Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 05 1995 PC Minutes12-5-95 DECEMBER 5, 1995 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, December 5, 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; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Mr. Tom Jenkins. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. John Shepherd, Planner; an Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Vaughan The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of November 21, 1995 were unanimously approved as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA Crutchfield Corporation Major Site Plan Amendment - Modification of Section 21.7.3 to allow activity within 20 feet of Rural Areas District. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-95-14 Dennis Rooker/Ivy Creek, Inc., Et al - Petition to rezone 215.0 acres from PRD, Planned Residential Development to RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 59A1, Parcels 1-33 and B (open space). This site is the location of the Ivy Creek Subdivision and is located in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 1). Deferred from the November 7, 1995 Commission meeting. Mr. Keeler distributed to the Commission four new items of information which had been received by staff after the completion of the staff report. Mr. Nitchmann felt the item should be deferred to allow time for the Commission to review this additional information. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that ZMA-95-14 be deferred to December 12, 1995. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Blue suggested Commissioners take a quick look at the new information before voting on the motion. Ms. Huckle said she did not think there was time to review the documents fairly. Mr. Nitchmann called the question. The motion to call the question was passed unanimously by voice vote. 12-5-95 2 The motion for deferral was then voted on and passed unanimously. Western Ridge Preliminary Plat Modification Request - Because the applicant was not yet present, this item was moved to the end of the agenda. ZTA 95-7 Mandatory Connection to Public Water and Sewer - To amend the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to required usage of public utilities. and STA-95-01 Mandatory Connection to Public Water and Sewer - To amend the Subdivision Ordinance as it relates to required usage of public utilities. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. The report, a copy of which is attached to these minutes, explained how the proposed amendments will be applied. Mr. Nitchmann asked why a permit to replace a structure destroyed by fire or natural disaster will be exempt. Mr. Keeler explained the criteria was recommended by the Board and he believed this particular exemption is related to hardship. Mr. Keeler pointed out that a well and septic system would probably not be effected by fire. Mr. Dotson asked how these amendments will effect a plan to add a room to an existing house. Mr. Keeler said there would be no impact unless the room to be added is a bedroom, in which case the Health Department may reevaluate the septic system. Mr. Dotson questioned the use of the term "public water." He wondered if the term should be "county water." He pointed out that "public" could refer to a privately owned system. Mr. Kamptner said he would look at this question before the Board hearing. Mr. Bill Brent, representing the ACSA, addressed the Commission. He explained that the Board of Supervisors requested that the Authority impose mandatory connections. In the final analysis, it was determined by staff that this was the most appropriate way to deal with the issue. No public comment was offered. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, Mr. Jenkins seconded, that ZTA 95-07 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff, including revisions proposed by the County Attorney's office. **W The motion passed unanimously. 12-5-95 3 MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, Mr. Jenkins seconded, that STA-95-01 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff, including revisions proposed by the County Attorney's office. The motion passed unanimously. SUB-95-106 Applewood Cove of Albemarle -A - Proposal to create a RPD consisting of 9 development lots averaging 5.46 acres and a preservation tract of 73.92 acres to be served by public roads. The property, described as Tax Map 108, Parcel 4, containing 124.5 acres is located in Covesville on the west side of Rt. 699 approximately 1 mile from its intersection with Rt. 29. The property is zoned RA and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District. and SUB-95-107 Applewood Cove of Albemarle-B - Proposal to create a RPD consisting of 7 development lots averaging 5.29 acres and 1 preservation tract of 40.00 acres, to be served by public roads. The property, described as Tax Map 108, Parcel 3, containing 78 acres is located in Covesville on the west side of Rt. 699 approximately 1 mile from its intersection with Rt. 29. The property is zoned RA and is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Shepherd presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of both proposals, subject to conditions. Referring to a section of the Zoning Ordinance which says "the maximum number of lots within a Rural Preservation Development shall be seen as those that may be achievable with conventional development," Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the staff report says "each lot