Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 04 81 PC MinutesMay 4, 1981 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a work session on Monday, May 4, 1981, from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David P. Bowerman, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Corwith Davis; Mr. Allan Kindrick; and Mr. Richard Cogan. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr, Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; and Mr. Keith Mabe, Principal Planner of the Planning Department. Also present were members of the Sign Commission: Mr. William Edwards, Chairman; Mrs. Jacquelyn Huckle, Ms. Harriet Mohler, Ms. Ellen Nash; Mrs. Martha Selden. Absent were Ms. Margaret Morton and Mr. Leroy Graves. Also present was Mr. Jesse Hurt, Deputy Zoning Administrator. Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. Mr. Keeler gave some background on the Sign Commission's proposed ordinance, explaining that the Board of Supervisors had directed the Planning staff and County Attorney's office to make editorial changes, as necessary, to make the text functional and compatible to the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Keeler stated that after review and discussion, he, Jesse Hurt, Deputy Zoning Administrator, and Mr. Payne had determined that the proposed ordinance would require substantial rewriting in order to make it legally and administratively workable. Mr. Keeler added that for this reason, the proposed text was being submitted to the Planning Commission for review with no changes. He said that it was believed that this action was consistent with the desires of the Board of Supervisors and the Sign Commission. Mr. Keeler summarized the difference between the existing ordinance and the proposed one as consisting of assigning controls by zoning district currently and by category of road in the proposed ordinance, that is, category of road on which a business is located. He added that there are three different categories: Federally aided primary routes, Federally aided secondary routes, and all other routes. He also said that additional regulations applied to Scenic Highways. Mr. Keeler also pointed out that the proposed ordinance differed in sign area, number of signs, and sign content substantially. He stated that additional require- ments on the construction of signs were included in the proposed ordinance, a need that was not addressed in the present ordinance. Mr. Keeler said that it was his understanding that the original sign ordinance had been drafted as a separate document, but that he believed that the Board wished to have it incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance. In such a case, he further said, the references to permits contained in the proposed ordinance would be eliminated, as well as anything pertaining to administrative procedures, since this area is already regulated in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Skove asked what the advantages and disadvantages were to including the sign ordinance as part of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Keeler replied that he was not certain of the reasons the Sign Commission had in developing the sign ordinance as a separate document. Mr. Skove asked whether 250 West and Route 20 south were the only Scenic Highways ' in the County. Mr. Keeler replied that 250 West, Route 20 South, and Route 6 throughout the County. He added that the State had designated 20 South and Route 6 Scenic Highways and the County had designated 250 West. Mr. Payne explained that the ordinance provided for both Commonwealth designation of Scenic Highways and designation by the County, the criteria being the same as State criteria except for the size of the road. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any other questions to be asked of Mr. Keeler. Mr. Edwards asked for Counsel to comment on the sign ordinance being a separate ordinance. Mr. Payne replied that he knew of no authority for having a separate ordinance for controlling signs to such a comprehensive degree, other than in the Zoning Ordinance. He added that he had never seen a separate sign ordinance, that he had always seen it as part of a zoning ordinance. Mr. Edwards stated that when the Sign Commission began its work, it was his recollection that having the ordinance separate was desirable. He stated that if such was not the case, if it was not feasible or workable, it should not even be considered. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Edwards whether the Commission had had any feelings about the matter one way or another. Mr. Edwards replied that he did not believe so, that the purpose of the Sign Commission was to study signs and explore their regulation. Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Edwards would like to make a presentation of some kind or whether he preferred to answer questions. Mr. Edwards replied that he believed Mr. Keeler had given a complete report that did not require further elaboration. Mrs. Huckle explained that the majority of roads in the County are Federally aided primary and secondary. She said that two additional changes proposed by the Sign Commission had not been addressed: the lowering of the size of the signs was done in conjunction with a change in the setback. She explained that in the original ordinance a sign was considered as a structure and therefore had to comply to set- back requirements as a building would. Mrs. Huckle further stated that although the sign size would be smaller under the new proposed ordinance, the signs could be placed closer to the highway. Mr. Kindrick entered the meeting. Mrs. Huckle continued, saying that the City ordinance was twice as liberal as the County's in size allowed. She added that malls were not addressed in the ordinance and would be handled as a