HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 03 89 PC MinutesOctober 3, 1989
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, October 3, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David
Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom
Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and
Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. V. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr.
Bill Fritz, Planner; Mr. Richard Tarbell, Planner; Mr. Jim Bosworth,
Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of September 19, 1989 were
approved as submitted.
CPA-89--3 Hollymead Community Expansion - To amend the Albemarle County
Comprehensive Plan, Hollymead Community, to designate expansion areas
for residential, commercial, and industrial uses.
Staff requested deferral to October 17, 1989, as a work session.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that CPA-89-3 be deferred
to October 17, 1989. The motion passed unanimouslv.'
SP-89-75 Astec - Request in accordance with Section 27.2.2(1) of the
Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for
the production and testing of liquid chromatography columns. Property,
described as Tax Map 77E2, Parcel 4, is located at the intersection of
Routes 1101 and 742 on the northwest corner. Scottsville Magisterial
District.
The applicant was requesting deferral to October 17, 1989.
Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that SP-89-75 be deferred to
October 17, 1989. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-89-84 Oliver A. Kuttner - Request in accordance with Section 27.2.2.11
of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a special use permit to convert an
existing wood shop to autobody restoration fabrication and classic
automobile brokerage (wholesale). Property, described as Tax Map 90,
Parcels 35R, 35S, is located on the east side of Avon Street Extended
(Rt. 742). Scottsville Magisterial District.
The applicant was requesting deferral to November 9, 1989.
Mr. Stark moved that SP-89-84 for Oliver A. Kuttner be deferred to
November 9, 1989. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed
unanimously.
l##
October 3, 1989 Page 2
SP-89-80 Re novia Land Trust (Hunter Crai ) -- Request in accordance with
Section 20.3.2(1) of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special
use permit to allow for a day care facility to be located on a vacant
.869 acre parcel within the dill Creek PUD. Property, described as Tax
Map 90C, Parcel G-1 is located on the southwest quadrant of the
intersection of Avon Street Extended (Rt. 742) and dill Creek Drive.
Scottsville Magisterial District.
The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral.
Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr —Wilkerson, that SP-89-80 be indefinitely
deferred. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-89-82 Guiseppe Ancona - Request in accordance with section 10.2.2(36)
of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow
for the operation of a gift/craft/antique shop on 7.45 acres zoned RA,
Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 21, Parcel 16A is located on
the east side of Rt. 29N, approximately 500' north of Piney Mountain
Restaurant. Rivanna Magisterial District.
,qr. Tarbell presented the staff report. The report concluded: "This
special use permit application is not in accordance with the Comprehensive
Plan's intent to locate commercial uses in the growth areas and therefore
staff recommends denial. Should the Board of Supervisors choose to
approve this special use permit staff recommends ... conditions."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Fred Hablick. He gave a brief
history and explanation of the business. He stressed that the antique
shop has been a continuing business for the applicant. He questioned
whether "under the continuation theory" the applicant could be required
to make the changes suggested by staff. He pointed out that a roadside
business depends on visibility.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Stark asked if the applicant would prefer that the request be denied
rather than approved with the conditions suggested by staff. Mr. Hablick
responded that the result would be the sane because the applicant would
not be able to afford to meet all the conditions of approval.
Mr. Stark expressed fear that approval of this request would set a
dangerous precedent for similar businesses outside the urban area.
Mr. Bowerman stated the use was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and with the Board of Supervisors' recently stated desire not to extend
the pattern of growth along Rt. 29 north of the South Fork Rivanna River.
He added that he felt there was ample commercial zoning in the County
which would allow this type of use, with access from a visible highway,
without encroaching into areas farther and farther removed from the city.
October 3, 1989
Page 3
Mr. Jenkins noted that there had been some kind of business on this site
"for as long as (he) could remember."
Mr. Bowerman asked if denial of this special permit would preclude the
activites of the fruit stand and antique shop. Referring to a letter
from the Zoning Administrator (May 25, 1989), Mr. Tarbell interpreted
that this request was necessitated by the fact that the business now
involves "new and different products ... an intensification of the use,
expansion of outside sales/display area, and the offering of a greater
variety, and volume of products/items." Mr. Cilimberg added this
would be a determination for the Zoning Administrator to make.
