Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 15 1995 PC MinutesAUGUST 15, 1995 The Albemarle Count, Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 15, 1395, Room , County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Whose members ,resent were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. T om Blue, Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson, - Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr, Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Imhoff and Nitchmann. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of July 25, 1995, were unanimously approved as submitted. Mr. Cilimberg summarized actions taken at the August 9, 1995, Board of Supervisors Yleetil Ig. CONSENT AGENDA Adventureland Preliminary Site Place - Request for a modification, of Section 4.2.3.5 of the Zoning Ordinance in order to permit activities on critical slopes. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion: passed unanimously. [NOTE: The Chisholm Site Plan Waiver Bequest had been taken off the Consent Agenda. It was rescheduled for the August 29th Consent Agenda.] Staff was requesting deferral of all of the following three items. ZTA-95-03 Farm Sales - Amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit by special use permit the sale of merchandise not necessarily produced on the premises, but directly related and accessory to agricultural or horticultural produce which is grown by the owner or his family on their farm. (Deferred from August 1, 1995 Commission meeting.) MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins that ZTA 95-03 be deferred to August 29, 1995. The motion passed unanimously. M 5-15-95 ZTA-95-04 Farmers' Market - Amend Section 22.0, Commercial, C-1, and Section 24.0, Highway Commercial, HC, of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit farmers' market by right; and amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit farmers' market by special use permit. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Vaughan, that ZTA-95-04 be deferred to August 29, 1995. The motion passed unanimously. ZTA-95-05 Commercial Stables - Amend Section 10.0, Rural Areas District, RA, of the Zoning Ordinance, to permit commercial stables by right, and to include all necessary supplementary regulations related thereto. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Vaughan, that ZTA-95-05 be deferred to August 29, 1995. The motion passed unanimously. WORK SESSION Comprehensive Plan - Water & Sewer Mr. Benish led a page -by -page discussion of staffs report on Water and Sewer Facility Planning. The report focused on the status of the current goals, objectives and strategies and suggested possible changes. Page 1 Objective: Encourage effective coordination between Albemarle County plans and policies and those of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority and Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Blue said he thought there should be some coordination with the University of Virginia, even though UVA is a customer of the City of Charlottesville. He wondered about the effectiveness of communication between RWSA, ASCA and UVA in relation to utilities planning. [Mr. Bill Brent addressed Mr. Blue's comments by explaining the University's 100-year contractual arrangement with the City for water service. He said the University works very closely with the City for service to the Central Grounds and the North Grounds. Beyond that area, the University has been very cooperative with the RWSA in terms of conveying their needs and RWSA trying to address those needs.] Mr. Dotson pointed out one of the revised strategies on page 2 of staffs report might address Mr. Blue's concerns. 8-15-95 3 Mr. Dotson felt this objective was redundant with the first revised strategy on page 2. He also felt it was "not really an objective." He felt that, for long-term planning purposes, the objective is really more than just coordination. He suggested the following objective: We will plan in accord with the principle of living within our water means so as not to incur disruption of achieving our other planning goals for maintaining this as an attractive place to live and work. He said the strategies would then become "how you do that." He gave as an example to coordinate between all people who are using the system. He suggested that the listing of various sources of raw water which appear throughout the document could be "identified as defining our means." Another strategy would then be to complete the assessment of the safe yield of those sources, which would then become a good work item for "defining what it means to live within our means in order to be able to achieve our other planning objectives as a place to live and work." Mr. Blue agreed with Mr. Dotson. He also said that if the James River is accepted as a potential water source, "it changes the picture considerably in how we live within our means because our means gets greatly expanded." Ms. Huckle said there are constraints on the James, e.g. the City of Richmond has a legal right to its usage first, and other communities probably have priorities. She said: "Just because it's there, doesn't mean it will be available to us." Mr. Blue thought living within our means was "a great objective," but he thought it would be very difficult to define "our