variance. Mrs. Huckle said that Mr. Roosevelt of the Highway Department had offered some guidelines on size of lettering, which were used in determining at what speed what size would be visible. She added that this was the reasoning behind using highway category to determine size and placement of signs. At speeds higher than 45 m.p.h. 10" high lettering is visible at a distance of .50 to 100 feet, and at speeds less than 45 m.p.h. 8" high lettering is visible at a distance of 400 to 800 feet, according to the Highway Department. She elaborated that on primary roads speeds are higher, there is 0? more traffic and greater commercial development. On secondary roads there is less competition for the driver's attention and speeds are less, Mrs. Huckle stated. Mrs. Huckle said that she would like to ask Mr. Keeler what he meant when he said that the proposed sign ordinance included a change in sign content. Mr. Keeler responded that two items came to mind - one, in certain cases a business could not advertise its products or services on its on -site sign; and two, off -site advertising was prohibited. He gave as an example a restaurant could have its name and distance in miles, but was prohibited from stating "restaurant, dining and dancing." He added that he thought this parallels the City's ordinance, which prohibits off -site advertising and has resulted in some City commercial establish- ments advertising in the County. Mr. Edwards remarked that Counsel had indicated that regulation by highway type was feasible or workable. However, Mr. Edwards continued, perhaps the concept of regulation by zoning districts was more intrinsic in the law. Mr. Edwards also mentioned that there had been some discussion of regulating by rings around the City, but that it had been determined that this method would not be equitable and would not work. Mr. Edwards added that under the proposed ordinance free-standing signs are exempt from the setback requirements for structures. He stated that he had personally objected to the Board of Supervisors that sign sizes as currently allowed are too restrictive. Mr. Edwards said that as proposed, signs could be closer to the highway but would not exceed 35 square feet nor be 20 feet above grade, if located not closer than 15 feet from the highway. He said that if the signs were located %No, further than 50 feet from the highway, they could be 64 square feet in size. Mr. Edwards said that one of the items the Board of Supervisors charged the Sign Commission with was ratios. He elaborated that one of the ratios discussed and discarded by the Sign Commission was the concept of allowing more than one sign on properties with large highway frontage, such as Jim Price Chevrolet. Mr. Edwards explained that there had been discussion of allowing a property with more than 300 feet of frontage an additional sign. Mr. Edwards mentioned that the Jim Price Chevrolet sign is 87 square feet which exceeds the proposed regulations. He added that this is the smallest standard General Motors sign made, but that it is used for service rather than sales. Mr. Edwards added that a small property such as Acme Stove is permitted the same sign size as a larger property such as Jim Price. Mr. Edwards added for the information of the Planning Commission that the Bill Edwards' sign was 137 square feet, exceeding the present ordinance limits but was permitted by variance, as a hardship in relocating from the City. He added that he did not believe that this proposed ordinance provided for any additional signs if there were multiple businesses on one site, except on the building on that site. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any further comments. Mr. Edwards listed the members of the Sign Commission (given at the beginning of these minutes). Mrs. Selden gave some sign sizes of existing local businesses. She stated the sizes of free -standings signs of the following in square feet: Roy Rogers 40 sq. ft. Hardee's 56 sq. ft. Sperry Rand 42 sq. ft. The Hub 100 sq. ft.(in excess of) Mr. Donut 30 sq. ft. The Mall 200 sq. ft.(in excess of) *40 Mrs. Selden stated that her understanding of the mandate to the Sign Commission was an indication on the part of the community and governing bodies that signage impact should be reduced on 29 North. She added that the City's ordinance was used as a guideline in the interest of having the two jurisdictions compatible. Mrs. Selden continued, saying that it was a surprise on 250 West that sharply decreased sign sizes did not prompt complaints. She said the Ivy Nursery and Real Estate III both redesigned signs in a more tasteful style. Mrs. Selden said that there had been a couple of requests for signs closer to the road and one variance request from Real Estate III. She said that this concept of smaller more attractive signs would hopefully appeal also to businesses along Route 29 North. Mrs. Diehl asked whether this was the same committee as the Scenic Highway Committee. Mrs. Selden replied that it was not. She went on to say that certain signs along the railroad and on 29 North had been removed by the Federal Government, under the provisions of Mrs. Johnson's Law, and that these signs had been compensated for. Ms. Harriet Mohler said that she would like to comment on Mr. Edwards' disagreement with the Sign Commission's position on the size of signs in relation to the size of property. She explained that the majority feeling on the matter had been that the size of the property was not so much relevant as the type of business. She gave as an example a warehouse with a lot of property did not have the need for signs that a fast food concern close to the highway on a small piece of property had. Ms. Mohler explained that it proved too difficult to compile categories of businesses requiring signs and was counter to the intent of the