appears to have a 30,000 square foot building site." She felt there should be "either certification that these really are buildable lots or perhaps they may be getting lots that they would not have with conventional development." She asked if there has been a requirement in the past for certification of the number of actual lots achievable and that the number is not greater than conventional development, "or is this a loophole?" Mr. Keeler responded: "There has neither been a requirement to certify the lots, not has it been a loophole. The Planning Commission, some time ago, decided to look at the topography to determine if there is a 30,000 square foot site. To go beyond that you would have to have Health Department approval of the drainfields, road plans, ... so you would ultimately have to design a complete subdivision to satisfy that. So the Commission instructed us to use available topographic information in determining the potential number of building sites." Ms. Imhoff again expressed concern about the fact that both staff reports say "there 'appear' to be these lots." Mr. Shepherd said this is not a field survey, but staff has looked at the lots very carefully on a by -right plan and "are convinced that there are building sites on the parcel, from staffs standpoint." The sites will have to be verified by field survey at the time of final plat approval and they will have to have legal building sites. Cn 12-5-95 4 Ms. Imhoff asked why this was presented as two plans. Mr. Shepherd could not answer the question. The applicant was represented by Mr. Riley. In response to Ms. Imhoff question, he said staff had advised, early in discussions, that it would be better to treat these as two separate parcels. Later on, when road plans were discussed, it was realized that one plan would have been better, but, by that time, the plan for two separate parcels was almost complete. He stressed that this is not an issue of how many development rights the applicant (Mr. Harvey) has. A conventional plat which was submitted originally "showed the 21-acre and the 2-acre lots and staff verified that these development rights do exist in the by -right version." Public comment was invited. The following persons addressed the Commission and read prepared statements expressing their opposition to the proposal. The statements are made a part of this record as indicated. --Judy Perkins, a Covesville resident (Attachment A) --Charles Perkins, a Covesville resident (Attachment B) --Babette Thorpe, Piedmont Environment Council (Attachment C) --Forbes Reback, representing Charles & Judy Perkins (Attachment D) The following persons also expressed opposition to the proposal: Katy Hobbes, League of Women Voters; Yancey Wyndingham; Will Hoar; John Woods; Jane Cole; Ashby Bowes; Don Cecil; Mildred Kriser; Carol Roark; Jerry West; and Walter Merring. Their reasons for opposition included the following: --"The proposal will ultimately create four subdivisions in a rural area physically unsuited for residential development. This piecemeal approach subverts the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to discourage residential development in the rural area. Developing the four parcels as one would have triggered the requirement for a special use permit and a public hearing and a possible reduction in density in the total acreage This is a loophole we believe should be corrected." (LOWV) --Topography causes the area to be flood prone. Land is physically unsuited for residential development. --The area is served by a one -lane, partially unpaved, road. The staff report does not address the impact to the road. --This area is designated a No Growth area in the Comp Plan and does not have services such as fire protection, trash collection, shopping, etc. --Past practices in the orchards have left areas which are contaminated with arsenic of lead. --Cove Creek is in the watershed of the Rockfish River. --Impact of scatter light on the UVA Observatory. --Tax assessments will rise on Covesville property which will cause a burden to lower income families. M 12-5-95 5 Mr. David Tice, representing Rapidan Investment an adjacent property owner, expressed support for the proposal. He cautioned the Commission on the message a denial will send to other landowners who might wish to develop their land in the RPD approach. Mr. Riley, was allowed final comments. He thought the most pertinent issue is "how this plan relates to a by -right plan." He stressed that the applicant has not asked for any additional development rights. He said a representative of the Observatory has told him that 18 houses will not have a significant impact on the Observatory. He offered to shield lighting which is above 5,000 lumens. He said tests will be performed to determine if arsenic of lead is present in the soil. He concluded that this plan is "clearly superior to what can be done by - right; it is clearly more environmentally sensitive; and it is clearly within the applicant's rights and within the requirements of the RPD Ordinance." Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Riley to comment on some of the concerns which were expressed about this area being subject to "debris flow" during floods. Mr. Riley agreed this is an issue, but he pointed out that most of the house sites will be located on knolls or ridges. He offered to submit data on the "capacity of the streams relative to the watershed to verify that there is sufficient room within these watersheds to withstand a substantial storm." He said he doubted that the applicant will be able to guarantee that a 1,000 year storm could be withstood with no damage, but he did not think that was a reasonable criteria. *%W There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann said he thought this plan would, effectively, create a village, at a time when village designation is about to be removed from two existing villages because of the lack of infrastructure. He thought the lack of services, utilities, shopping, etc. would be a problem for anyone moving to this development. He said a lot of thought had gone into the creation of the RPD option of development and he would probably agree with this particular proposal if it were closer to the urban ring and had less of an impact to an area which has been rural for so many years. He said he thought issues such as this are the reason for Section 10.3.3.2(i) of the Ordinance which states "Nothing stated herein shall be deemed to obligate the Commission to approve a rural preservation development upon finding that in a particular case that such proposal does not forward the purposes of rural preservation development as set forth hereinabove and that the public purpose to be served would be equally or better served by conventional development." Mr. Nitchmann said he does not feel this plan really forwards the purpose of why the Rural Preservation Development option was developed. He said: "In my opinion, I would much rather live there with homes spread over 500-600 acres than to be all clustered together because I think I would at least feel I was in a rural area and not a subdivision. That is important to me and I think it is important to people who are here tonight. One could say, yes, there are 49 development rights, but would you be able to use them all (in a conventional plan), maybe yes and maybe no. Since I've been on this Commission I don't think I've ever voted against the neighbors when they've come out so strongly against something they think will have a major impact on their way of life. I think this cm 12-5-95 n would have a major impact on their way of life. I am torn about this because I also feel strongly about the property rights of an individual. But this particular case does not really serve the good of the community as a whole and therefore I cannot support staffs recommendation." Ms. Huckle said she agreed with Mr. Nitchmann. She added that it is totally ironic to destroy a working orchard to create a Rural Preservation Tract. She said it is her understanding that this part of the orchard is probably the most productive and she did not think it is ready to be "torn up" as the staff report stated. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved that SUB-95-106, Plan A for Applewood Cove of Albemarle be denied. Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Dotson said he understood why those living on Rt. 699 are upset about this proposal because it is something that they might never have imagined possible, but that is, unfortunately, unrealistic. He explained: "In a study session the Planning Commission has seen some maps that show all the areas around the County where this could happen and I think this is a weakness. When I came on the Commission one of the things I felt very strongly about was Rural Preservation and that was to be one of the things I would keep my eye on. Another thing I felt very strongly about is playing by the rules. Unfortunately, we don't have any rules that define areas as No Growth areas. And I think this Rural Preservation is superior to a by -right development. I hate to see the area develop, but I think that's where we are and, playing by the rules, we have to give this fair consideration. I have some concerns. If we were to approve it, (I would support) some additional conditions regarding flooding and lights, pesticides, etc. That's where the issue comes down for me. I'm not for rural development. On the other hand, we have defined this as an acceptable level in our rules." Ms. Huckle said the Commission is not required to approve this type of request if it is felt it is inappropriate. She said: "It may be appropriate in some places where land is in trees and grass, but this is an actual working farm on which a great deal of work has been done to make it a productive orchard." Mr. Dotson said: "The issue is not'are we approving development?' Development can be there either way. The question is 'are we approving this design or no design?' I think this is favorable to no design." Ms. Imhoff commented: "I know that we have 12 other rural cluster subdivisions in the County, so whatever we decide on this, I don't think it is going to discourage others from using this approach. I really wanted to find a way to support it because I think it saves some key slopes and some agricultural forestal areas. But what I am balancing is is this cluster cm 12-5-95 7 better than conventional development, and, for me, I think conventional development will serve this property better. The fact that you have development rights does not equal developability. I have a feeling that you will get a more environmentally appropriate plan by doing more conventional development. With these steep slopes, I think this property calls for a more conventional approach." Ms. Imhoff encouraged all those present, who are interested in the rural areas, to attend Comp Plan work sessions. Ms. Imhoff said she felt there needs to be a discussion about "the way rural subdivisions are done." She said: "I think this piecemealing