Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 28 1995 PC MinutesM 3-28-95 MARCH 28, 1995 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 28, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Vice Chair; and Mr. Bruce Dotson. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg; Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior planner; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Jenkins and Vaughan. The minutes of March 14, 1995 were unanimously approved as amended. ----------------------------------------- CONSENT AGENDA Addition to Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that the Consent Agenda be accepted. Ms_ Huckle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Free Union Baptist Church and Memoiriai Cemetery - request for a special use permit to permit the expansion of an existing cemetery located on 2.85 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(32)]. Property, described as Tax Map 29, Parcel 26, is located on the north side of Route 609 approximately 900 feet west of Route 601 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 1). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant was represented by Mr. William Finley. He explained that the church has formed a non-profit corporation, in accordance with State Code, which will operate the cemetery. No public comment was offered. Mr. Dotson asked if staff had any concerns about the back portion of the property which is being reserved for future cemetery exnansion_ He wondered if it was necessary for the applicant to have to come before the Commission again, when expansion is needed, or if the entire property could be considered at this time. Mr. Fritz responded that the entire property could be considered if that was the Commission's desire. He explained: "The only reason we put that on there was to iV6-, n 3-28-95 2 limit it. What is shown as the cemetery is the existing open area. The detail of that plan starts to give out as you get into that area and it is harder for me to guarantee that all the Health Department regulations, etc., could be met with ease in those areas. But you could allow them to get into those areas if you maintained that Health Department requirement." Mr. Fritz stressed that he did not believe there were any issues of concern about the back portion of the property, but he could not say, "with certainty," that there are none. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-94-32 for Free Union Baptist Church and Memorial Cemetery be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The cemetery shall be limited to the existing cemetery area and that area shown on a plan of the Free Union Baptist Memorial Cemetery west section dated 4/20/93 and initialed WDF, 3/8/95. Use of the area shown as "reserved for future cemetery development" shall require amendment of this permit. 2. Compliance with all Health Department regulations. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 1%W CPA 95-01 Mill Creek - Proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for 80.34 acres from Industrial Service to Low Density Residential. Property located south of 1-64, west of Avon Street, north of Mill Creek Subdivision. Mr. Lilley distributed a copy of a resolution of support signed by the President of the Mill Creek Homeowners Association. (This document was later read by Mr. Michael Matthews and is made a part of these minutes as Attachment A.) Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the request. Ms. Huckle noted that the staff report states that this development should continue to accommodate the connector road alignment. She asked at what point in the process that requirement should be applied. Mr. Lilley said that the applicant is well aware of the Camp Plan recommendation for the extension of an Avon Street/5th Street Connector. He indicated the time to address this issue would be at the time of the rezoning. Ms. Imhoff wondered if language should be added to the Comp Plan regarding the Southern Connector alignment. Mr. Cilimberg explained that language already exists in the Comp Plan which calls for "the road to be as shown in the existing plan and that line would not change with this amendment --its just the land use that is above that line." rm K��'1.1 3 In response to Mr. Dotson's question, Mr. Lilley confirmed that this was an applicant initiated request, but one which the Board had directed that the staff process. The applicant was represented by Ms. Andrea Craig. Her comments included the following: --Mill Creek has provided the County with 10% of the county's affordable housing sales for the last 4 years. --This property is within the designated growth area and at one time was zoned residential. --The property is not suitable for industrial development because of topographic and access constraints. -The price of homes in this development will begin at $90,000. Mr. Blue asked if the applicant had any plans for the road system to cross Biscuit Run. Ms. Craig said, to the best of her knowledge, that possibility has not been discussed. Public comment was invited. Mr. Mike Matthews, President of the Mill Creek Homeowner's Association, addressed the Commission. He read a resolution of support for the application. (See Attachment A.) There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann said he felt this proposal made sense. He noted that this is one of the few developments in the County which is addressing the affordable housing issue. He expressed support for the proposal. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that CPA-95-01 for Mill Creek be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Imhoff had two concerns. She expressed the feeling, as she has in the past, that it is difficult to review Comprehensive Plan amendments while in the midst of the Comp Plan review process. She understood that the Board had directed that this request be considered, but she felt "at some point, there needs to be a cut-off on amending the Comp Plan while you are working on the Comp Plan because it is had to look at all of this in the bigger picture." She acknowledged that she was familiar with the history of this project and she supported staffs recommendation. Secondly, /�Y IJ 3-28-95 4 she wanted the record to be clear that this property does have a shared responsibility to developing the Southern Parkway. Ms. Huckle asked if the Commission had any "leverage' over the Southern Parkway issue in relation to this Comprehensive Plan amendment. Mr. Davis replied: "No." He added: "The Comp Plan already shows this parkway as being an element of the transportation plan. It is in there and at this point this proceeding is simply designating, in general terms, what is appropriate for that part of the County." Ms. Huckle noted that all three local schools which will serve this development are currently exceeding their maximum capacity enrollment. She concluded: "So 1 guess we are building in some new schools into the budget." Mr. Dotson said he was very comfortable supporting this request. He felt the designation of a lot of sites will have to be re -considered during the Comp Plan review, if they have not developed under their current designation. The motion for approval passed unanimously. SP-95-02 Crestar Bank - Request for a special permit to allow the expansion and relocation of the existing drive-in window of the Albemarle Square Branch Office, providing three drive-in lanes instead of one. Tax Map 61, Parcel 123A, is 1.186 acres and is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Rio Road and Route 29 North, at the Albemarle Square Shopping Center, within Neighborhood 2 in the Rio Magisterial District. Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to one condition. The staff report addressed the major concerns of the request, which were impact on local traffic, local circulation, and conformance to Architectural Review Board recommendations. Mr. Blue asked if the drive-in windows which exist at the to -be -abandoned Crestar facility north of this site will be abandoned. Mr. Lilley said he had not been able to find a special permit for the site referenced by Mr. Blue. Mr. Lilley deferred the question to the applicant. Mr. Cilimberg explained that if a special permit exists, then the drive-in windows would stay with the land. But if there is no permit, then the Zoning Administrator will have to determine whether the use can be maintained during the transfer. Mr. Cilimberg did not know if the question could be answered. Mr. Steven Weisensale, representing the applicant, addressed Mr. Blue's question. NwwHe explained that the lease on the site to the north, referred to by Mr. Blue, will be J�� 09 3-28-95 5 terminated. The building., which is owned by Crestar, will be turned over to the lease holder and covenants will be a part of the termination of the lease which will restrict the opening of another branch bank for a given period of time on the parcel which is being abandoned. He explained that Crestar would not want a competitor to open another branch "in a hand -delivered building." He said the standard restriction time is 3 years. He was not certain what the time period is in this case. Regarding the request before the Commission, he explained that the applicant will be abandoning the existing 2 drive-thru lanes, and will be repositioning them and adding a drive -up ATM. It was determined the bank is presently using 4 drive-thru lanes [1 at the old Jefferson building, (just north of the main building) 2 at the location presently being reviewed, plus 1 ATM drive -up]. With this request, the lane at the old Jefferson building will be closed, leaving a total of 3 lanes. There was no public comment. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-95-02 for Crestar Bank be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition: 1. Modification of the drive-in lane entrance such that two-way traffic is permitted or that clear signage and pavement markings are placed to indicate the intended direction of vehicle travel. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- SP-95-01 Centel Cellular of Charlottesville - Petition to construct a communication tower/antenna and support buildings on 4.154 acres zoned HI, Heavy Industry [28.1.1(13)]. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 67 is located at the end of Northside Drive in the Northside Industrial Park which is located on the west side of Route 29 approximately 0.9 miles north of Route 649 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in the Community of Hollymead and is recommended for Industrial Service. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Ms. Imhoff asked what tower height was needed by the applicant. Mr. Fritz replied that the applicant has requested 180 feet. He explained that past Commission recommendations have been for 200 feet to allow some flexibility. Above 200 feet a tower must be lighted. 1. G 09 01 3-28-95 g Mr. Dotson asked for further explanation of condition No. 4 which says "Staff approval of additional antennae installation." He asked how many antennae are proposed at this time. Mr. Fritz replied: "There is no condition addressing the number of antennae. That would allow staff to look at the antennae installation. There is no number given." In terms of the number of antennae proposed at this time, Mr. Fritz could not answer immediately, but offered to defer to the applicant or to check the file and answer the question later in the meeting. The applicant was represented by Mr. Dick Gibson. (He was accompanied by several Sprint representatives.) He made some general comments about towers and cellular usage which were applicable to both this request and the one which would follow (SP 95-04). He explained how "search areas" are identified. Significant comments included the following: --Centel is obligated, under charters with the FCC and the SCC, to provide the cellular service which the public demands. --The antennae from the tower transmits at 100 wafts/channel. Mobil units transmit at 3 watts; portable units transmit at .6 watt. This is controlled by the FCC. --There was determined to be a problem with coverage between the current Rio Road site and the Ruckersville site. "A need was defined to have seamless, portable coverage along Rt. 29, and at the airport, from the Rio Road site to the Ruckersville site." --Both the proposals tonight are part of an integrated system to achieve "seamless' coverage throughout the County. --This proposal is for a 165-foot, monopole, with antennae on top which will make the overall height 180 feet. The tower will be painted slate gray. It will be slightly visible from Rt. 29. Initially eight (8) antennae and a tightening rod will be mounted on the tower. No dish antennae are anticipated on this structure at this time. The tower will be located off of Rt. 29, on the Hall Body Shop property. The property is zoned H1, is away from residences and is in a busy industrial and traffic corridor. A 12' x 28' equipment building and an 8' security fence will also be located on the site. The lease area is 1,525 square feet. Ms. Huckle asked if the tower was collapsible. Mr. Gibson replied affirmatively, explaining that the towers were designed to "hinge over' and collapse within the lease area. Ms.Huckle expressed concern about the nearness to the airport. She wondered if the tower should be lighted. Mr. Gibson explained that lighting is controlled by both the FCC and the local Airport Authority. There is no requirement that this tower be lighted. Ms. Imhoff asked why the applicant could not use some of the existing towers. Mr. Gibson explained that (1) they are not in the search area and (2) interference that the /ter/ 3-28-95 existing radio towers would create would render communication from the cellular tower meaningless. There were determined to be no other cellular towers on the Rt. 29 North corridor. Mr. Dotson wondered if this site could lend itself to accommodate additional towers and possibly become another tower farm. Mr. Gibson replied: "The lease area itself, because of the size, couldn't. But Mr. Hall owns a lot more than just the lease area, so it would be up to him. It would not be a problem as far as Sprint is concerned." He confirmed that there are no restrictions in the lease which would prevent the property owner from leasing adjoining property for other towers. Mr. Blue asked Mr. Davis to comment on the Commission's ability to require an applicant to allow competing towers on adjoining property. Mr. Davis replied: "1 think the advice you have received in the past is that it may not be appropriate to require as a condition of this permit that they allow competitors on the same pole. But certainly the idea of a tower farm and grouping them in one location is an appropriate zoning consideration." Mr. Dotson asked if the tower would in any way interfere with communications at the airport. Mr. Gibson responded that issue is controlled by the FCC. He explained that any communication that would be occurring would be on different segments of the RF spectrum. He said that cellular is confined to a narrow band of that spectrum. He was not aware of any interference issues, but he said there is a provision, regulated by the FCC, which requires "the last person in, if there is interference, to resolve it." Mr. Dotson asked if this use would in any way interfere with the University's research park which will be developed near the