Mr. Jenkins still was uncertain as to whether or not the antique business
could continue. Mr. Bowerman responded -that it would appear, based on
Zoning Department comments, that the only use which is objectionable is
the display and sale of the pottery. Mr. Tarbell added that in order
for the business to continue a zoning clearance will still be required.
Ms. Diehl stated she felt this was a change in use and she was concerned
about extending the commercial area further up Rt. 29. She added that
though she understood why the suggested conditions of approval were
not acceptable to the applicant, she could not support the request without
such conditions.
Ms. Diehl moved that SP-89-82 for Guiseppe Ancona be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Stark pointed out that the action was in no way a reflection of
the individual nor his effort to make a living, but rather was related
to the Comprehensive Plan recommendations and the limits of the
Ordinance.
The ion denial passed unanimously.
SP-89-77 Andy Wyland - Request in accordance with Section 5.2 of the
Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for a
Home Occupation, Class B to operate a taxidermy service. Property,
described as Tax Map 18, Parcel 43, is located on the east side of
Rt. 630, approximately 5/10 of a mile north of its intersection with
Rt. 721. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Bosworth presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Without
an additional detailed understanding of the preservation process, staff
cannot recommend approval of this petition." However, conditions were
included in the event the Commission chose to look favorably on the
petition.
October 3, 1989 Page 4
In response to ?'Ir. Rittenhouse's question, Mr. Bosworth confirmedthat
staff's reason for not recommending approval was based on the unknowns
surrounding the use of chemicals. sir. Bosworth stated he had attempted
to contact local taxidermists but had not been successful.
There was a brief discussion as to whether or not a Certified Engineer's
Report could be required. It was finally decided this was "overkill"
in this instance. Regarding the issue of regulatory agencies,. it was
noted that the Game and Inland Fisheries Department does have some,
requirements regarding tagging, but none that would address the concerns
of the Commission.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Steve Morgan, the applicant, addressed the Commission. Mr. Morgan
explained the process used in his occupation. This process included
the use of a substance called Liquitane, the composition of which
was unclear, and a soaking solution composed of saddle soap, borax,
Lysol and salt. Mr. Morgan explained that the Liquitane was absorbed
by the hides and therefore would have no residue, and the soaking
solution, which was non -toxic, would be disposed of through the sink
drain. He stated the fleshy parts of the animals would be wrapped
in plastic and treated as "regular trash." Mr. Morgan confirmed that
no other employees would be involved in the business and he had no
objection to that being added as a condition of approval. It was
determined Mr. Wyland, the owner of the property, was a friend of
Mr. Morgan's who had offered to let him use a shed for this business.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
The possibility of placing a time limit on the proposal was discussed.
'Mr. Bowerman suggested that restricting the operation to Mr. :Morgan
only would effectively restrict the growth potential of the business.
Mr. Jenkins agreed.
ylr. Morgan explained that it was his intention, if the business is
successful, to eventually move the operation to his home. (It was
determined that while Mr. Morgan currently resides in Hampton, Va.,
he will relocate to property owned by his father in Albemarle County
after the business has become established.)
It was felt that condition No. 9--There shall be no chemicals used, stored,
or disposed of in the operation.of the business --was inconsistent with
the process described by Mr. Morgan. There was some discussion as to
whether or not the County Engineer's office could review the composition
of the chemicals used and whether an engineer's report should be required.
Ms. Diehl felt to require such a report of the applicant might be
extremely expensive, and it appeared that "it really doesn't seem to
have any chemicals utilized." however, she did ask that staff contact
other taxidermists for a more detailed description of the process before
the Board hearing.
/41%
October 3, 1989
Page 5
The Chairman asked the applicant to submit to staff a list of
taxidermists whom they might contact for additional information.
Realizing the Commission's concern about the use and disposal of
substances used in the business, Mr. Morgan pointed out that
none of the actual taxidermy process will be performed in Albemarle
County, rather this will just act.as a "receiving station" for
the fish, hides or capes. He explained that Mr. Wyland, the owner
of the property, will receive these items during the week, store
them in a freezer, and then he (Mr. Morgan) will pick the animals
up on the weekends and take them back to Hampton where the
processing will take place.