is inappropriate and could be seen as, maybe not deliberately, subverting some of the intent." She also wondered if the preservation tract should be larger, when considering the viability of farm size. Mr. Jenkins questioned the reality of being able to make a living with an orchard in Albemarle County, given the price of land. He thought a 21-acre farm was "a good way to starve to death." He concluded: "We ought to do some serious thinking about this whole concept and I think this brings that up." Mr. Dotson noted that there are thousands of developable lots in the rural area. He said: "I think this (the RPD) is a useful design tool." Mr. Blue asked Mr. Kamptner if a denial would have to be based on a finding that the public interest will be better served by conventional development. [NOTE: Mr. Blue's microphone began to malfunction and his comments were only partially audible from this point on.] Mr. Kamptner said that Section 10.3.2.2(i) does support two findings by the use of the word "and." The first finding would be that the proposal does not forward the purposes of rural preservation development and the second finding would be that the public purpose to be served would be equally or better served by conventional development." Addressing the issue of the first finding, Ms. Imhoff said she did not think the "rigorous test of whether or not the total number of lots available for rural preservation development shall not exceed the number available for conventional development" has been met. Mr. Blue asked if staff feels the same number of lots could be achieved through conventional development. Mr. Keeler responded: "Yes, particularly on Plan A." After Mr. Keeler's comments, Mr. Blue said he felt the RPD either needs to be abandoned or tightened up. Ms. Imhoff later responded to this suggestion: "Just because we're having trouble with this site, ` K11 don't want to-tltrt gig -the baby out with the bath water. I do think there is a reason for having cluster subdivision requirements. I agree we could tighten it up and I think some things need to be clarified, but I still think it is a useful tool." Mr. Nitchmann agreed. M ,4, I 12-5-95 8 Ms. Huckle pointed out that the Rural Preservation Development "should be reviewed for preservation of agricultural lands and activities." She said: "As I understand it from the neighbors, there are (apple) trees in this area which will have to be removed to build these houses. So this is not preserving agricultural activities. Also, the mixing sheds, etc. will probably have to be removed and I can't imagine trying to operate an orchard without them." Mr. Blue said he could not support the motion for denial, "not because I approve of this but because I think the applicant has played by the rules, has done exactly what we said, and don't see that conventional development would be better...." The previously stated motion for denial passed, 4:2, with Commissioners Blue and Dotson casting the dissenting vote. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SUP-95-107, Plan B - Applewood Cove of Albemarle, be denied. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. The motion passed (4:2) with Commissioners Blue and Dotson casting the dissenting vote. Western Ridge Preliminary Plat Modification Request - To allow double frontage lots in the Western Ridge Subdivision. Mr. Lilley briefly reminded the Commission this request had been taken off the November 28th Consent Agenda because of concerns about whether or not the plan was consistent with the original application plan. The plan which was submitted with the rezoning was displayed. Specific issues were: --Buffering adjacent to the railroad - The application plan does not show buffer between the railroad and area shown "to be made into lots." There was some discussion in the staff report about buffering and at the Commission meeting (though not reflected in the approved minutes). Mr. Lilley concluded: "This is the application plan that was proffered and accepted and as far as buffer from the railroad, nothing was required." Ms. Huckle called attention to the original staff report which said: "This will be adjacent to a railroad track and near some industrial uses, and buffering from such uses should be addressed." Ms. Huckle was also concerned because the plan for the subdivision does not show any critical slope areas and "appears to be wall-to-wall lots." She asked if staff was satisfied that all the lots could be developed. She also said the location of the recreation area was not shown. Mr. Lilley explained the drawing on display, labelled "Western Ridge," is just a schematic of the lot layout and is not the subdivision plat. He said the subdivision plat has been submitted, according to Ordinance standards and shows all those items mentioned by Ms. Huckle. He said it was much easier to show the location of the double -frontage lots (the topic of this request) on the smaller drawing because it shows the relationship of the lots in question to the proposed road network. He said the Phase I subdivision plat which has been submitted has been reviewed and though there are technical issues yet to be worked out, there does 12-5-95 9 M not appear to be any problem with the plat as submitted. Ms. Huckle asked if the 230 lots which were proffered are actually going to be achievable. Mr. Lilley did not think there would be any problem in achieving 230 lots. Ms. Huckle also thought the developer had agreed to a neo-traditional type of development. Mr. Keeler said