noted that the motion did not include the suggestion
to study the "life -cycle cost" of the program.
Mr. Benish then asked the Commission to discuss the possible
establishment of a County policy related to rental -assisted
housing, said policy being "to assure that assisted rental
housing is provided throughout the County." (Strategy E1 of
the Affordable Housing Report)
There was considerable discussion about the 1,600 needed
units (160/year) referenced in the report. Commission
comments included:
Huckle: She feared that even at 25 units/site (as
referenced in the report) "the social costs would far
outweigh any advantages."
Johnson: He expressed reluctance to endorse a "policy
to simultaneously build" 1600 units without any knowledge of
costs. He indicated he might be more comfortable if the
statement were reworded with the word "policy" replaced with
"goal."
Blue: He felt it would be very difficult to achieve
this many single family (or duplexes) in the growth
areas --they would have to be scattered around the County.
Nitchmann: He expressed strong opposition "to any
policy that even infers that this County is going to become
involved in the real estate market, the building of homes or
the building of apartments." He felt this should be left to
the private sector with a way being developed to allow this
to happen. He also felt a way to increase the economic
standards of persons in need must be found.
Blue: He agreed with Mr. Nitchmann , "in theory." He
stated, however: "We may have a group of people that we
don't reach by any of these other marginal methods in the
non -profits and I, for one, feel that society has an
obligation to help people who can't help themselves, to have
decent housing. If it has to be public money and the County
to do that, then I am willing to support it. I hope it
won't be; I hope there are other ways we can do it."
Nitchmann: He agreed with Mr. Blue, "provided it's not
a policy that's written down." He agreed he would be
willing to consider a proposal if it is determined there is
a group of people for which there is absolutely no other
alternative, i.e. those whom have done all possible to help
themselves and for whom all other possibilities have been
exhausted.
Huckle: She agreed with Mr. Nitchmann's position.
Grimm: He agreed with Mr. Johnson's suggestion to
change the word "policy" to "goal."
Johnson: Rather than locking into the "arbitrary"
figure of 1600, Mr. Johnson suggested that the goal be to
assist those persons who are spending more than 30% of their
income for housing.
/.7/
12-22-92 g
Blue: He felt the 1600 was just a measurement "mark."
Huckle: She was opposed to the use of any type of
number.
Jenkins: He had searched for a "model" program and had
contacted the City of Lynchburg for information on their
program. Persons he spoke with stated that financing is the
biggest problem. Corporate assistance was believed to be a
key factor. (Persons contacted in Lynchburg were Mr. Herb
Moore and Mr. Hal Craddock.)
Johnson: He suggested that along with the study of the
Section VIII Program should be a study of zoning and
building regulations and the "school situation" with the
goal being to reduce the costs of building. (Ms. Huckle
cautioned against "doing away with the basic, important
standards for building," which could result in substandard
housing.)
--Ms. Huckle was in favor of encouraging organizations
such as the Housing Coalition and Habitat for Humanity,
rather than the County getting involved in competing with
landlords.
Mr. Benish stated that staff would revise the language and
bring it back to the Commission.
Mr. Forest Kerns, Director of the Charlottesville Housing
Foundation, addressed the Commission. He felt the emphasis
should not be on the County as a landlord, but rather the
County should be looking to "support the private sector,
whether the for -profit or non-profit sector, to build these
types of rental units." He felt the County could make this
possible by providing the infrastructure in the growth
areas. In response to Mr. Blue's question related to the
25/site suggestion, Mr. Kerns felt that the number had to be
one that would "make it economical." He pointed out that
the County often cuts the number of proposed units to the
point where it is "barely marginal." He cited Crozet
Crossing and The Meadows as examples where this was the
case. Mr. Kerns could not answer definitively as to what
the number should be. He mentioned factors such as social
concerns, which must also be taken into consideration.
Presentation of Preliminary Economic Development
Organizational Proposal - Mr. Nitchmann presented his
"Initial Proposal and Outline for the Development of an
Albemarle Economic Development Organization." (His
proposal, and his accompanying statement, are attached to
these minutes as Attachments A and B.)
Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that "out of the 271 pages in the
Comprehensive Plan, only 56 words address the economic
well-being of our citizens and the _role we the government
must play in it."
/9�9
12-22-92 9
Mr. Nitchmann felt the first step was to gain the support of
the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Blue agreed with Mr. Nitchmann's philosophy. He also
felt that, before proceeding, it must be determined whether
or not the Board is in favor of the proposal.
Ms. Andersen agreed that there was a problem in terms of
"attracting industry." However, she stated she "would not
like to see us put all our eggs in one basket by totally
emphasizing industry." She perceived that many jobs come
from small businesses. (Mr. Nitchmann viewed small
businesses as industry.)
There was determined to be support among the Commission for
Mr. Nitchmann's proposal. (Ms. Huckle expressed some
concerns, though she was not opposed to studying the issue
further.) However, before further action, it was decided
that Mr. Nitchmann and Mr. Grimm would meet with Mr.
Cilimberg and Mr. Brandenburger to discuss the "next step."
Mr. Johnson noted that he has received several complaints
from the public about the poor quality of the sound system
in the meeting room.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:10 P.M.
DB
V. Wayn Cilimb ecretary
/�12