Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 21 1996 PC Minutescm cm 5-21-96 MAY 21, 1996 1 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 21, 1996, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chairman; Mr. Bruce Dotson, Vice Chair; Mr. William Finley; Mr. David Tice; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; and Mr. Jared Loewenstein. Others officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. John Shepherd, Planner; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Huckle. At 7:00 p.m. Mr. Nitchmann called the Planning Commission meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of May 7, 1996, were unanimously approved as amended. Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the May 8th and May 15th Board of Supervisors meetings. ZMA-96-04 Encore Investments Ltd Partnership - Proposal to rezone approximately 11 acres from CO, Commercial Office and R-10, Residential to PD-MC, Planned Development Mixed Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcels 124A, 124B, and 124C is located on the north side of Rio Road east of Putt -Putt Lane in the Rio Magisterial District. This area is recommended for Office Service in Neighborhood 2. The applicant was requesting deferral to June 4, 1996. Public comment was invited. None was offered. MOTION: Mr. Loewenstein moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that ZMA-96-04 be deferred to June 4, 1996. The motion passed unanimously. SUB-96-005 Gilbert Station Woods Final Plat - Proposal to establish a rural preservation development consisting of 20 development lots averaging 5.31 acres and two preservation tracts containing 69.5 acres and 100 acres and two preservation tracts containing 79.5 acres and 100 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 33, parcel 31 and Tax Map 34, Parcel 22 is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is located on the west side of Rt. 640 approximately 0.6 miles west of Rt. 784 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Deferred from the May 14, 1996 Commission Meeting. /�s 5-21-96 2 Mr. Shepherd presented a brief verbal report , relating to the safety of Rt. 640, which was a response to questions raised by the Commission at the May 14th meeting. Additional information included the following: --In response to the question "Does this development substantially create the need for improvements to the road based on public health and safety matters?", staff gathered the following information: Comments from VDOT: Rt. 640 from Rt. 784 to Rt. 20 is "on the list of roads to be improved," but is not on the priority list and is not funded. The segment between Rt. 640 and Rt. 784 is not on the list for improvements at this time. The bridge is on the list for improvements, but is not currently funded either. Some maintenance to the bridge is scheduled for later this year. Rt. 640 is a gravel road and is not on the priority list for immediate attention. Paving the road could decrease safety because it would invite higher traveling speeds. Traffic volumes on this road are "relatively low" compared to other gravel roads in the County. Comments from the Education Department: This stretch of Rt. 640 is not on the Schools' list of 34 roads which it considers to be a problem. Comments from the Police Department: In the last 5 years there has been one accident on Rt. 640 (and one on Rt. 747). Both those accidents occurred during icy conditions. Based on this information, it was staffs position that "this development would not substantially create the need to improve the road, based on safety." The applicant was represented by Mr. Katurah Roel. He pointed out that Rt. 640, to the east, is very passable, and the majority of traffic will travel that way. No public comment was offered. Mr. Dotson said staff had presented a good report in its response to the issues raised by the Commission at the May 14th meeting. He pointed out that the Schools are not concerned about the road and it has no unusual accident record. He said he could now feel comfortable with taking action on the request. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Washington, seconded, that the Gilbert Station Woods Final Plat be approved, subject to those conditions listed in the staff report. dated May 14, 1996. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-96-05 Kenneth J. Newell (Applicant), CCAT2/University Limited Liability Company (Owner) - Proposal to amend the proffers for the University Village development, as established with ZMA 97-08, to allow development on the portion of the property closest to Old Ivy Road. Tax Map 60132, Parcel 1 (part), located at the existing University Village Complex on the north side of Route 601 (Old Ivy Road), just 5-21-96 3 east of the Route 20/Route 250 Bypass in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Property is zoned R-10 with proffers and is designated for High Density Residential in Neighborhood 7. Deferred from the May 7, 1996 Commission meeting. m SP-96-09 Kenneth J. Newell (Applicant), CCAT2/University Limited Liability Company (Owner) - Proposal to establish an assisted living facility on a portion of the University Village property. Tax Map 60132, Parcel 1 (part), located at the existing University Village Complex on the north side of Route 601 (Old Ivy Road), just east of the Route 20/Route 250 Bypass in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Property is zoned R-10 with proffers and is designated for High Density Residential in Neighborhood 7. Deferred from the May 7, 1996 Commission meeting. AND SDP-96-015 Kenneth J. Newell (Applicant), CCAT2/University Limited Liability Company (Owner) - Proposal to construct an assisted living facility of approximately 56,000 square feet on approximately 5.4 acres. Tax Map 60132, Parcel 1 (part), located at the existing University Village Complex on the north side of Route 601 (Old `%W Ivy Road), just east of the Route 20/Route 250 Bypass in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Property is zoned R-10 with proffers and is designated for High Density Residential in Neighborhood 7. Deferred from the May 7, 1996 Commission meeting. Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval of: (1) the ZMA, subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers; (2) the SP, subject to conditions; (3) the preliminary site plan, subject to conditions; and (4) a modification to allow one-way circulation. The staff report concluded: "Staff finds that the traffic generation from this property is adequately addressed by the proposed proffers and that the trade of development area and landscape/recreation area of the current proffers would not significantly compromise the intent of the current proffers regarding buffering of adjacent properties. Staff finds that the special use permit for the assisted living facility is supportable with conditions regarding facility size and provision of landscape buffering, and staff finds that the allowance for a one-way drop-off area is supportable. Staff believes that a pedestrian link between the proposed facility and the existing condominium building should be provided." Mr. Lilley said the County Attorney has advised that the applicant's proffers may need to be revised somewhat so that they will be clearer. M 5-21-96 4 Mr. Lilley referenced two petitions of opposition which were received by the Planning Department --one from Ivy Gardens containing 140 signatures and one from Huntington Village containing 73 signatures. Mr. Dotson asked if staff could distinguish between several similar terms which were used in the staff report and the proffers --nursing care facility, assisted living facility, health care facility, nursing home facility and personal care facility for the aged. Mr. Lilley said an assisted living facility is an "intermediate" care facility whereas a nursing care facility is more "involved" care which requires a Certificate of Need from the State Health Department. He deferred to the applicant for further explanation. The applicant's presentation was coordinated by Mr. Ed Bain. He was assisted by Ken Newell, Paige Williams, Phyllis Rubenstein, Tom Gale and Jack Shadey. Mr. Williams described how CCAT2 had acquired the property ("the remaining property of University Village and the unsold units") in 1995, from the original developer. Mr. Newell provided some background information on the applicant. Additional information and comments included: --This proposal does not increase the number of units originally approved, but does seek to change some of those units into "assisted care" units. --Holiday Retirement Centers, the applicant, is a nationwide company (headquartered in Richmond) with four centers already existing in Virginia. --The proposal is for a 53,000 square foot, 89-unit, assisted -living facility. Some units will accommodate 2 residents. Average age of residents is 72. State licensing will allow for 126 residents. --Nursing-home care requires a Certificate of Need and involves a high -degree of medical assistance and nursing care for the residents. Assisted -living (residential -care, personal -care), licensed as Homes for Adults in this state, provides a "turn -key lifestyle for residents and is a bridge between independent living and nursing home care." --This type of facility has no impact on educational systems and very little impact on traffic counts. Most traffic will be employee traffic. A shuttle service will be provided for residents. --The developer has indicated "at some point in time he wants to reserve the right to make University Village a full -service campus and offer nursing home care." --Area 10 (on the plan) is most suited for a future nursing home. An assisted - care facility, as the one proposed, is more "visibility need driven." Area 10 is not suitable because of lack of visibility and topographical problems. The site in front has been chosen because of its visibility and ease of access. --The applicant is willing to work with staff to "dress up" the proffers. In response to Mr. Dotson's question as to how the facility will fit in with the site, Mr. John Shady, architect for the project, presented a drawing of the project and explained the layout. 