HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 23 1991 PC MinutesApril 23, 1991
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, April 23, 1991, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Phil Grimm;
Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle.
Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler,
Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community
Development; and Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of April
9, 1991 were approved as submitted.
Mr. Keeler briefly reviewed items to be included on the
April 30th Consent Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
Urban Transmission Line - Review for Compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan - Review of the proposed construction of
new transmission water line for compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Section 15.1-456 of the Code
of Virginia. The proposed line will extend from the South
Rivanna Water Plant to an existing line in the vicinity of
Ninth and Main Streets in Charlottesville, and will be
located in Neighborhoods One and Two; Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the
Consent Agenda be adopted. The motion passed unanimously.
WORK SESSION
ZTA-91-03 Amendments to Zoning Ordinance to Implement
Comprehensive Plan as to Non -Residential "Service Areas"
Concept
Mr. Keeler explained that these amendments originated as
part of the Planning Division's work Program. He presented
a staff report. The report explained that the public
purpose to be served by these amendments was: To broaden
uses permitted within the various commercial and industrial
zoning districts and to provide a new section 9.0 GUIDELINES
FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SERVICE AREAS for the purpose of
implementing the nonresidential land use guidelines as
outlined by the "service areas" concept of the Comprehensive
Plan."
April 23, 1991 Page 2
Mr. Keeler explained the proposed amendments in some detail.
Mr. Johnson questioned the amendments to 24.2.1. He was
concerned that "a myriad of uses was being added by right."
Mr. Keeler explained the proposed amendment. Mr. Cilimberg
summarized: "The real effect is what is being added to the
HC are only by -right uses from the C-1 that are not already
included in the HC." Though Mr. Johnson initially
questioned staff's explanation, he ultimately expressed
understanding.
Mr. Rittenhouse added the following for clarification: "So
if we add something to the C-1 in the future, it will become
a by -right use in the HC." He noted also: "We might run a
risk of unintentionally allowing a more intensive use
somehow --something that we had an opportunity to condition
heavily in the C-1, but if we were not paying attention, it
could become a by -right in the HC and we would lose that
opportunity to heavily condition (certain uses)."
To address this concern, Mr. Keeler suggested that 24.2.1
(41) be changed to read:
Unless such uses are otherwise provided in Section
24.2.2., uses permitted in Section 22.2.1 Commercial,
C-1.
No action was required of the Commission at this time.
WORK SESSION
Capital Improvements Program - Mr. Benish and Mr. Baker
reviewed proposed modifications to the CIP project request
instructions and forms provided to agencies submitting CIP
requests.
Mr. Johnson questioned the definition of "urgent." He felt
the last three criteria listed were redundant or "outs." He
suggested a way to address this might be to change the
wording to read: "Project cannot be postponed because funds
are: (a) Needed to complete an essential or partially
finished project; (b) Needed to maintain a minimum service
or facility; or (c) Needed to meet an emergency situation."
He also felt it would be desirable to have other priorities
available for the first year, i.e. other than "urgent." He
suggested that the "Note" under the definition for "urgent"
have the first sentence eliminated.
Under the paragraph labeled "Other", he suggested the
addition of the following: "...such as effects, financial
and/or social, of a timely deferral of projects be
identified." (Mr. Cilimberg did not feel that would fit in
this particular definition because the "Other" is supposed
to refer to Attachment A related to sources of funding.)
S/
April 23, 1991 Page 3
Mr. Benish indicated he understood Mr. Johnson's concern.
Other Commissioners agreed that Mr. Johnson's point was a
good one, i.e. the inclusion of an evaluation of the effects
of non -funding.
Mr. Baker explained in detail the criteria by which requests
will be evaluated.
Ms. Huckle asked if some type of year-end evaluation could
be performed on the status of the projects. Mr. Baker
indicated staff plans to begin tracking projects which have
been funded but not completed.
Mr. Johnson felt the questions used in the application form
should be re -worded so as to require more than just a Yes or
No response. He also asked that the Commission be allowed
to see the responses to the questions. He felt this might
streamline the procedure.
The Commission expressed support for staff's proposal.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
8:40 p.m. , I_ . I
DB
J
Ss2