This was somewhat confusing to the Commission. Ms. Diehl pointed out that
Condition No. 9, as written., would prevent any of the process described
by Mr. Morgan from taking place on the property. Mr. Wilkerson stated
it was his understanding that the applicant would not be performing the
actual taxidermy process here until such time as the business has reached
the point where he can afford to re -locate here, and at that time the
applicant would need to apply for another special permit.
Based on Mr. Morgan's description of his intentions, it was determined
Condition No. 8--There shall be no storage or disposal of animal parts
other than capes, hides and skins --should be deleted.
There was some question as to whether or not a special permit was even
necessary at this time since what was proposed was really not much different
than just storing meat in a freezer. Mr. Cilimberg explained that it had
been a determination of the Zoning Administrator that a permit was
necessary. Mr. Michel noted that the only problem with not requiring
a permit at this point is that the applicant has already "been thrown
out in the middle of the process and to send him back another way" at
this point might create problems.
It was determined the word hazardous would be added to Condition No. 9.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-89-77 for Andy Wyland (Steve Morgan) be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Such occupation may be conducted either within the dwelling or an
accessory structure, or both, provided that not -more than twenty-five
percent (25%) of the floor area of the dwelling shall be used in the
conduct of the home occupation, and in no event shall the total
floor area devoted to such occupation exceed one thousand five
hundred (1,500) square feet;
2. There shall be no change in the outward appearance of the building
or premises or other visible evidence of such home occupation;
3. There shall be no sales transactions on the premises except those
involved in completed taxidermy;
AL 0
October 3, 1989
Page 6
4. No traffic shall be generated by such home occupation in greater
volumes than would normally be expected in a residential neighborhood,
and any need for parking generated by the conduct of such home occupa-
tion shall be accommodated on -site;
5. The home occupation shall comply with performance standards as set
forth in Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance;
6. This special use permit shall be applicable to this applicant only
and shall be considered non --transferrable:
7. Business hours shall be confined to. 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday
through Saturday;
8. No employees.
9. There shall be no hazardous chemicals used, stored, or disposed of
in the operation of the business.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SP-89-74 David & Dorothy Pollard - Request in accordance with Section 5.6
of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow
a single -wide mobile home to be located on a 141.490 acre parcel zoned
RA, Rural Areas. Property.described as Tax Map 131, Parcel 6, is located
on the west side of Rt. 795, approximately 4/10 of a mile north of the
intersection of Rt. 622 and Rt. 795. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Bosworth presented the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant co.;►ment.
Ms. Ellen Johnson, daughter of the Pollards, addressed the Commission.
She confirmed she would be residing in the mobile home and pointed out
that a mobile home had existed on this property at one time.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins :coved that SP-89-74 for David & Dorothy Pollard be recommended
to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following:
1. Albemarle County Building Official approval;
2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for
the district in which it is located;
3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the
mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the issuance of
occupancy;
4. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the
satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and approval by the local
office of the Virginia Department of Health;
October 3, 1989 Page 7
5. Maintenance of existing vegetation. Landscaping and/or screening to
be provided to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Required
screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced should it
die;
6. Mobile home is not to be rented;
7. Special use permit is issued for the use of Ellen P. Johnson's family
and is non -transferable.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZMA-89-15 Charlottesville Land Company - Request in accordance with Section
33.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to rezone the R-1 portions of a 86.048
acres from R-1 Residential to R-10, Residential. Property, described as
Tax Map 78, Parcels 55A, 55A4, 55A5, is located on the north side of.
Rt. 250E, west of Glenorchy and southwest of. Ashcroft. Rivanna Magisterial
District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to the applicant's proffers.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff to comment on the development's visibility
from Monticello. Mr. Fritz replied that the development would be visible
from Monticello and the only way to address this concern was through
landscaping design criteria. He pointed out that the landscaping shown
on the plan was the "maximum achievable," and, at maturity, would provide
the maximum screen available.
Mr. Wilkerson expressed concerns about traffic problems.