tower. Mr. Gibson did not feel there would be any interference, because of frequency separations. He felt the tower would be a benefit to the research park. There was no public comment. Mr. Fritz reminded the Commission that two actions were needed: one on the special permit request and one on the waiver request for the distance separation due to height. Ms. Imhoff expressed concerns about the placement of these towers, which she felt are very visually intrusive. She noted that this property backs up to PDIP property and though it may not be intrusive at this time, it could be in the future. Though she felt staff had made a good point, "that this is Heavy Industry, which is a combination of a lot of different uses," she felt this "goes beyond the visual intrusion that you would have with an HI zoned use." She also felt that special permits for towers should be "really crafted for the particular request and should not have a lot of flexibility," i.e. the proposal should be specifically described as to height, number and types of antennae, 3-28-95 8 etc. She said the only positive factor of this request is the fact that it may be possible to create an area where towers on Rt. 29 can be co -located. She concluded: "My `,,,,,,. instincts are to say 'no', I don't think it meets my test for a special permit, but convince me that this would satisfy all our tower needs on Rt. 29 North and become our tower park, as recommended by the Comp Plan." Mr. Blue asked if staff wished to comment on Ms. lmhof 's suggestion that this location become a tower farm. Mr. Fritz explained that staff had reviewed this request for this tower only and had not considered the possibility that the site could be used for other towers. Mr. Blue felt the current request should be considered as proposed by staff. If the Commission feels that the idea of a tower farm in this location should be studied, then staff should be directed to begin that study. Ms. Imhoff said her comments were meant to be very general. She was concerned, however, about the number of "individual, stand alone, requests" which continue to be submitted. She wondered where the first step should be taken to implementing the Camp Plan's recommendation that these uses should be grouped together. Mr. Dotson recalled that the Commission had, during a previous hearing for a tower, requested that a work session be held to discuss the entire cumulative tower issue. Mr. Fritz reported that staff had met with the applicant after the Commission had made that request. The applicant identified various study areas. Mr. Dotson felt the Commission was more interested in the "strategy" for dealing with future towers. Ms. Huckle noted that it has been the County's policy for some time that these towers should be located together and not scattered all over the County. She said it appeared that new technology related to cellular phone usage has changed that policy. Mr. Cilimberg explained that reviews for cellular towers are different than reviews for other types of towers in that they need to be "lower, but closer to clientele on the road systems." Ms. Huckle asked if there is a requirement that these towers be removed when they are no longer in use. Mr. Fritz explained that this is addressed in the existing supplemental regulations (Sec. 5.1.12). MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP-95-01 for Centel Cellular of Charlottesville be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Tower height shall not exceed 200 feet. En 3-28-95 9 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground. 4. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval Sl iali constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section. 5. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area. 6. Tower shall be located within lease area shown on Attachment C. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that a waiver of Section 4.10.3.1, to allow a reduction in setback requirements, be granted for SP-95-01. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. SP-95-04 Centel Cellular Company of Charlottesville - Petition to construct a communication tower/antennas and support buildings on 302 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District [10.2.2(6)]. Property, described as Tax Map 73, Parcel 28, is the Ivy Landfill. This site is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District and is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 3). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. (Mr. Fritz added Condition No. 7: Compliance with the conditions of ARB of March 20, 1995. Ms. Imhoff suggested that condition No. 4 should be reworded so as not to conflict with No. 7.) The applicant was represented by Mr. Dick Gibson. His comments included the following: --The need for the tower is the same as with the previous request, "to provide seamless portable coverage," which does not currently exist in this area. This tower will provide portable coverage on 1-64 between the Camp Holiday Trails site and the Buck's Elbow site. cm 3-28-95 10 Ms. Imhoff said it had been her impression that the Camp Holiday Trails tower, which was approved not long ago, would meet Centel Cellular's needs for some time to come. Mr. Gibson apologized if he had said anything to lead Ms. Imhoff to that conclusion. He explained that this site was already "on the drawing boards" at the time the Camp Holiday Trails site was approved. He recalled that there had already been, at that time, discussions with staff about locating a tower at the landfill. Ms. Imhoff asked if the applicant had any other requests in the making at this time, or are the 2 being requested this evening adequate for the next 10-15 years? Mr. Gibson replied: "No. This is not it for the next 10-15 years. We have other sites under consideration." Though he said he was sure there are other sites being considered in Albemarle County, he could not name them specifically. He explained: "I think this will fill out the western corridor and the Rt. 64 area. The one you have just approved will fill out the northern corridor along Rt. 29, but there are other corridors and there are other areas where there is not sufficient portable coverage now. I'm not here to tell you that this is the end. But I will tell you that we will continue to be as careful as we can as far as the visual intrusiveness of these towers are concerned. We are very sensitive to that." He pointed out that the ARB has given approval for this tower. In response to Ms. Huckle's question about the possibility of higher wattage towers or higher power portable units. Mr. Gibson explained that tower wattage is controlled by the FCC, and the applicant has no flexibility. He said there is some controversy about the safety of higher power units in terms of health hazards. Mr. Nitchmann asked about the transmitting distance of a portable unit (.6 watt). Mr. Gibson estimated it to be 3-6 miles. Mr. Nitchmann concluded: "So you would need a tower every 3 to 6 miles throughout the county to get full coverage using .6 watt hand- held cellular units, assuming no change in topography, and all line of sight." He could foresee this was going to become a significant problem, not only locally, but throughout the country. Mr. Gibson agreed. Mr. Nitchmann felt it was time to make state legislators aware of this problem. Mr. Gibson continued his comments: --The request is for a 180-foot monopole to be painted rust brown. Eight antennae, a lightening rod, and two dish antennae will be located on the tower. The tower will be unlit. It will be located 2,100 feet from 1-64 on the County landfill property, 550 feet from the nearest dwelling. A 12' x 28' equipment building and an 8' security fence will also be located on the 3,000 square feet of lease area. He said the tower will be visible to travellers on 1-64 for only a few seconds. He presented some aerial photographs of the site. --The tower will be a much less intrusive use of the landfill property than is the landfill itself. --Visibility should be minimal because of the rolling topography. --Engineering studies have shown that radio waves transmitted by cellular towers pose no health hazard to citizens or the environment. The towers operate at 3-28-95 11 `AW 100 watts (compared to 1,500 watts for hair dryers or 5,000,000 watts for television). These towers transmit non -ionizing radio waves. Public comment was invited. The following residents of the Ivy area addressed the Commission and expressed strong opposition to the request: Mr. Fritz Ferry; Ms. Barbara Hams; Mr. Sal Palumbo; Ms. Gertrude Webber (Malvern Farm); and Mr. Jim Camblos (representing his parents). Their reasons included the following: --If the purpose is to provide service to persons travelling along 1-64, why should it be hidden from those people. It is more reasonable to locate the tower adjacent to 1-64 where it will not pollute a residential area. --The tower will be 140 feet over the tree line. There are many residences which will be looking down on this tower. --The landfill is not visible to many residences in this area, but this tower will be visible, --The tower will pollute this rural area and destroy the beauty of the Ivy valley. --The tower will detract from land values, including two historic properties -- Woodstock Hall and Malvern Farm. --There have been no in-depth studies of the impact of the tower. --Potential health hazard. --Potential negative impact on television satellite dishes in the area. Mr. Gibson was allowed to address public comments. He repeated that this tower will be less visually intrusive than is the landfill. He explained that this will be a "coverage" and not a "capacity" site, i.e. this tower is not meant to accommodate additional capacity, rather this tower is meant to fill a "gap" in continuous portable coverage. Mr. Blue asked: "So this could have been on the other side of the landfill, closer to I- 64, and have served the same purpose?" Mr. Gibson responded affirmatively. Mr. Nitchmann asked if a shorter tower would be adequate if it were located closer to 1-64. Mr. Gibson thought it probably would be shorter, though he could not say for certain. Mr. Gibson noted, however: "You've got competing interests here. Since this is in the Entrance Corridor Overlay, the ARB wants it be back