Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 25 1994 PC Minutes1-25-94 JANUARY 25, 1994 1 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 25, 1994, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Tom Blue; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Ms. Babs Huckle; Ms. Katherine Imhoff; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. JuanDiego Wade, Transportation Planner; Ms. Marsha Joseph, ARB Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Cilimberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. Mr. Bowling introduced Mr. Larry Davis to the Commission. Mr. Davis will begin his position as County Attorney effective April 1, 1994. ----------------------------------------- Mr. Cilimberg announced that the first order of business was the election of officers for 1994. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that the Commission go into Executive Session to discuss the nominations for officers, pursuant to Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia. Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion. Both Commissioners Blue and Jenkins expressed no opposition to the motion, but questioned the necessity. The motion passed unanimously. The Commission went into Executive Session at 7:05 p.m. MOTION: At 7:26 the Commission reconvened and Mr. Nitchmann moved that the Executive Session end. Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Nitchmann read the following Certification of Executive Meeting: CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE MEETING WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Planning Commission has convened an executive meeting on this date pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and 1-25-94 2 WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344-1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Planning Commission that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Planning Commission. VOTE AYES: Blue, Dotson, Huckle, NAYS: None ABSENT DURING VOTE: None ABSENT DURING MEETING: None Imhoff, Jenkins, Nitchmann, Vaughan Mr_ Cilimberg called for nominations for the offi irman. MOTION: Mr. Blue nominated Ms. Babs Huckle for the office of Chairperson. Ms. Imhoff seconded the nomination. Mr. Dotson moved that the nominations be closed. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. The motion to close nominations passed unanimously. Ms. Huckle was elected Chairperson by a vote of 6:1 with Commissioner Nitchmann casting the dissenting vote. Ms. Huckle took her position as Chairperson and called for nominations for the office of Vice Chair. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff nominated Mr. Tom Blue for the office of Vice Chairman. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the nomination. Mr. Dotson moved that the nominations be closed. Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion. The motion to close nominations passed unanimously. Mr. Blue was elected Vice Chair by a vote of 6:0:1 with Mr. Blue abstaining from the action. The Chair called for nominations for the office of Secretary. 19 1-25-94 3 MOTION: Mr. Blue nominated Mr. Cilimberg for the office of Secretary. Mr. Jenkins seconded the nomination. Ms. Imhoff moved that the nominations be closed. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. The motion to close nominations passed unanimously. Mr. Cilimberg was unanimously elected to serve as Secretary to the Commission. The Commission very briefly discussed meeting time, day and place. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Dotson, that the meetings of the Albemarle County Planning Commission be held on Tuesdays, 7:00 p.m., in Room 7 of the County Office Building. The motion passed (6:0:1). Mr. Jenkins was absent from the meeting and did not take part in the vote. ----------------------------------------- The minutes of December 14, 1993 and December 21, 1993 were approved as amended by a vote of 4:0:3. Commissioners Imhoff, Dotson and Vaughan abstained from action taken on the minutes. ----------------------------------------- Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed January 5th and January 12th Board meetings. ----------------------------------------- SP-93-34 Putt -Putt Golf & Games (a licant) Lloyd & Patricia Wood (owner - Request to expand the existing miniature golt course withadditional activities (gameroom/clubhouse, bumper boats, batting cages and go-kart track) (Section 24.2.2(1)]. Property, described as Tax Map 61, parcel 124EI, and 124E (part of) consists of approximately 3.8 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property is the current site of Putt -Putt Golf & Games and is located on the north side of Rio Road approximately 0.3 miles east of Rt. 29 in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 2. The applicant was requesting indefinite deferral. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that SP-93-94 be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- ZMA--93-13 C. Todd Shields - Proposal to rezone approximately five acres from - Residential to C-1, Commercial on property described as Tax Map 45, parcel 112 is located on the west side of Rt. 29N, west of the Kegler Bowling Alley/Miniature Golf course and approximately 0.7 miles north of the Rio Road/Rt. 29N intersection in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This S 1-25-94 4 site is located within a designated growth area (Urban Neighborhood 1) and is recommended for Regional Service. The applicant was requesting withdrawal of the petition. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the applicant's request for withdrawal of ZMA-93-13 be accepted. The motion passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- SP-93-35 C. Todd Shields - Proposal to establish a recreational ace ity on approximately 52.7 acres zoned R-5 Residential. Property described as Tax Map 45, parcel 112 is located on the west side of Rt. 29N, west of the Kegler Bowling Alley/Miniature Golf course and approximately 0.7 miles north of the Rio Road/Rt. 29N intersection in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located within a designated growth area (Urban Neighborhood 1) and is recommended for Regional Service. The applicant was requesting withdrawal of the petition. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that the applicant's request for withdrawal of SP-93-35 be accepted. The motion passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- SDP-93-79 - Jensen/Salem Ewa s Major Site Plan Amendment - Pioposal to e ete an internal access anU modify circulation on 2.0 acres zoned HC, Highway Commercial in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. Property, described as Tax Map 45C, Block 2, Parcels 1, 1A, and 1B is located in the northeast corner of the intersection of Route 29 and Woodbrook Drive (location of Ron Martin Television and Applicances). This site is recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood 2. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The applicant was proposing to (1) delete the required provision of a travel aisle on the north side of the Ron Martin Appliance building and (2) to revise the existing Woodbrook Drive site entrance to eliminate the required concrete median. The staff report concluded: "...staff recommends denial of both requests as: (1) the travelway would provide better on -site circulation; and (2) the proposed entrance reconfiguration would result in an increase of traffic conflicts." Mr. Fritz presented a letter from the applicant's engineer. Given the Commission's usual displeasure at receiving information that is presented at the last minute, Mr. Blue asked why this information was being submitted. Mr. Fritz explained it was his understanding that the engineer had submitted his 1-25-94 5 comments in writing because he was unable to attend the public hearing. Mr. Blue noted that at the time of the 1991 Commission hearing there had been no specified timing for the construction of the travelway though there had been for the construction of the median. Mr. Jenkins asked if the item was before the Commission because the County was "placing pressure" on the applicant to construct the median. Mr. Fritz replied: "We are placing no pressure at this time on building this median strip." Mr. Fritz explained further: "A developer has come with a possible development of a piece of property there which would necessitate these things that are being requested, and the potential development on adjacent property led to this request." Mr. Blue noted that Mr. Martin (owner of Ron Martin Appliances) has expressed (by letter) his opposition to the closing of the easement. Mr. Fritz added for clarification: "If this is deleted (the easement), then he strenuously objects to this median being in place." Attempting to clarify the request further, Mr. Fritz explained that the applicant would like to know if the County is going to require the access easement before they engineer a full-blown site plan. Mr. Nitchmann asked if there have intersection since Ron Martin has replied: "To my knowledge, no." been any problems at the been in business. Mr. Fritz Ms. Imhoff expressed few traffic concerns with this particular retailer, but was concerned about a change in use at some future date which could make "that a very difficult site to get in and out of without the raised median." In response to Mr. Nitchmann's questions, Mr. Fritz described the traffic patterns on the site. The applicant was represented by Ms. Pat Jensen, owner of the property. She described her history with the property. Significant comments, and answers to Commission questions, included the following: --"The size of the building would be better suited if we did not have that 24-foot easement through the property." --Ron Martin's concern is that if this building is constructed, and the concrete median is in place, it will severely restrict the flow of traffic into his site. (If the concrete median is not built, Ron Martin does not need the easement.) 