Mr. Bowerman felt the main issue was whether or not the proposal was
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In response to Mr. Bowerman's
question about the Board's input, Mr. Cilimberg stated the Board was
primarily concerned with setback and screening issues, particularly in
terms of the visual intrusion of the corridor. Mr. Bowerman asked if
staff felt this proposal was consistent with what the Board is looking
for. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "We're hoping so."
The applicant was represented by Ms. Virginia Gardner and Mr. Kuturah
Roell. Ms. Gardner offered little comment. Mr. Roell gave a brief
description of the type development that was envisioned, i.e. affordable
housing ($80,000 to $99,000) with a lot of green space and screened
from the highway for privacy and security reasons. In response to
Mr. Bowerman's question about the separation between the brick buildings,
Mr. Roell explained the brick homes would be 50 foot on center with
approximately 8-10 feet between wood columns that will support intermittent
fencing posts.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr.Andrew Drucopoli, representing Mr. Worrell, a neighboring property
owner, addressed the Commission. His concerns dealt with maintaining
the scenic quality of the Rt. 250E corridor and also with the preservation
of existing trees along the edge of Rt. 250.
bro
October 3, 1989
Page 8
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Diehl asked for a clarification of the acreage involved in the request.
It was determined the request was to rezone 8.4 acres.
Mr. :Michel asked about the scheduling for the construction on Rt. 250.
Mr. Cilimberg responded that it is planned that construction will begin
in 1990 and take approximately 2k years. He added .that the applicants
plan shows the required future VDOT right-of-way.
M-r. Michel noted that he had a tremendous respect for this developer.
He added: "My only concern on this project, as long as .there is 40 feet
for right-of-way and we're not literally looking over a 4-foot fence
at the road, is that when we went through our re -zoning process and we
went up to medium density --I have no problem with that. It is
inevitable that the development community will opt for the very highest
of our low, medium and high density.. I have some hesitation at the .upper
end of this site. It's not a given in a rezoning that you go to 10
any more than it's a given at low density, you go to 4. The value of the
land may require you to go to 10--I don't know. I think that's the issue."
Commissioner Wilkerson agreed.
Ms. Diehl stated that at the time of site plan review she would be looking
at ft "rational utilization of the land as it lays rather than trying to
cram as many units as possible on the site."
Mr. Bowerman stated: "Part of the reason that we car. require a good plan
here is probably because of the density because I think the amenities that
we are going to require on the site are rather expensive and if we don't
feel they are adequate we can increase the amenities provided. We .might
have a more difficult time doing that at a lower density. I don't have a
problem with the higher density in that location. I think it's consistent
with the plan, but I understand the concerns expressed by Commissioners
Wilkerson and Michel."
Mr. Stark moved that Z�U-89-15 for Charlottesville Land Company be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to .the
applicant's proffers as follows:
1. Access for Parcel 55A1 across the parent tract to utilize the
Westminister Canterbury access road.
2. Development access from Rt. 250 will be by way of the Westminister
Canterbury access road.
3. Detailed plans and specifications for exterior design, site plan,
access, landscaping and setbacks for this development will be
submitted to Westminister Canterbury for review. The applicant's
intention is to provide Westminister Canterbury with architectural
review of the project land to provide a development which complements
the Westminister Canterbury project.
4. No construction or improvements to this property will exceed
elevation 580.
1.5"/
October 3, 1989
Page 9
5. The developer intends to stair -step the townhome units according
to grade.
6. With regard to landscaping and fencing buffer for the development
of this property, the Applicant proffers to be in general compliance with
the preliminary plan of Jefferson Point Townhomes, as submitted on the
drawing dated 3 October, 1989.
7. The applicant proffers a 30' setback from the Rt. 250 right-of-way
and adjacent properties.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Wilkerson again expressed his concern about adding a large amount of
traffic on the already overburdened highway, particularly in light of
the uncertainty surrounding when the improvements to Rt. 250 will be
completed.
Ms. Gardner pointed out that the construction is phased to occur over a
three-year period.
Mr. Wilkerson expressed fear that even after 250 is completed it may not
be adequate to handle all the new growth.