as far off of 1-64 as possible." Mr. Gibson stressed that scientific evidence has shown that towers are not a health hazard. On the issue of decreased property values, he pointed out that many of the very expensive homes in this area were built after the landfill was created. Mr. Larry Bickings, a Sprint representative who had been involved in site acquisition, addressed the Commission. He presented a map of the search area and pointed out those areas which had been considered. In 3-28-95 12 Mr. Nitchmann asked if the site adjacent to 1-64 had been dismissed because of the Entrance Corridor Requirements. Mr. Bickings responded: "Yes, basically." There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Imhoff felt the issue is one of an applicant who wants "seamless portable coverage" vs. "the character of the rural historic area." Considering these two needs, she felt the county needs to stand by the character of this rural area. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-95-04 for Centel Cellular be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Nitchmann said he would support the motion. He agreed with some of the residents who had pointed out that the landfill will one day be closed, but this tower will be another eyesore to look at for a long time. Regarding this location, he suggested that the applicant and staff go back to the .AR8 and say "you can't write things in concrete regarding everything that has to do with the entrance corridor." He +w. added: "If the majority of the people who want seamless service for cellular are the people who are travelling up and down 1-64, they shouldn't mind seeing a tower along 1-64. If we are worried about visitors to the community seeing the tower, they are passing through at 70 mph and are seeing it for a total of (a few) seconds out of their whole look at Albemarle County. That is not to say that we want one every 6 miles along 1-64, but I think there are other places to put these things." He felt that the County is going to have to look seriously at cellular usage and the impact of towers and this may mean having to get both state and federal representatives involved in the issue. Mr. Dotson said he thought the applicant had tried to do a good job, given what they thought were the parameters. He said they may have freer; too oriented to trying to avoid 1-64. He said he had been persuaded that this tower would not have that much impact on the 1-64 traffic. He suggested that "with some different framework there might be some other sites." He said he would support the motion. Ms. Huckle said the emphasis had been on the impact to 1-64, where the tower will only be visible by travellers for 3 seconds, and not on the residents who would have to look at it constantly. She added that if there is going to be a need for a tower every 5-6 miles, the County needs a new policy to address this new technology. cm gn 3-28-95 13 Mr. Blue said he would not support the motion, and though he agreed with Commissioners Nitchmann and Dotson, and partially with Commissioners Huckle and Imhoff, he was not going to argue the point. The motion for denial passed (4:1) with Commissioner Blue casting the dissenting vote. Staff asked the Commission to either take action on the waiver request (in the event the Board approves the request), or else note that no action is being taken on the waiver request. Ms. Imhoff stated: "For the record, we are not addressing the modification request this evening." SP-95-05 Antony E. Champ - Petition to allow more than 600 square feet for on - premise sale and/or consumption of wine [5.1.25(e)]. Property, described as Tax Map 26, parcel 52, is located on the west side of Rt. 674 approximately 800 feet south of Rt. 673 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 1). Aftw Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to one condition. The applicant was represented by Mr. Rick Carter. (Mr. and Ms. Champ were also present.) He presented a model of the proposed building . He explained the design and how the building would be used. In response to Ms.Huckle's questions, Mr. Champ said that it is envisioned that the building will be open only on weekends. He said that grapes grown both on the property, and off, will be used. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Dotson asked staff to clarify whether the area will be 3,000 square feet or 1,750 square feet. Mr. Fritz explained that the 3,000 square feet refers to the entire area, much of which is not used. The 1,750 square feet refers to the public area (marked Visitor's Lounge). Mr. Dotson wondered if the permit should reference the 1,750 square feet. He did not think it was the Commission's role to say exactly where the public area should be located. Ms. Imhoff noted that now that hog, poultry and livestock operations are by -right, she felt this type of use should also be by -right, with supplementary regulations. 3-28-95 14 '"r MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-95-05 for Antony E. Champ be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval (with no conditions). Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10. X: V9 I