05 5-21-96 5 Mr. Tice asked about the area marked as "Area 9" on the plan. Mr. Bain said Area 9 is a stormwater detention facility and it will remain as is. Ms. Opal David, representing the University Retirement Village, addressed the Commission and read a statement supporting the proposal. Her statement is made a part of this record as Attachment A. Dr. Jackson Riddle, representing the University Village Owners' Association, addressed the Commission and a read a statement supporting the proposal. His statement is made a part of this record as Attachment B. Mr. Dotson asked Dr. Riddle how a resident of University Village might benefit from this proposed facility. Dr. Riddle explained a person now residing in University Village would be able to move to the assisted care facility at such time as he/she might become unable to live completely independently. The proposed facility can also provide care for a person who might be recovering from a hospital stay, acting as a temporary arrangement until the person is again able to live independently. Mr. Finley asked if the proposed assisted care facility would serve only University Village residents. Dr. Riddle replied negatively, explaining that the facility is for the entire community. However, in exchange for University Village providing the applicant ` W with "two easements off our drive," University Village has asked for "priority admission" for its residents. Public comment was invited. The following members of the public expressed opposition to the proposal: Robin Cordle (President of the Huntington Village Homeowners Association); Mr. Bill Finley, a resident of Huntington Village; Mr. Todd Schaffranek (Operations Manager of Ivy Gardens); Ms. Paige Mansey; Mark Webb (a resident of Huntington Village); Mr. Brian Betts (Operations Manager for Huntington Village); and Ms. Toby Packard (resident of Huntington Village). Mr. Cordle's comments, along with a sketch of the proposal showing its relation to Huntington Village, are made a part of this record as Attachments C and D. Reasons for opposition included the following: --There are other alternative sites on the University Village property which would have very little impact on the adjacent neighborhoods. --Lighting, noise and traffic will forever alter the character of the neighborhoods. --The neighboring properties relied on the proffers that were a part of the 1986 rezoning. Approval of this request would represent a "breach of trust" which was established by the prior proffers. --The proposed layout is solely for the convenience and profit of the developer. 09 5-21-96 C. Ms. Packard asked why the applicant repeatedly used the term "campus" in his comments. She asked if this project is in any way connected to the University. (Mr. Bain later addressed this comment and explained that the development is in no way connected to the University.) Some of those who expressed opposition to the current proposal said they had no objections to the development as approved in 1986. In response to a comment made by the public, the applicant said the site which already has a foundation in place is not desirable for the Manor House because of the costs involved in removing what has already been constructed, the cost of road improvements to reach that part of the property, and because the applicant feels the proposed site is the only "attractive and acceptable site," for this facility at University Village. Addressing questions raised about stormwater detention provisions, Mr. Tom Gale, engineer for the project, said the applicant will have to meet all the requirements of the County's Stormwater Detention Ordinance as a part of the final site plan. He said the stormwater detention facility which is presently in place on the property may have to be increased in size. 1%W Mr. Nitchmann asked about parking requirements. Mr. Lilley explained the applicant has provided more parking than required by the Ordinance. Mr. Bain said the applicant would be willing to reduce the parking spaces. Mr. Lilley explained how the traffic generation figure had been calculated. Mr. Newell said, in most areas, the figure is based on 'A beds = the equivalent of 1 residential unit." Mr. Newell thought the approach taken by the Planning staff was "probably the more aggressive approach in terms of impact." Mr. Bain said he felt the Board of Supervisors, in its original approval on this property, had made a "philosophical decision" based on the determination that "we have this, it is an area close in to town ... and the decision was made given the traffic and given the problems which existed at that time, and exist today along that stretch of Rt. 601." He said the present applicant is "reducing the number so that the traffic will not go beyond what was originally anticipated in terms of the use of this property." Mr. Tice asked staff to compare the size of this proposed facility with the size of an indoor tennis pavilion (which had been shown for this location on the original plans for the property). Mr. Lilley said he could not quote square footages. However, he pointed out the location where the recreational area was shown on the original plan. Those plans included two indoor tennis courts, 120' x 120', plus parking. He pointed out the location where future residential units had been planned. He concluded that something o-q 5-21-96 7 about the size of this currently proposed facility was "what was originally envisioned." He concluded: Visually, I would estimate about three-quarters of what is presently proposed was previously proposed in terms of the footprint, not including the residential units." He said inclusion of the residential units would probably make the previous proposal larger than this present proposal. The facility proposed is approximately 32' to 35' in height. Regarding the original proffer related to the recreational area, Mr. Lilley said the proffers indicate "recreational facilities would have been placed in that area to include 2 indoor tennis courts and 2 or 3 outdoor tennis