Mr. Michel stated that though he shared the concerns about the highway,
his concerns were more aesthetic in nature. He added that he felt staff
"needs to look at rezonings that come in at the highest level possible
in the Comprehensive Plan.."
The previously stated motion for approval of ZMA-89-15 passed unanimously.
The item was scheduled for the Board on November 1, 1989.
OLD BUSINESS
Rickey Drive Storm Drainage Project - Mr. Richard Moring, County Engineer,
explained two project cost estimates for this project. The issue before
the Commission was not to choose one of the options, but rather to comment
on whether or not this should be considered a "public problem" and whether
or not the project should be included in the CIF public hearing on October
10, 1989.
He explained the problem was caused by the fact that at the time the
subdivisions were built the culverts under the road had been sized to
"handle the water discharged through them with no thought given to what was
happening on the other side." .
Mr. Moring noted that easements will have to be obtained and either
solution will impact some property owners who do not currently have
a problem. He pointed out that the costs were almost the same.
1_.M:
October 3, 1989 Page 10
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that this is an important question for the
Commission to answer, i.e. "whether or not to get into these kinds of
projects," because there are other problems like this in other areas.
Mr.tiioring questioned whether or not this could be considered of public
benefit because though there are homeowners who will benefit, they
will benefit individually.
Referring to the way the City handles this type of problem, Mr. Michel
stated that homeowners are required to contribute part of the money.
There was some discussion about a previous similar project, the Bennington
Road Channel, but Mr. Bowerman pointed out that that had been to
correct a "situation that we allowed to develop." Mr. Moring added that
that problem was different because an entire neighborhood was impacted.
Mr. Bowerman stated: "If VDOT is channeling runoff through rights -of -way,
through inlets to pipes, and then just discharging it downhill without
regard to where it goes, that does not seem to be the responsible way to
do it."
Mr. Michel felt the first issue is whether or not the County should assume
responsibility for these problems.
Ms. Diehl asked if that was the first issue, or was the first question
whether or not these problems should be dealt with through the Capital
Improvements Program. She thought there were other ways to assume
responsibility other than through the CIP, but she was was uncertain as
to what those other ways were.
Mr. Jenkins asked if the Commission was being asked to decide if the
County was going to assume responsibility for these projects, or if
that precedent already has been established?
Air. Cilimberg responded that the establishment of a precedent is of
some question since a project was done some years ago (Bennington)
which may or may not have been in the interests of a few property
owners. He added, however, that "the staff sees this type of project as
based on a private landowner's request, and seeing the effect of the
project as setting some kind of an initial precedent for what you might
be doing later."
Mr. Bowling stated: "Legally, you haven't esta'did-ed ary precedent because
each one of these cases must be decided on a case -by -case basis."
Mr. Wilkerson noted that he was not opposed to correcting the problem,
but he did have a problem with the County having to purchase the easements.
Ms. Diehl felt the project did not really fit the definition of projects
for the public good. She stated she was reluctant to include it in the
CIP because "it almost falls into the same category as all those little
housing keeping things the School Board puts in their CIP requests."
��a
October 3, 1989
Page 11
Mr. Moring stated he felt this project was on the same scale as some past
CIP projects. He stated some localities deal with these problems through
a priority list and a Public Works fund.
Ms. Diehl noted that including this type of project in the CIP will
result in the same type of list as the road improvements.
Mr. Bowerman stated: "I think we have a certain responsibility because
we have a. Comprehensive Plan which is meant to accomplish certain things,
one of which is to have an urban area where we have.a population that
can be easily served by services which we can accommodate with the
transportation system, services and public utilities. Along with that
goes certain responsibilities. This was either a State -sanctioned or
County -sanctioned improvement at some point when this subdivision was
built; it is not as though it is a situation which wasn't a direct
effect of -development, which we are trying to encourage in terms of
having a concentrated urban population. I think we have to recognize
that and we have recognized it in other areas where we've got regional
detention basins. It is just a question of where to stop the public
benefit --one person, two persons, three persons?"
Ms. Diehl felt this could not be equatedwith a regional detention
basin. She added: "I'm not negating the fact that we have some
responsibility --what I'm saying is I'm just not sure this particular
program is the place to address it. I don't know if there are alterna-
tives or not."