Commission. She said that the Commission had given the matter a great deal of thought. Ms. Nash asked Mr. Keeler to explain his earlier comment about off -site signs. She said that it was the intent of the Sign Commission to prohibit off -site signs, except for location. Mr. Keeler responded that he had pointed out that the proposed ordinance differed from the existing ordinance in this respect. Mr. Keeler added that it was not the staff's intent to comment specifically on the proposed ordinance today, but that some of the language, references and intent of the proposed ordinance were not clear. As an example, Mr. Keeler pointed out that in reading the proposed ordinance literally, a moving truck such as the Monticello Dairy truck would not be permitted. Mr. Gloeckner asked at what stage the Planning staff would become involved in a formal review. Mr. Keeler said that the Planning staff had not been requested to do so. Mrs. Diehl asked whether staff was expecting some sort of direction from the Planning Commission. Mr. Davis inquired whether Mr. Payne had looked at the proposed ordinance, adding that it appeared to him that some of the restrictions impinge on First Amendment rights. He asked what the restrictions would be on a large land owner with contiguous land, several different road frontages, perhaps several 0 parcels. As an example, Mr. Davis mentioned the breeders of Angus and the prevalence of Angus signs. Mrs. Selden and Mr. Edwards pointed out that there was already a precedent for restricting home occupations, that the current ordinance did so quite severely. Mr. Edwards added that agricultural enterprises permitted not more than three signs. He also stated that these restrictions were for signs not requiring permits. He said that if desired, a sign could be applied for by permit. Mrs. Diehl said that exceptions were being raised to the restrictions proposed. Mr. Edwards said that he thought Mr. Davis' point was an important issue to raise. Mr. Payne stated that the First Amendment applied to signs generally and that commercial speech was being accorded more deference than ever before. He added that if any distinction were made between one sign and another it had to be based on some articulable reason and that reasonable, realistic advertising had to be allowed. Mrs. Diehl said that before getting too technical, she had two questions. First, she asked about the philosophy behind the Sign Commission's desire to change from the previous ordinance to one based on highway designation. Mr. Edwards said that he could summarize the Commission's position by saying that this approach seemed valid in order to satisfy the different needs of County residents. He said that this approach recognizes the different needs of, say, a rural setting as opposed to strip development. He added that this approach took into account speeds in relation to sign size, another valid point. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Sign Commission had had an opportunity to examine ordinances from other localities where ordinances had been developed both by zoning districts and by highway designation. Mrs. Diehl asked, if this had been done, whether an evaluation of the effectiveness of one over the other had been established. Mrs. Selden said that an ordinance based on highway designation was in effect in Fauquier County, which had experienced strip development similar to that of 29 North. Ms. Huckle said that another advantage to this method was that as a road category changed, as a road became more used, people could simply change to larger signs. Ms. Nash stated that the Sign Commission found the zoning issue to be complicated and that zoning did not take into account travel speeds or remain constant on both sides of roads. She said that this problem had caused the Commission originally to look for alternatives, adding that the idea of zoning circlesaround the City had come out of this d_lemma.. ids. Nash said that the Commission had been advised that such an approach would not stand up constitutionally. She added that the Commission had looked at ordinances in several different localities, including California and Michigan and various ordinances within the State of Virginia. Ms. Nash stressed that the Sign Commission's proposed ordinance came out of careful study of these ordinances and after a lot of thought and effort. Mr. Edwards said that he sensed that the Planning staff wished to present the r Planning Commission with a different proposal and he saw no reason why the staff should not make its own independent report. Mr. Edwards said that he believed the Planning Commission should examine the Sign Commission's proposal, any report '3/D the Planning staff might prepare, and should additionally consult legal counsel. Mr. Edwards emphasized that the Sign Commission was made up of amateurs, not ordinance writers. He said that the Sign Commission had been charged with investigating the sign situation in Albemarle County and had come up with suggestions based on the ordinances they had studied. Mr. Edwards said that a viable sign ordinance was needed. Mr. Keeler said that the intent of the Planning staff was to red flag any language that might be illegal, unconstitutional or unclear. Other questions addressing sign size, the number to be permitted, etc., he stated were subjective issues. Mr. Keeler said that the Planning staff would probably have some comment on regulating signs by roadway. He pointed out that these highway designations were based on funding, not function. Mr. Keeler said that the funding was established a long time ago and that for example part of 250 was classified primary and part secondary. No new roads are being added to this classification, he stated, so that when the function of a road changes, its financing probably will not. Mrs. Selden responded that although this might be true, there was a relationship between the two. She said that 250 West was reclassified from primary to secondary when 1-64 was put in and returned to primary status later when it was determined that 250 West was still filling the functions of a primary roadway. Mr. Keeler gave an example of 240 at Crozet back east to 250 is Federal primary, permitting the most liberal signs, and 240 back down to 250 is classified as "other roads" with the most restrictive signs, making each section of 250 different. He said that in other cases funding stopped in the middle of a roadway. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne and Mr. Keeler how they viewed the charge from the Board of Supervisors. She remarked that she thought the Sign Commission and the Planning staff should get together and let the Planning staff flag problem areas and provide the Sign Commission with the information it needed to develop this as part of an ordinance, not separately. Mr. Payne responded that he did not believe that a body should write an ordinance. He said that he thought this a function of the Planning staff - to draft, edit and collate n•_w textinto the existing ordinance. Mr. Payne said that his understanding of the Sign Commission's function is to identify problems and propose substantive solutions. He gave some examples as recommendations that certain sign sizes were too large, exempting free-standing signs from setback regulations or reducing the setback requirements for free-standing signs, etc. Mr. Payne stated that he did not recall advising the Sign Commission on a regular basis on legal issues. And he added that he saw a number of legal issues raised in the proposed ordinance. Mr.Payne stated that perhaps the only feasible route was to have the Sign Commission present its position to the Planning Commission and for the Planning Commission to give some direction to Planning staff as to how to draft a proposal for adoption into the existing ordinance. Mrs. Diehl remarked that this might involve a lot of superfluous study if the final document were to be radically changed. Mr. Payne reiterated that he never recommended that any body, commission or committee write an ordinance, simply because it is not equipped to write the language. He added that this draft needed a lot of editing in his opinion. *484 Mrs. Diehl said that if such were the case, she would like to see an edited version of this proposal and receive Sign Commission comment on the edited copy, 3/1 cm since the Sign Commission had a vested interest in this proposed ordinance. Mrs. Diehl asked the other Commissioners how they felt about proceeding. Mr. Cogan expressed his desire to have staff go through the proposed ordinance, almost paragraph by paragraph, and compare it to the existing ordinance and then make suggestions. Mr. Payne said that he thought it would be almost easier to have a different ordinance proposed to the Commission, a new draft based on the suggestions contained in the Sign Commission proposal. Ms. Huckle said that this proposed ordinance was supposed to be an improvement over the existing ordinance and that if the language and wording were not clear and the intent in the proposed ordinance not evident, that perhaps the Sign Commission and Planning staff should get together to improve it. Mr. Jesse Hurt, Deputy Zoning Administrator, said that he did not believe that there were many problems with the existing ordinance. He suggested that perhaps changes were warranted in setback regulations and maybe size. He said that he thought these matters could be addressed through amending the present ordinance. Mrs. Selden pointed out that the proposed sign ordinance would allow signs of greater size in some cases than those signs presently in existence. Mr. Edwards said that a thought occurred to him, based on Mr. Payne's opinion that the actual writing of an ordinance should be the task of the Planning staff, to have the Planning staff take the Sign Commission's proposed ordinance, which contains the Sign Commission's suggestions and specific ideas on size dimensions and setback measurements, and have the Planning staff incorporate this into the existing ordinance. Then, Mr. Edwards continued, the Planning staff could present the Sign Commission and the Planning Commission with the finished draft for review. Mr. Davis questioned whether County government was empowered without a public referendum to regulate signs other than as a matter of public health, safety and welfare. He pointed out the subjective nature of preference for small or large signs, wooden or neon. Mr. Payne stated that a locality was empowered to consider aesthetics in zoning, but that it was a distinctly secondary consideration. He added that the principle issue involved in dealing with signs was traffic safety. Ms. Nash said that she wished to point out that the original charge to the Sign Commission included not only the issue of sign sizes but also the issue of making the ordinance more readable. She said that there had been citizen complaints of the difficulty in understanding the current ordinance. Ms. Nash said that the Sign Commission had attempted to simplify the text and had organized the ordinance with sections on purpose, definitions, where permits were required, and then regulations. She added that this was one of the reasons for going with the highway classifiecation system, out of the belief that it was a simpler approach. Mr. Skove asked whether the idea, then, was to send the proposed ordinance to the Planning staff and to Mr. Payne for editing and legal counsel. Mrs. Diehl answered that it seemed to be desirable to have the staff work on the proposed ordinance, taking into account the suggestions of the Sign Commission and their charge to keep the language simple, and then have the Sign