courts, among other things." In terms of buffering Mr. Bain said: We will do what the staff and Ordinance require and will do more than the Ordinance. We understand the concerns from the neighbors. In terms of the lighting, the parking area must have some lighting, but the Ordinance will require that it be directed inward. I'm not sure what was meant on the comments about security. Security will be present at this facility 24 hours/day. If it relates to outsiders, we were not planning on fencing, but if that's a suggestion and both the Huntington Village people and the Commission think that's important, we can address that." Ms. Washington tried to understand better what was meant by the term "assisted care" facility. She wanted to know specifically if it meant persons with disabilities, other than those associated with the aging process, could be accommodated at this facility. Mr. Newell explained the average resident of the Manor House will be 82 years of age, and 75% will be female, 25% male. [NOTE: In earlier comments, Mr. Newell had said the average age was 72.] He said the facility will not be licensed to care for the mentally or emotionally handicapped. Residents who may, over time, develop age -related mental disabilities (e.g. dementia) to a point where they can no longer live independently in this type of residential care facility, would have to be moved to a facility licensed as a nursing home. Mr. Nitchmann asked what percentage of residents will come from the local population. Mr. Newell estimated approximately 10% will be residents who have been "recruited" from family members who are already residents of the facility, or who have family members who live in the area. He concluded: "Clearly, when we do our market analysis, we base all of our penetration rates on a 10-mile circle. Basically, it's a home- grown product." Average stay of residents is 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 years. However, the facility can also be used temporarily for persons who are recuperating from surgery or illnesses, when short-term care is needed. Those persons would then move back to their own homes. The socio-economic level served is, typically, "middle class." Mr. Tice said, in his opinion, one of the more objectionable aspects of the location of the parking lot in terms of how it replaces "green" space. He asked if consideration had r:D 5-21-96 8 been given to putting the parking area on the opposite side of the building. Mr. Newell said the applicant had considered that possibility, but because of the topography of the property, it was not feasible. Also, the applicant wanted the front of the building to have a proper orientation to Old Ivy Road. Mr. Finley asked how this proposed design compares to the originally planned recreational facility in terms of its impact on the view from surrounding properties. Mr. Newell said only a few of the Huntington Village buildings are actually on the property line. He did not think the visual impact was significantly different. The proposed building is approximately 32 feet high and an indoor tennis facility could be 30 to 35 feet high and would not be as architecturally pleasing as this building will be. A member of the public, Mr. Mike Kwellen, Property Manager for Ivy Gardens and Huntington Village, was allowed a brief comment. He pointed out that almost 30 homes share a boundary with this project. He expressed concerns about traffic. He said his primary concern, however, was the fact that one of the original proffers for University Village had provided for "green zones --recreational areas," and that proffer was offered as an incentive for the County to approve the project. He said: "I assume that those landscaped areas were to protect somebody or to preserve something, and if not the homes adjacent to it, then what? By moving the facility from the back of the property to the front as proposed here, you are shifting the burden of the facility from outside their windows to outside of our windows." There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann asked what types of uses could be placed on this property if it were to be sold today. Mr. Lilley explained that only a "landscaped recreational area", as described in theproffer which was a part of the original rezoning, could be placed on the property. Mr. Lilley also pointed out the location of residential areas as they were on the original plan. That plan was for a total of 260 residential units, 230 in the main building and 30 in independent, single-family type units. The original proffers restrict the usage of those single-family units to the elderly (62 or older). This current plan would change that total to 204 residential units. Mr. Nitchmann asked where the Manor House could be located on the property, other than what is proposed here. Mr. Lilley pointed to Area 10 on the plan, which was originally designated for a health-care facility. That facility had been approved as a nursing home by a 1989 special use permit. It is in that location that a foundation was begun, but later abandoned. That foundation remains in place. Mr. Dotson asked if the facility proposed here could have been located in Area 7 on the original plan. Mr. Lilley said the original proffer ties Area 7 to residential development 1401 only. Without modification of the original proffers only Area 10 (on the original plan) 5-21-96 9 Now could be used for a health-care facility. Mr. Lilley confirmed that the proposed Manor House is considered a health-care facility. Mr. Nitchmann said the proposed use is one for which there is an increasing demand. However, the current proposal, though it represents a tastefully designed facility, must be weighed against the adjacent property owners who relied on the proffers made with ZMA-87-08. Those proffers said this area would be used for recreational uses which would have more "green area" than this proposed building, regardless of its attractive design. Mr. Dotson said the question for him is "what credence to give the proffers." He said the neighbors have relied on the original proffers as to the development of this property so the importance of those proffers is a factor. Another factor to be considered is whether this proposal, even with neighborhood opposition, might be in the best public interest. Neighborhood reaction, though important, is not always the only factor the Commission must consider in its decision. He cautioned the public that denial of this request means the neighbors "may get what you want" which may be a large recreational facility that does not have the open space which presently exists. Another factor is that this site does have other possibilities where this proposed facility could be located, though it may not be the most favorable from the applicant's viewpoint and it might require a new zoning text amendment and new proffers. He said he did not think `'W the neighbors oppose the proposed use, but rather they have relied on particular proffers about the uses in this area. He concluded: "In my point of view, weighing all those factors, I am inclined to give considerable credence to the proffers as they stand now and not support this request." Mr. Loewenstein said he agreed with Mr. Dotson. He added: "In addition to placing reliance on the proffers, which is an important part of the process, I think it is important for us to keep in mind what we have done as a County and what we have said and the factors that were weighed in making previous decisions. I agree with you that neighborhood opinion is important. I don't think it is always sufficient to override the public interest in the larger sense, but I think, in this case, since there is an alternative location on this site where the same use could be achieved, that certainly is a mitigating factor. I understand the commercial interests associated with a venture of this kind and I appreciate the applicant's position in that respect. But I think we do have to respect the existing proffers and I think we have to respect the commitment we have made as a County and, therefore, I am not prepared to support this." Mr. Finley pointed out that the original proffer would allow for a tennis pavilion on this site. He wondered how much difference, in terms of view from adjacent properties, there might be between this building vs. a tennis court with buffers in place. Given the topography of the property, he said the buffers will probably not make much difference given the fact that Huntington Village will still be looking down on the site. He 5-21-96 10 concluded: "Overall, I would tend to support the request, taking all things into consideration." Mr. Nitchmann recalled many times, during his service on the Commission, where neighbors have expressed concerns about the impact of development on adjacent property. Many of those times, it would have been helpful if proffers had been in place on the property. He said: "Proffers were put in place on this property. Now, because the development of site No. 10 is not as attractive, or for whatever reason, for the health care center, this site now looks like a good site (to this developer). ... We've always looked at proffers as being fairly sacred, at least I have. We go out of our way to ask developers to put specific proffers on property to try to protect people. My concern is, if we approve this, in one sense we are throwing out the proffers that were put in place 14 years ago to try to protect a group of homeowners who live in Ivy Gardens. I realize we are in a changing world (but) I have a hard time with this because if I voted for this I would be saying the reason the previous Board and Commission asked for proffers in 1984 doesn't hold water today and any proffers we put in place today (would not be important) 10 years from today just because the property did not get developed at the time (the proffers were accepted. ) I like the Manor House approach; I think it really serves a need in the community; we're all going to be needing that at some time in our life." He said he would have liked to have had more information from the developer as to why site No. 10 was not acceptable for the Manor House. He said he did not really view this as commercial space, but rather as very tastefully done living space. He said he would have liked to have seen the applicant meet with the adjacent property owners to address some of their concerns, e.g. type of fencing, width of buffer, etc. Mr. Dotson said he thought the nature of the project was "a good idea", but "the location is not a good idea." MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved that ZMA 96-05 for Kenneth J. Newell (applicant), CCAT2/University Limited Liability Company (Owner), be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Loewenstein seconded the motion. Mr. Kamptner, in response to