Mr. Rittenhouse suggested the possibility of lumping these types of
projects into a broad category with prioritizing of the projects as they
come up, with funding out of a "pot."
Ms. Diehl questioned whether such a "pot" would be appropriate in the
CIP.
Mr. Cilimberg felt it would be appropriate "if you had done some
preliminary planning or preliminary analysis of where you have just
a shopping list of projects along these lines and you had prioritized
(them) and you were saying with $50,000 a year or $100,000 a year you
were going to address those in some order."
Mr. Moring pointed out that at this point these projects are not a
County responsibility and the only guideline for making a decision
is precedent.
Mr. Michel felt some guidelines were necessary.
Mr. Jenkins felt that participants should be required to dedicate the
right-of-way. However, Mr. Moring pointed out that in this case many
of the properties that would have to grant easements are not actually
effected by the problem. Mr. Michel pointed out that the Engineering
Department cannot be expected to coordinate neighborhood participation.
Mr. Jenkins stated that if dedication of right-of-way became the policy,
and the community is aware of that policy, then they would have to act
accordingly. However, Mr. Bowerman pointed out that it had been decided
for road projects that availability of right-of-way would not be the
basis for prioritizing improvements, rather the basis would be public need.
/,57A
October 3, 1989
Page 12
Mr. Wilkerson questioned whether this particular project could be
considered for the public good since so few property owners are
effected.
Mr. Rittenhouse felt this was a very broad policy question, i.e. "if
we, as policy, begin to take on the responsibility for improvements or
corrections of developers errors and ommissions." He felt this was
a "heavy burden" for the County to undertake. He cautioned against
"inadvertantly starting down that road."
Mr. Bowerman agreed that this was a policy question which must be
addressed by the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was not yet willingto include this in the CIP.
Commissioners Diehl and Michel agreed.
There followed a discussion as to whether or not to include this project
in the CIP public hearing on October 10. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that a
note might be included recommending to the Board that the Engineering
Department study these projects with consideration being given to estab-
lishing a fund to handle them at some future time, but that this particular
protect not be funded at this time.
Xr. Bowerman asked if some of the Six -Year Secondary funds could be
combined with County funds. Mr. Cilimberg stated VDOT would not be
interested in using State money for projects not in the State right-of-way.
Ms. Diehl asked if staff feels there is no way to address these problems
except through the CIP. Mr. Cilimberg replied the CIP is the only County
fund which addresses this type of project.
Mr. Michel noted that since this is a "deferrable" project, the Commission
did not need to take any action other than to ask the Board for a clarification
of the policy.
Mr. Bowerman stressed that he felt the County hadsome responsibility
in these projects., but he was uncertain of the full scale of that
responsibility. He felt that immediate action should be taken to
define that responsibility.
It was decided that Mr. Cilimberg's suggestion would be followed, i.e.
that a statement be passed on to the Board recommending that the Board
direct the Engineering Department prepare a more comprehensive recommendation
regarding these kinds of projects for next year and beyond. Staff .was
to compose this statement and present it to the Commission at the October loth
meeting.
Ms. Diehl felt this issue should not be made a part of the CIP presentation --
that it be kept separate.
Mr. Rittenhouse attempted to clarify what he interpreted to be the consensus
of the Commission: "Right now CIP items are specific to projects, and I
think what we're talking about is a non-specific item that might be
included in future CIP's--a broad category of funding for a broader
category of projects. What Norma is saying is 'Let's keep those two
questions separate and let's look at our CIP recommendations on project-
or
October 3, 1989
Page 13
specific items and then talk separately about the policy of providing
future CIP's the broader funding category."'
It was decided the issue would be discussed under Old Business at the October
loth meeting.
West Ivy Shops (Townside II ) - Request for extension.
Mr. Fritz explained that the applicant has experienced delays related to
lack of information on water pressure and quantity of water from the
Lewis Mountain water tanks.
Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the West Ivy Shops
(Townside II) be granted a 6-month extension. The motion passed
unanimously.
Advance Mills Estate - This item was deleted from the agenda because
no extension was needed.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:05.
DS
/S4