Commission �/ L review the edited draft and make any further suggestions to the Planning Commission. Mrs. Diehl asked whether any other Commissioners had another idea of how to proceed. Vaid Mr. Gloeckner asked whether Planning staff needed some direction on philosophy from the Planning Commission. Mrs. Diehl said that the Board of Supervisors had charged the Sign Commission with the task and therefore their philosophy or direction should be the guide. Mr. Gloeckner said that he still believed that the professional opinion of the Planning staff might differ from that of the Sign Commission and as such should be presented. Mrs. Diehl responded that she believed this to be a work session and at such time that a public hearing were held, staff comment would be sought. Mr. Payne said that if the fundamental differences between what the Sign Commission has proposed and what the Planning staff might proposed were great enough, he believed that the staff might more easily initiate its own document instead of reworking the Sign Commission document. Mrs. Diehl stated that she still disagreed because the Board had expressly charged the Sign Commission and not the Planning staff with the task of drawing up a proposal. She added that the Sign Commission's finished product would be reviewed and staff comment, input and alternate proposals received at that future date. Mr. Skove concurred with Mrs. Diehl. 4400 Mr. Davis agreed that it was important to keep the integrity of the document as proposed by the Sign Commission, but.that he saw no problem with having the staff point out problem areas, edit or otherwise smooth out this draft. Mr. Gloeckner asked whether this proposed ordinance would be reviewed as a separate ordinance or be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Payne responded that he believed whatever final document was agreed upon would have to replace Section 4.15.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, be incorporated into the existing Ordinance. Mr. Bowerman said that his approach would be to have staff incorporate every item possible into the existing Ordinance and then have the Sign Commission review that draft, then submit the rewritten version to the Planning Commission with a staff explanation of how and why the document was revised, plus Sign Commission comment on any points with which it disagreed. It would then, he continued, perhaps be the role of the Planning Commission to make a judgment when there was a point in dispute. Mr. Gloeckner agreed with Mr. Bowerman that such a revision should be discussed in another work session, at which time Planning Commissioners could also have input, prior to a public hearing. Mrs. Diehl asked whether a motion was in order. 3l3 Mr. Gloeckner moved that staff study the Sign Commission document and then try to incorporate the Sign Commission's ideas as much as possible into the present ordinance, giving a reason for any deletion or addition, then holding a work session with the Sign Commission, then finally another work session to be held between the Sign Commission, Planning staff and the Planning Commission to go over the final document. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Gloeckner was referring to the Zoning ordinance when he made reference to the present ordinance. He replied that he was. Mrs. Diehl asked about how the issue of zoning district versus roadways was to be handled. Mr. Gloeckner responded that staff should point up the difference and suggest its alternative, if the basic premise was not agreed upon. Mr. Bowerman said that he thought this issue should be resolved from the start. Mr. Cogan said this proposal would have to be studied in two phases, in the first stage whether the ordinance could be by highway designation instead of by zones. He pointed out that until a decision were made on that premise, no further review of the Sign Commission proposal could take place. Mrs. Selden asked whether the Planning Commission fully understood the Sign Commission's reasoning. `rrr' Mr. Cogan replied that the Commissioners did but that it was a question as to whether it was legally feasible, which was a question for the Planning staff to address. Mrs. Selden responded that Mr. St. John had indicated that their position would stand legally. Mrs. Diehl asked whether everyone understood the motion on the floor. She asked whether she understood correctly that should the Planning staff differ with the Sign Commission's premise, staff would discuss alternatives with the Sign Commission. Mr. Gloeckner replied yes, that other approaches would be discussed between the two parties. He added that there might not be a great difference of opinion between them. He said that function of roadway might be agreed upon, rather than funding. Mr. Gloeckner said that perhaps they were not too far apart. Mrs. Diehl called for a vote on the motion, which carried by a vote of 6 to 1. Mrs. Diehl voted against the motion. Mrs. Diehl thanked members of the Sign Commission for their attendance and said that she looked forward to another directive from them in the future. Mrs. Diehl stated that the remainder of the work session was to be spent on assigning priorities on the Capital Improvements Program. She added that there had been difficulty in obtaining an actual dollar figure on the amount of funding available. �y Mr. Tucker explained that since an actual amount was not available, he suggested that the Commission address the issue of priorities and leave the question of funding those priorities to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Skove asked why the Finance Department could not provide a bottom line figure. Mr. Tucker explained that for the first time since the establishment of CIP, the annual quarter of a million dollars contribution to CIP could not be met. He said that this appropriation was not being made in order to avoid raising taxes. He added that Finance was examining each department's fiscal budget at the present time and could not provide a CIP figure at this point. Mr. Skove asked about the criteria for establishing the priority level. Mr. Mabe passed out the list. Mr. Tucker explained that the criteria was taken from another county that had used a similar process. Mr. Mabe added that the same criteria was used by each agency in setting its own priorities. Mr. Skove said that it appeared that safety priorities might continually take precedent over other needs, pushing certain projects back each year. Mr. Tucker replied that this could happen. He cautioned that with such a shortage of funding, the setting of priorities was based on safety needs, after sensing such a concensus among the Commissioners. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Mabe to explain a urgent classification to a school project under III Education. Mr. Mabe responded that its rating was in order to finish an already funded on -going project. Mr. Cogan asked whether outside funding was considered in setting a priority rating. Mr. Mabe replied that this was considered, when outside funding was already committed for a project. Mrs. Diehl wondered whether there would be time after it were known where Federal cuts would come, to reallocate funds from one project to another. R Mr. Bowerman said that with such limited funding, it became a matter of making a judgment based on public health, safety and welfare - the need for a fire station at the southern end of the County, for example. He said that a sacrifice would have to be made with the loss of Federal funding and he would prioritize fire protection and school repairs necessary to prevent further deterioration. He further explained that priorities should be set according to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that a project that could await future funding was the redesigning of the County office building, the architectural fee for a study. Mr. Gloeckner asked whether the Commission should take the items and put them in an actual list of priorities. Mrs. Diehl wondered whether a statement might be in order, saying that given the situation with reduced funding, the considerations should be the welfare of the community - something general without picking out specific projects. Mr. Gloeckner and Mr. Skove and Mr. Bowerman believed that a listing was needed. Mr. Davis suggested that it be by category. *100 Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Davis said that fire, rescue and safety had to be their priority. J I / Mrs. Diehl pointed out that a certain project might be urgent within a general category that might not be considered a high priority. Mr. Bowerman said that the solution would be to prioritize individual projects. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Commission would change any of the urgent ratings given to individual projects by the staff. Mr. Tucker suggested that the Commission prioritize the urgent projects until the funding gave out. Mr. Cogan and Mr. Gloeckner said that there was really no alternative to listing in order of priority all of the urgent projects. Mr. Tucker offered to have the Planning staff attempt to rank the urgent projects, according to guidelines proposed by the Commission, if there were a concensus. Mr. Skove remarked that it was unlikely that CIP was going to have any significant impact on the Comprehensive Plan. He said that the Crozet interceptor should be taken out of the Comprehensive Plan if it were never going to be built. Mr. Tucker said that review of the Comprehensive Plan would be coming up and that would be the time to address this issue. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Commission felt ready to proceed to a public meeting with the list of urgent needs as stated. err Mr. Tucker explained that the Code did not require a public hearing but that in the past a public meeting had been held. He recommended a late afternoon meeting. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that an afternoon meeting was agreeable to the Commission. Due to a heavy schedule, it was determined that there was no convenient date before May 18. Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that staff might have ranked the urgent projects by then and there might even be a bottom line figure from Finance by that time. There was a concensus to hold the public meeting from 4 to 6 on that date. Mr. Tucker said that an amendment was requested to the Ivy Creek Natural Area. He explained that the site plan had been approved by the Commission, but that two picnic areas on the plan were in open space and the applicant did not wish to install picnic tables. Mr. Tucker explained that handicap facilities had been an additional requirement to the picnic areas. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the applicant wanted the area to remain in its natural state. Mr. Tucker replied that he believed that to be the intent of the applicant, who was unable to be present. Mr. Gloeckner asked whether the City and County would operate the Natural Area. Mr. Tucker replied that they would. OR Mr. Skove asked why the applicant wanted the two picnic areas eliminated from the plan. Mr. Tucker said that he was not certain, but understood that it was to avoid a cluttered look in a natural open space. Mrs. Diehl pointed out that with many classes visiting the Natural Area, it would take many tables to accommodate a lot of school children anyway. Mr. Cogan moved to eliminate the designated picnic areas on the Ivy Creek Natural Area site plan. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously with no further discussion. There was a motion for adjournment at approximately 6:30 p.m. R bert W. Tucker, Jr., Sec tar y 311