he recalled the developer had agreed to look at neo-traditional designs, but there is apparently no market for that type of development here. The applicant was represented by Nat Perkins. He explained the justification for the double - frontage lots: (1) The main road into the subdivision will be for service only; (2) The vertical alignment of the road will require a lot of fill, resulting in the service road being much lower than the lots; and (3) The depth of the lots was intentionally increased so as to incorporate a buffer. Public comment was invited. Mr. Tom Loach, a Crozet resident, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern about the fact that this development will develop at 2-units/acre, whereas the original zoning at R4 would have helped to fulfill Crozet's growth area obligation. He said also the County has not met its obligation to provide infrastructure to accommodate the growth from this development. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Jenkins again expressed concerns about the 240/250 connector road. He said: "If in the Comprehensive Plan we need to do away with the 240/250 connector, then I'd like for that to be brought to us. That's what I am in favor of. I just don't visualize that ever happening. Someone, four or five Comp Plans down the road can address it. The thing that I do think is practical --this road that comes off of 240 and crosses the railroad --I want to name it Park Road right now, so that once this gets developed in here we don't have the same situation as with the Meadow Creek Parkway at Forest Lakes where you build a four -lane road and people say'oh my goodness, that's not supposed to go anywhere.' If we name it Park Road right now, before somebody gets in there, (it will be understood) that it is the same road which will some day connect to the existing section of Park Road. He emphasized that he was talking about a "residential scale road." Mr. Lilley said he had spoken with the developer's representative and he is amenable to requesting the road be named Park Road. Mr. Jenkins clarified he wanted the road to have the same name as the road which currently goes by the Crozet Park and to which this new road will eventually connect. Mr. Benish questioned whether two roads could have the same name because of problems with emergency services. Mr. Jenkins said that problem could be addressed by having different 100-blocks. Mr. Kamptner was uncertain about the Commission's authority to name roads. C9 In 12-5-95 10 Ms. Imhoff commented: "I think there was a missed opportunity with this project. The Crozet citizens put all this work into coming up with some design guidelines for Crozet. Maybe with the Comp Plan we can fold in some of those guidelines. We talk about how we can create more and better communities and the Crozet citizens came up with some things that would have helped this community. I would like to see that carried forward." Ms. Huckle said she was disappointed with the way this plan is developing. She said: "I think it is terribly important that we learn a lesson from this and realize if we are going to increase the density which is one of our goals, we do have to have some design guidelines or we'll just get more of the same." MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that the Western Ridge Preliminary Plat Modification Request, to allow double -frontage lots, be approved. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. The motion passed (5:0:1) with Ms. Huckle abstaining from the vote. On the issue of the road, Mr. Jenkins said: "I would just like to have the staff come back to us with something next week that we can vote on that addresses this subject in a concrete way." He said he felt there was a conflict with showing two crossings of the railroad. WORK SESSION Comprehensive Plan Land Use (Continuation of 5:15 work session) [NOTE: The 5:15 work session was not transcribable because of incompatibility between the recording and transcribing equipment.] Commission direction to staff was as follows: DOTSON: "I like the idea of the interim designation of the ultimate buildout area of the urban area --the 50 year strategy. But I feel that because we don't fully understand all of the market factors and all of the aspects of the in -fill, that maybe it's too extreme not to add any expansion area. What I would favor is staff bringing back a modest expansion scheme that has mainly land in the south, possibly the most prime parcel in the north, and see if that is something we could live with, along with the commitment that by the time we do this again we are going to have that 50-year definition." IMHOFF: "I am generally in agreement with Mr. Dotson, except modest to me is really 44W modest because I am nervous as to how this all fits together and I am not sure I have quite as much emphasis on the south. I hear everybody's comments about the north, but I am Im 12-5-95 11 looking at UREF, so if there is a couple of hundred acres that would relate to the UREF job potential, I think we should give that due consideration." HUCKLE: "I would like to know how many lots are still available for development (from the present growth area). I think before we approve any more land in that area (north), we need to know what we've already got. Just because you work there doesn't mean you'll live there." NITCHMANN: He expressed concern about changing directions at the 11th hour, after having pursued this path for almost a year. He said that even though public sentiment is