means." Mr. Dotson said this could be a matter of policy and suggested that, for this planning period, the James might not be included. Then the assessment needs to be made as to what is available, without the James, and how could that be stretched and managed. (Mr. Blue agreed that the James should not be included.) Ms. Huckle expressed support for Mr. Dotson's suggested objective. Referring to the South Fork Reservoir, Mr. Dotson asked: "Wouldn't it be useful to reexamine our efforts to slow the process of sedimentation in order to stretch our means there as much as possible?" He wondered if this should be addressed through a strategy or a work item. Ms. Huckle felt the enforcement of some of the regulations which already exist would "help a lot." Mr. Dotson suggested the Watershed Management Official could address this issue at a future work session. Mr. Benish thought the 4 items listed on page 4, and 1 on page 5, related to surface water, addressed Mr. Dotson's concerns. Mr. Dotson, however, said he had viewed those items more as "demand management." (Mr. Blue agreed.) Mr. Dotson said he felt this issue was important enough to "hit it squarely." �-i5-95 Y Strategy: Build all public water and sewer facilities to ultimate design capacity consistent with the recommended land use densities and coordinated with the timing of development. Mr. Dotson felt the meaning of the phrase "to the ultimate design 6apacity was not clear. He thought the intent is that the statement say to design it so it so it will allow us to achieve our full land use holding capacity." He suggested that staff work on the wording because it is not clear as currently proposed. (Mr. Brent said he felt staff had done a good job with this statement in trying to cover all bases. He said he could offer no improved language.) Mr. Blue said he could see no reason to change the strategy. Staff offered to work on making the wording clearer. Page 2 Ms. Huckle suggested that "Villages" be removed from the last paragraph on the page. She was concerned about "false impressions" which might result. Page 4 Ms. Huckle said she would like to see Chris Greene Lake given the same protection as a water supply source as other sources are given. Referring to the first paragraph and the protection of the James River spiny mussel, Mr. Blue said: "I would like to go on record as saying I would hate to see the potential Buck Mt. Reservoir water source for Albemarle County held up by the .:awes River spiny mussel." Miscellaneous Mr. Dotson felt someplace in the document it should be acknowledged that the County is part of a larger watershed, acknowledging that our actions effect both up and downstream uses and users. (Mr. Cilimberg said this is addressed in the General Water Resource Section in the Environmental Chapter.) Ms. Huckle said that though we talk about it, we don't observe it because "we keep dumping things from parking lets into the river where it flows into someone eases water system." She agreed we need to be more sensitive and should try to cle-an up the water before, we dwrip in into the river. Mr. Dotson wondered if the Crozet Interceptor should be included in this document. Staff said this is addressed elsewhere in the Plan and there will probably be an exclusive section on the Interceptor which will explain the policy. M 8-15-95 Mr. Dotson asked for an explanation of the meaning of "safe yield." Mr. Brent said: "In the worst drought, for the longest duration, you can expect to have this much water to draw from.... Based on information we have, going back 50-75 years, this is the lowest supply we've had and still been able to use it." Master Water and Sewer Study Ms. Huckle said she has always been under the impression that this Utilities Plan would "tell us what our resources are," i.e. "how much water we have to work with; how much money we have in the bank of natural resources that we could draw against with our growth." This study, however, does not have that focus, though she felt "it ought to." She said it is important to have a handle on the available water supply so as to be ready if an industry shows interest in coming to the area. Referring to the Crozet area, Ms. Huckle said that the information in this study (she did not cite the specific page), leads her to believe that "we have overdone the amount of land we have included in Crozet already." She concluded: "So I think it is very important that we have the information from the Master Plan as we go along so that we don't overload one section of the County which isn't able to handle it." (Addressing Ms. Huckle's comments, Mr. Benish said: "I think the water supply is available for the buildout of Crozet. The treatment plant will need to be upgraded but it was anticipated that it would need an incremental expansion at some point in time.) Mr. Dotson said he thought this was a very useful, "almost overwhelming" document. Mr. Blue said he thought there should be more explanation given under the University of Virginia (page 3). Mr. Benish said the University Facilities Plan had been omitted in error. He said it should be treated equally with the City and County plans. Ms. Huckle said she hoped this study will be referred to often in staff reports. Various typographical errors were pointed out. Page 19 (Re: Piney Mt/Hollymead North of Rt 649) Recommendation: ... Therefore, it is recommended that the County provide the Authorities information on its intention on the ultimate size of this Growth Area over a 50-year period. This will provide the necessary information to adequately size the line.... Mr. Blue felt this was a very important decision to be made. He said: "I'm not clear in my own mind which is the cart and which is the horse --who's going to do what? Is the .g/ $-15-95 to Planning Commission going to say that this entire area is likely to be a growth area in the next 50 years, if the need exists, and, therefore, ACSA and staff have to make a decision based on serving that whole area? Or are they going to tell us? It seems likely that area will be a growth area and it will make a difference as to whether or not they put a gravity sewer along that whole North Fork." Ms. Huckle asked if the Commission was supposed to recommend one of these three alternatives. Mr. Benish explained that the Commission's role is to define the County's growth management policy for this area. That recommendation will be included in the Land Use Plan and will be a factor in the ACSA's decision as to which alternative to use at the appropriate time. Ms. Huckle said she could not approve of this being a growth area until the roads have been improved. Mr. Dotson recalled discussions of a few months ago related to the planning time frame--i.e. "are we talking 20 years, 10 years, 5 years --how much residential land, principally, should be shown in the Plan?" He said: "I think the answer to that question is that we need two time frames --we need 50 and we need 5. 50 is for sizing facilities like this, transportation, looking at questions of density and how to encourage infill, and looking at different ways of (accommodating) a population that is significantly larger than what we have today, and how could you do that and still preserve quality of life? To me those are the really interesting planning issues and I wish we would look at those.... Those are interesting and important questions that we haven't looked at by focusing on the five years, and I was an advocate of looking at the five years, but I think we need to do both." Mr. Blue said he felt 10 years (and 50) is more reasonable in terms of engineering projects and lead time. Page 27 Referring to the 6 items listed at the bottom of the page, under "General System Upgrades," Mr. Blue said he thought the first item and the fourth item were basically the same thing. On the last item listed, he said he thought that project was almost complete. Mr. Brent offered the following final comment: "It is my personal opinion that somewhere down in the 20-year span of this Comp Plan, the decisions about how much water you have in your community and how it's used will probably be removed from your control. I think it is likely, within the next 20 years, if not sooner, allocation of 8-15-95 7 water within the Commonwealth of Virginia will be a function of the State and not the locality and the water that we may plan for in the construction of the Buck Mountain Reservoir could conceivably be sent to Louisa, Waynesboro, or wherever.... The decisions that you make today may be moot 14 years from now because of some action the State Legislature may take.... Proposals are on the table and are being considered by the Water Commission and I am sure we will be hearing more about it." -------------------------------------- There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. 05 8-22-95 AUGUST 22, 1995 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 22, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Mr. Tom Jenkins. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Pete Anderson, UVA Representative; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Imhoff and Vaughan. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of August 8, 1995 were unanimously approved as amended. CONSENT AGENDA Braeburn Training Center Site Plan Waiver - Request to allow waiver of the drawing of a site development plan (Section 32.2.2 of Zoning Ordinance) for construction of two (2) duplexes on 34.92 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by My Jenkins, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. SP-95-24 Ronald Harvey & Company - Petition to establish a Rural Preservation Development with 49 development lots on approximately 654 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. [10.2.3.3(b)]. Property, described as Tax Map 108, Parcels 3, 4,11, and 12, is located on the north side of Rt. 699 approximately .3 mile west of Route 29 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 3). The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral . MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that SP-95-24 be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. Applewood Cove Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create a total of 49 lots on approximately 654 acres zoned RA, Rural Area. Property, described as Tax Map 108, parcels 3, 4, 11, and 12, are located North of Route 699, approximately 0.3 miles west of Route 29 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 3). .3� 8-22-95 The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that Applewood Cove Preliminary Plat be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. SP-95-20 Centel Cellular - Petition to construct a cellular communication tower and support buildings on approximately 43 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District [10.2.2(6)]. Property, described as Tax Map 74, Parcel 14A is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of 1-64 and Route 637 in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 3). The applicant was requesting deferral to September 12, 1995. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-95-20 be deferred to September 12, 1995. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-95-10 Crozet Moose Lodge - Petition to rezone approximately 3 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas to HC, Highway Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 55, Parcel `40-11 109B is located on the south side of Route 250 approximately 0.7 miles east of 1-64 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 3). Mr. Lilley presented the staff report. The report concluded: Staff opinion is that the negative factors, primarily the lack of conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and the ramifications of the precedent that would be set by allowing this rezoning, outweigh the positive factors, and staff therefore recommends denial of this rezoning request." The applicant was represented first by Mr. Rick Carter. His comments included the following: --No change in use is proposed. This request is for the zoning to be made compatible with the use. --The property was zoned commercially when the applicant purchased it 20 years ago. --Three of the five nearest properties already have commercial zoning. The current zoning on this property is not uniform with the surrounding properties. "The hallmark of zoning is uniformity." --This is not an agricultural area. --This use would be by -right in the HC zone, To have this use on RA zoned property is "an exception to the rule." --The use is compatible with uses on adjoining properties. 8-22-95 3 --"Concern about precedent is not warranted. To rezone property to commercial that has been used as commercial for 40 years doesn't seem to me to be an odd precedent to set." Mr. Randy Layman, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He described the history of the organization and listed some of its fund raising activities. He listed those organizations which receive donations that are the result of the fund raising activities. Mr. Layman stressed that the property was zoned commercially when purchased by the Moose Lodge many years ago. Only 18 months ago did it become known to the applicant that the property had been downzoned to RA without any notice to the applicant at the time the change was made. He concluded: "We're asking for the re-establishment of something we bought and paid for. We're not changing anything." (Approximately 13 people expressed their support for the request by standing when asked to do so by Mr. Layman.) In response to Ms. Huckle's question as to why the zoning on the property had changed, Mr. Cilimberg explained there had been a "comprehensive rezoning of the County in 1980." At that time, thousands of parcels had their zoning changed. "As I understand, the Board of Supervisors determined, at that point in time, that this particular use, along with some others that could be allowable in the RA by special use permit, should be downzoned to Rural Area. That is the decision that was made at that time.... The Moose Lodge was not effected by the change, as long as the use continued." Mr. Kamptner addressed the question of notification. He explained: "Under the Code, the notice requirements for a comprehensive rezoning of this magnitude is general publication. For a large comprehensive rezoning, where more than 500 parcels are rezoned, the minimum notice requirement required by the Code is publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Local authorities are allowed to provide additional notice." Public comment was invited. Ms. Nancy Whiting Barnett, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. She expressed concern about the loss of the rural quality of her property. She was opposed to the request. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle said she had wondered about the motivation behind the request. She said: "I gather it is eventually they are going to want to sell the property and they would like to be able to sell it at its highest value. Apparently, this is a very worthwhile organization, but since they still have the use of this, I cannot support the change." 8-22-95 4 Mr. Nitchmann asked why staff feels this will set a precedent. He said: "If another request came about it would have to have, at least, a set of circumstances similar to this, and this has some pretty (unique) background." Mr. Lilley responded: "Just the general precedent of a rezoning in a rural area within a water supply watershed. Not that there are a number of cases that would have similar a situation... but just in terms of the general concept of a rezoning in the rural areas within the water supply watershed for a non-commercial pre-existing use." Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that this is a non -proffered request for HC, which could have a whole array of by -right uses. He pointed out: "That is a much larger array of possibilities than exist under Rural Area zoning with a special use permit." Mr. Nitchmann said he could understand if this property were surrounded by rural area parcels and not by HC, as is the case here. He said: "I just have a little difficulty with this. An individual purchased a piece of property thinking it had one type of zoning and then, because someone didn't read a 1-inch ad in the paper, it is discovered years later the property is not what you bought and is not as valuable as the owner assumed it was. It is almost, in my mind, a taking of an individual's property rights without proper notification. Whether it is legal or not, to me, is immaterial. I could not support denial for that reason. I think this is taking an individual's property rights without due course. (Even) if there is a law in this County which says (individual notification) is not required for a wholesale rezoning, I still think we have an obligation to notify every individual property owner in writing that something is going to happen which could effect their land." Mr. Dotson recalled that he had supported a similar rezoning request (for mini - warehousing) partly because it was an infill situation much like this, but primarily because the use was identified and proffers were offered. "We knew what we were getting and if we were going to make a compromise, it was a known instead of an unknown compromise." He concluded: "I'm not certain that an unproffered proposal is viable because we don't know what we're getting and highway commercial does open a large number of possibilities. Therefore I would find it difficult to support the rezoning as presented. A reasonable use with proffers, at some point in the future, I would certainly be willing to consider because it is a sort of in -fill situation." Mr. Blue asked if staff could confirm one of Mr. Layman's statements, i.e. that the property has been taxed as HC since 1980. Mr. Blue said though this information might not have any legal significance, it might have a moral implication. Staff was unable to answer this question. Mr. Blue said he had mixed emotions about the request. He said he sympathized with Ms. Barnett, but he pointed out that part of the development Ms. Barnett lives in is already zoned HC. S:7- 8-22-95 5 Mr. Jenkins said: "The whole subject of commercial area in Crozet is something that is going to have to be given a lot of consideration by the staff and by the Planning Commission in the near future. We have made the Crozet Study and we have talked about trying to have commercial area in the downtown Crozet area. Yet, there is not a lot of vacant land on which to develop commercial uses. ... I think we need a plan, as much as the staff and the County can develop, for the kinds of commercial area that we would like to have. But at this time, to say we are going to turn this over to commercial, even though it may be 5 years before (the applicant) may be in a position to do what he'd like to do, I just think it would send the wrong message, even though it seems like (a denial of the request) would be unfair, based on the information we've heard. But, to make it HC tonight, in my opinion, is poor timing as far as the Planning Commission is concerned. But I am sympathetic to the applicant." Mr. Blue stated: "it seems to me if we recommend denial of this request, we ought to be recommending that the Board of Supervisors downzone the properties on either side which are already zoned HC. I think Mr. Carter made a good point --that zoning is consistency --and this isn't consistent --to have that piece in the middle zoned Rural Areas." Ms. Huckle addressed Mr. Blue's comments: "I guess those uses were in existence before the zoning ordinance went into effect. We can't undo all the mistakes of the 00- past; we just try not to make more." MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved that ZMA-95-10 for Crozet Moose Lodge be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. The motion passed (3:2) with Commissioners Blue and Nitchmann casting the dissenting votes. [NOTE: Mr. Jenkins initially voted "no" on the motion for denial. He explained he had not intended to vote "no" and he changed his vote to "aye," in favor of the denial. Mr. Kamptner confirmed that it was acceptable for Mr. Jenkins to correct his vote.] ZMA-95-11 Nigel Bray - Petition to rezone approximately 1.4 acres from CO, Commercial Office to C-1, Commercial. This site is located in the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D, is located on the north side of Route 250 west of and adjacent to Flynn's Restaurant in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for High Density Residential use (10.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 3. 3f 8-22-95 6 and SP 95-21 Nigel Bray - Petition to construct a veterinary clinic on approximately 1.4 acres zoned C-1 (ZMA 95-11 is pending) and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District [22.2.2(5)]. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 55D is located on the north side of Route 250 west of and adjacent to Flynn's Restaurant in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for High Density Residential use 910.01 - 34 dwelling units per acre) in Neighborhood 3. Mr. Fritz presented the staff reports. Staffs recommendation on the ZMA was as follows: "Approval of this request further reduces the probability that the site will be utilized for residential purposes which is the use recommended in the Comprehensive Plan. As this request does not increase the consistency of the zoning with the Plan, staff is unable to recommend approval of the request to rezone the site." Staffs recommendation on the SP was as follows: "Staff opinion is that with appropriate conditions of approval, this request will result in no negative impacts and therefore staff recommends approval of this request subject to conditions." There was a brief discussion about the noise regulations. Mr. Kamptner initially suggested that a condition be simply "Compliance with the County noise ordinances." 'After staff read condition No. 1, Mr. Kamptner said that the condition "pretty much stands alone as a condition which applies to this particular property because of its impacts ... it stands separate and apart from either the existing Noise Ordinance or anything that is proposed." Staff said the Zoning Administrator had recommended the language proposed by staff because the proposed Noise Ordinance is not yet adopted. No changes were made to the condition. The applicant, Mr. Nigel Bray, addressed the Commission. He explained that his practice has outgrown its present facility in the Pantops Shopping Center. The proposed facility will be 3,000 sq. ft. The practice serves primarily the eastern part of the County and will be an asset to the community. The site is readily accessible from Rt. 250 and has good visibility. Ms. Huckle asked Dr. Bray about the plans for the second building. Dr. Bray explained that the building will be used for professional offices such as a doctor's or dentist's office. Mr. Dotson asked under what circumstances animals might be outside. Dr. Bray explained they would be outside for very short exercise periods (5 minutes/animal, 3 - 4 times/day). No well animals will be boarded at the facility. The facility will be able to Sy 8-22-96 7 accommodate a maximum of 15 dogs. Dr. Bray said that animals seldom bark when they are being exercised. He said there will be no windows in the "major" kennel area. Public comment was invited. Mr. Bill Bailey spoke in favor of the application. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. There was a brief discussion about the applicant's proffer. Mr. Fritz explained that the only uses which the applicant has not proffered out are those which are by -right in the CO district, with the exception that fire and rescue squad stations have been retained. Mr. Nitchmann felt that there could be strong arguments for making this type of use by -right in both the CO and the C-1 zones. He said he had no problem with either petition. Mr. Dotson asked why C-1 was requested rather than HC. Mr. Fritz said the HC district includes many uses which are very dissimilar from the CO district, whereas the C-1 district has uses which are similar to the CO. Also the purpose and intent of the HC district is substantially different from the CO district. While the C-1 district is different than the CO, it has some similarities. Mr. Fritz confirmed that the HC uses contain more intense and diverse commercial possibilities than does 0-1 Mr Cilimberg added that many more uses would have to have been proffered out of the HC district to make it similar to the C.O. district. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZMA 95-11 for Nigel Bray be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. The motion was seconded by Ms. Huckle and passed unanimously. The Commission discussed the Special Permit briefly. Mr. Blue asked if the applicant was aware that approval from the Architectural Review Board will be required. Mr. Fritz said the applicant is aware of that requirement, but he has not yet gone before the RRB. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-95-21 for Nigel Bray be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The final site plan shall not be submitted without County Engineer approval of a certified acoustical report confirming that noise measured at the nearest residential lot line shall not exceed 60 dba from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. or 55 dba at all other times. �0 8-22-95 *Awl Construction standards shall be stated on the final site plan. Such construction standards may include but are not limited to, building material types, location and material of doors, windows and other building openings. 2. No outdoor runs or pens. 3. Fencing and landscaping shall be provided adjacent to the Luxor development as shown on the site plan titled "Animal Medical Center' initialed WDF 8/9/95. 4. A public entrance to the animal center which is separate from entrances to other users of the building shall be provided. 5. Delineation of an exercise area on the final site plan including appropriate signage to inform the public of the intended use of the area. The motion passed unanimously. ------------------------------------- OLD BUSINESS Mr. Bob Watson, representing the Blue Ridge Homebuilders, distributed a statement which outlined the Homebuilders position on growth area expansion. He explained ''`"' that he will be away for several weeks and he wanted the Commission to have this information for upcoming work sessions. He did not read the statement, but it is made a part of these minutes as Attachment A. ------------------------------------ X: T1