Mr. Finley's questions, explained the options available to the applicant in the event the Commission recommends denial to the Board. Mr. Dotson asked if the applicant were able to address some of the public concerns, as stated by Mr. Nitchmann, and possibly relocate the building on the site, would a new application be necessary. Mr. Lilley said if a new proposal were "substantially different" a new rezoning would be required. Mr. Kamptner said: "What would likely happen is that the Board might refer it back." Mr. Cilimberg added: "At a minimum, it might come back to the Commission if it were a change of location. The rezoning applies to the % entire property and it indicates proffers as its been advertised. But if there is a /VY 5-21-96 11 substantial change in the way things are being proposed, it would come back to you." Mr. Dotson summarized: "Minor modifications could be addressed by the Board; major (modifications), it would need to come back here." At Mr. Finley's request, Mr. Cilimberg briefly explained the staffs role in the review of projects in terms of interaction with the applicant and the public. Mr. Cilimberg said it is the Commission's and Board's role to make a decision based on all the information presented by staff, the applicant's presentation, and the public comment which is presented at the public hearing. Mr. Finley said he relies very heavily on the Planning staffs recommendation in his review of proposals. The motion for denial passed (5:1) with Commissioner Finley casting the dissenting vote. Mr. Kamptner reminded the Commission that even though the Commission was recommending denial of the ZMA, it still needed to give guidance to the Board on the special permit application, (in the event the Board should approve the ZMA). To mitigate impact on adjoining properties, Mr. Dotson suggested an additional condition: "Parking not to exceed the minimum Ordinance requirements." Mr. Nitchmann said he would like to see a wider buffer between the two facilities and also a type of "tastefully done fencing" that would be acceptable to the adjacent property owners. Mr. Tice again expressed concern about the location of the parking lot. He felt it would better protect "the integrity of the green that was originally promised between Old Ivy Road and the building" if the parking were moved to the "back." Mr. Cilimberg said there was extensive cut area in that part of the property referred to by Mr. Tice. Moving the parking to that area would involve more of a cut. Mr. Tice thought the tradeoff in protecting the green area, even if terracing and retaining walls are needed, was worth making the change. Mr. Tice also thought this change would also better address stormwater runoff from the parking area. Mr. Nitchmann questioned how well elderly residents would be able to maneuver the parking area if moved as suggested by Mr. Tice. Mr. Kamptner asked for clarification on the Commission's intent in respect to the landscape buffering. He read condition No. 3 as proposed: "Landscape buffering between the assisted living facility and the Huntington Village residential development shall be provided as required by the Albemarle County Planning Department staff." Mr. Nitchmann said he had not intended his suggestion to be in the form of a condition because he did not know for sure, at this point, whether a fence was a good idea. He felt it was sufficient that his concern was a part of the record. He suggested no modification to the condition as read by Mr. Kamptner. 5-21-96 12 14W Mr. Dotson asked if the pedestrian link, mentioned in the comments about the site plan, might be appropriately addressed with an added condition on the special permit. Mr. Cilimberg replied affirmatively. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that SP-96-09 Kenneth J. Newell (Applicant), CCAT2/University Limited Liability Company (Owner) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Facility to be located in general conformance with the preliminary site plan for "Manor House at University Village" dated February 26, 1996, and revised through May 2, 1996. 2. The number of beds for the assisted living facility shall not exceed 126. 3. Landscape buffering between the assisted living facility and the Huntington Village residential development shall be provided as required by the Albemarle County Planning Department staff. 4. Parking shall not exceed minimum Ordinance requirements. 5. A pedestrian link shall be provided between University Village and this facility. (Related to current proffers which call for site development to include a network of walking paths and to provide for internal circulation needs.) Mr. Kamptner commented: "If the Board approves the rezoning and accepts the new proffers, the new proffers don't include that pedestrian link. But this condition stands independently to address the circulation internally." The motion for approval of the special permit passed (5:1) with Commissioner Washington casting the dissenting vote. It was the consensus of the Commission to defer action on the site plan until after the Board's action on the ZMA and SP. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded, that the Kenneth Newell/ CCAT2/University Limited Liability site plan deferred to June 18, 1996. The motion passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. M 5-21-96 m KO IJ om V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary 13