opposed, the most logical places for growth to occur are those which have been proposed to the north and the south. He believed firmly that the number of lots being lost from Earlysville and North Garden need to be replaced and that the urban ring needs to be expanded in the southern part of the County. He pointed out the new high school will be opening in a year and a half. He said the Hollymead growth area had been considered because of the expansion of the employment center in that area as a result of the UREF development. Now, after the public comment, "we're looking at that justification and saying it doesn't hold water." Mr. Dotson recalled how the 3,200 acre expansion had been arrived at and how it was agreed to take that number to public hearing. However, that figure was not a commitment to that path, even though there was logic to support the number. He said: "I think we should do something that we think is going to be workable for the next five years." Mr. Nitchmann said he could agree with Mr. Dotson if something could be put on paper which makes it clear that if a proposal for the development of some of this area comes in, it will be considered, and the Comprehensive Plan will not be used as a reason for not considering such a proposal. JENKINS: "Some of the opposition we heard was to these already developed areas along Proffitt Road. I think we would be smart not to include those areas on the north side --to skip that and go further (provided it is still contiguous). Ms. Huckle said she has never supported the growth designation for the 29 north area and she could not support it until there are some parallel road possibilities. She thought postponing designation of this area until a later Comp Plan might motivate some landowners to dedicate land for roads. She thought it was a good idea to balance the growth somewhat by designating land in the southern part of the county. BLUE: "I think we ought to forget about the Meadow Creek Parkway north of Rio Road and direct VDOT to begin planning for an Eastern Bypass to connect Peter Jefferson Place up with UREF. Mr. Jenkins agreed with Mr. Blue's suggestion, saying at least that much vision was called for and maybe more. 12-5-95 12 Commissioner positions were summarized as follows: Nitchmann: Willing for some sort of compromise on some growth areas. Huckle: Willing for compromise on the south side but not on the north side. Imhoff: "Modest expansion, no matter what. I don't think we have to go for acre -or acre replacement. Assume at least a medium density development in our urban area." Dotson: Modest expansion. No growth area is "extreme." "I don't think we understand it well enough to go with no expansion." Ms. Imhoff made the following MOTION: "I'd like to recommend that staff bring back to the next meeting two alternatives looking at potential expansion areas both to the north and the south or a combination thereof that would represent no more than some replacement of the land being taken out for the Earlysville and North Garden village areas, accompanied by some further explanation about what the next step on the outer growth area boundary discussion might be." Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Comments about the motion: Nitchmann: "I don't think we can put our head in the sand about this." Dotson: "The only concern I have is whether it is going to provide enough expansion area to make me feel like we've provided adequately. Mr. Nitchmann has pointed out about the new school in the south. I think we've got to provide enough there to have credibility. Imhoff: "Maybe the staff can give us some options. Where you want credibility, I get nervous because we haven't had a decent discussion about the rural areas." Jenkins: "I think the way we can get off dead center on this is just to take them parcel by parcel --the ones that have been identified --and vote on them and see which ones carry and when you add them up that's how much you've got. I'm ready to do that now, or next week." The motion passed (5:1) by voice vote with Ms. Huckle casting the dissenting vote. Ms. Huckle explained she voted against the motion because it included the northern area. Ms. Imhoff asked if the overheads used by staff at the 5:15 work session, along with information on in -fill development, could be mailed to the Commission. Ms. Imhoff asked if staff will also be able to present modifications to text as discussed in the 5:15 work session. M 12-5-95 13 The Land Use Plan was to be scheduled for action on the December 19th agenda, with a 5:15 work session to precede the meeting. [NOTE: From this point, comments by Mr. Benish and some Commissioners were not transcribable because they had removed their microphones and their comments were inaudible.] Mr. Benish asked the Commission for clarification on the following items: --Request for the designation of commercial area in the Rivanna Village - The majority of the Commission was opposed to this request. --Old landfill site on Avon Street - Should it be given a land use designation? - The Commission directed staff to keep the same language as in the present plan. [The remainder of the tape was inaudible.] Public comment was invited but none was offered. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Nitchmann suggested that a letter be sent to the Fluvanna County Planning Department asking about their plans for development along Rt. 250 East in the next 5-10 year period. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. V. Wayn Cilim retary Ill: