1998-08-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

251 Ms. Richards noted that she was not present at the Planning Commission public hearing, and asked if a definition existed for a pharmacy. Ms. Richards also asked if the Planning Commission had discussed Council's request to make a recommendation regarding the percentage of pharmaceutical retail to other retail allowed. Mr. Higgins said that pharmacy definition used is one defined by other localities, and said that the majority of the Planning Commission was comfortable with the amount of pharmaceutical retail being more than 50% of the retail. Ms. Richards asked if the transitional zone discussion which is now occurring for B-1 zones in Fifeville is comprehensive enough to be applied to other areas, and Mr. Higgins said that the transition process is localized to the Fifeville area. Responding to a question from Ms. Daugherty, Mr. Higgins said that the City has more design control with a special permit process than with a by-right process. Mr. Cox said that he objects to the process used to negotiate an agreement on this request outside of the Comprehensive Plan review and thinks doing so is spot zoning and provides a benefit mainly to the applicant. Mr. Cox said he intends to vote against the proposed ordinance and he feels it establishes a very poor precedent. Mr. Cox said he hopes Council will reconsider the request in the context of the Comprehensive Plan review process a year from now. Ms. Richards said she agrees that the process was triggered by an individual application, but she does think there is public benefit in having a pharmacy within 100 feet ora hospital. Ms. Richards said she is concerned that the size restrictions for pharmacies in B- 1 zones make it difficult for them to be viable businesses, but she is not convinced the proposal before Council is the best idea. Ms. Daugherty said that the special permit process proposed gives Council more design control than would be allowed by right and she will support the proposed text amendment. Mr. Caravati said that having the special permit process is a comforting thought and he is impressed by the neighborhood support of the compromise. Mr. Caravati said that he does not think that the text amendment is spot zoning, but he would prefer to talk about the issue in a more comprehensive way and to do a more comprehensive review of B-I zones. No action was taken on the proposed text amendment. ORDINANCE: RENEWING U. S. SPRINT FRANCHISE Mr. Clyde Gouldman, City Attorney, explained that the franchise agreement only applies to the portion of Sprint's assets in the railroad right-of-way that crosses City streets in four locations. Mx. Gouldman noted that the franchise a~eement does not impose a franchise fee because state law has eliminated the City's ability to charge that fee for telecommunication. Mr. Gouldman recommended that if Council wants to explore adopting a Use Fee, which is allowed by State taw, that it do so separately. Mr. Caravati noted that Adelphia Cable Corporation is exploring using their lines for telecommunications and asked about the impact this would have on the City's ability to charge a fee. Mr. Gouldman replied that he is unsure what telecommunications legislation portends for the future. On motion by Ms. Richards, seconded by Mr. Caravati, the ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A TELECO~CATIONS FRANCHISE TO US SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, ITS SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS TO USE THE STRF, ETS AND OTHER PUBLIC PLACES OF THE CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, VIRGINIA FOR ITS POLES, WIRES, CONDUITS, CABLES AND FIXTURES, FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE (5) YEARS)" was offered and carried over to the next meeting for consideration.