1-25-94 6 --Salem Eways and Ron Martin are both very low traffic uses. The majority of business for both businesses is contractor sales and neither makes use of large trucks. --Woodbrook Drive is wide enough at this location to allow cars to pass those waiting to turn left into the site (on the right side), which would help to prevent stacking. --Though the building can be placed on the site even if the easement remains in place, it could be placed in a more aesthetically pleasing fashion if the easement were not a factor. --The most critical issue is the concrete median. --In response to Mr. Blue's question, she confirmed that "if the concrete median were not built, (she) would accept this travelway as an easement and not want to have (her) building encroach on it." --The issue is one of goodwill and not one of expense. Mr. Bill Crabshaw (partner of Emir Eways), addressed the Commission. He described the nature of his business. Significant comments included the following: --Approximately 30% of his business takes place off site. ---The nature of the business requires a large footprint (approximately 11,000 square feet) because a great deal of the space is warehousing. --The building can be placed on the site with both the easement and the median remaining, but the design of the entire site will not be attractive. (Staff confirmed that ARB review will be required for the building.) The Chair invited public comment. Mr. Buddy Smith, developer of the property, addressed the Commission. He described the history of the property. He expressed the concern that the elimination of the easement would result in the creation of a very undesirable "back alley" situation. He stressed that the site adjoins residential property. He was opposed to the elimination of the easement. Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Smith why the easement had "been put so far into Lot B and not closer to the property line." Mr. Smith replied that the placement had been determined by parking requirements. Mr. Nitchmann asked staff if all the presently existing parking spaces are actually required for the Ron Martin use and the proposed Salem Eways use. Ms. Jensen responed to the question and explained that if the easement did not exist, there would be two rows of parking with 6 extra parking spaces. She added that "both footprints" being considered would be able to achieve the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Nitchmann wondered why, if more parking was created than was needed, was the easement not situated so as "to give yourself more room on the lot." Mr. Fritz explained that the Easement had been aligned so as to make 1-25-94 7 an acceptable connection with Parcel C. Sight distance had also been an issue in terms of the placement of the easement and the buildings. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that in the determination of parking needs "advance planning" is taken into consideration in terms of "trying to reserve what might be necessary if uses change" in the future. In response to Ms. Imhoff's question, staff confirmed that the Commission would not necessarily be involved if there is a change of use, unless there is a site design issue. Mr. Feeler confirmed that the Zoning Administrator would be involved in determining if parking was adequate. There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed and the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Dotson noted that there did not seem to be any designated "loading" area on the site, nor provisions for large trucks manuvering the site. Mr. Fritz explained that information had been provided to the Zoning Administratonr in 1986 "and that is why there is not one shown on the site plan for Ron Martin." He added that staff had not gone back over the issue of truck traffic because of the feeling that the comments provided for the 1986 and 1991 reviews are still pertinent as "nothing has really changed." He added later (at Mr. Dotson's request): "This site (he pointed to the Ron Martin site) was approved without the need for a separate, independent loading space, and that was based on information given to the Zoning Administrator that they would be using vans and not large trucks." He could not say how many loading spaces might be needed with this site. He did recall that in 1986 the Commission had wanted trucks to be able to manuver the site fairly easily. Mr. Cilimberg added: "I think it's fair to say that in 1986 the Commission was dealing with an unknown as to future uses, so when they are looking at possible circulation and potential trucks, it doesn't necessarily mean they are going to be there. That will be determined by the uses that come later. But at least accommodating those were important for, say, circulation." Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that "accommodating" meant having a wide enough radius to allow a truck to turn. Mr. Blue asked why staff could not have approved this request administratively. Mr. Fritz explained that in 1991 a similar request had been denied by the Commission and "we felt it would be improper to approve it administratively based on that action." He explained further: "We would not have approved it and they would have appealed it, so we just skipped a step." Ms. Imhoff noted that though she appreciated the efforts of the owners to arrive at a solution, she did not feel anything had changed since the previous staff reports and Commission actions. Her primary concerns were a future change of use and the access 91 1-25-94 onto Woodbrook Drive. She stated she supported staff's recommendation for denial. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Ms. Vaughan, that the Jensen/Salem Bways Major Site Plan Amendment request be denied. Discussion: Mr. Jenkins asked if there was any new technology which might allow something other than a concrete median, but which would effectively achieve the same result. Mr. Fritz referred to the Ordinance which states that "the purposes of this Ordinance are to be served by physical design measures as opposed to directional or policing measures such as signage, one-way circulation and other such devices which rely on vehicle operator compliance for effectiveness." Mx. Jenkins asked how staff might react to a site plan for this parcel which might address the traffic situation in a different fashion. He asked: "Is that what's bothering you here, or you just don't think there's any hope for a building of this size on this second site?" Mr. Fritz explained that it is the size of this building, on Parcel. B, which generated the request to delete the access easement and staff simply reacted to this request. He noted that this particular use is a fairly low traffic generator. The applicants pointed out that there are easements between the uses (which is not the case in other shopping centers, such as Barracks Road). Mr. Blue agreed with Ms. Imhoff, i.e. that nothing has changed and "we would have to make the determination that the previous Commission, or the staff, made an error in requiring that 24-ft access easement in the first place, or it still ought to be there." Ms. Huckle stated she would support the motion because "we can't discount the fact that there is a possibility that other businesses would want to use this area and it needs to be something where businesses can be changed without creating problems." Mr. Blue stated that he would "reluctantly" support the motion. He felt that though it "creates a financial hardship on the owner of that lot it is a hardship that existed when that owner bought it." He added: 'I don't know how I would have viewed it when the easement was set up, but I can't see that we should be changing it now." Ms. Huckle felt it should be made clear that "these two features must be constructed whenever development occurs on either parcel B or C." ` 0 1-25-94 9 Though Mr. Cilimberg suggested the Commission might wish to make that a part of its action, Mr. Blue asked "Won't that happen anyway?" Ms. Huckle asked if Ms. Imhoff wished to amend her motion. (Ms. Imhoff did not answer at this point.) In answer to Mr. Jenkins' question, Mr. Fritz confirmed that presently it is possible to access the Ron Martin site from the Stereo -Types site (off Rt. 29). (He pointed out the traffic movements which would be required to reach Ron Martin's from Stereo -Types.) Mr. Fritz confirmed further that it is planned that the development will be "opened up along the front" eventually. Mr. Jenkins interpreted that that would then eliminate the need to access the Ron Martin site from Woodbrook Drive. Mr. Fritz acknowledged that was accurate, but pointed out that it would present the problem of traffic crossing parking areas for Stereo -Types and for Parcel B. Ms. Imhoff pointed out that she did not think Parcel C would want access off of Woodbrook eliminated. Mr. Dotson felt the concrete median was "the bigger public issue because that is where it would back people up, potentially, onto Woodbrook Drive." He felt staff had taken the appropriate position on that issue. Regarding the easement, he felt this was a matter to be worked out between the property owners. He pointed out that even if the Commission were to allow the elimination of the easement, "Ron Martin holds it, essentially, and he can either release it or not release it, and I would assume he wouldn't." He concluded: "I would support the motion, but at the same time hope that maybe the three parcel owners could get together and, if they can work out something, particularly with the ARB--because I am very much concerned about the appearance in this area and I don't want that road to be sort of a back alley as the owner sees it. But at the same time, I think the frontage on 29 is more important." He asked if the property owners could reapply at a later time if they arrive at a solution to the problem. Mr. Fritz stated that there are no limitations on re -application. He stated he felt "firmly" about the median. Ms. Huckle felt it was "especially important" given the fact that school buses must travel this road. Ms. Huckle again asked if Ms. Imhoff wished to amend her motion to add the clarification regarding construction with the development of either Parcel B or C. Ms. Imhoff replied: "I understand staff's desire to clarify that, but I think we should stand by what was previously approved and I hear from staff that that condition does exist. It would be 1-25-94 10 almost like re -approving an existing condition. I'm a little unclear about that. If no one else gets nervous on the Planning Commission, that would be fine, I'll amend the motion to say 'please clarify in the language of the denial of this (request) that these two requirements will be triggered with the development of either Parcel B or C." The second to the motion, Ms. Vaughan, agreed to the language proposed by Ms. Imhoff. Mr. Bowling pointed out: "You would be denying a request for deletion of the site plan requirements." Ms. Imhoff again restated her motion: "I think for clarity we just simply need to deny the request" for the site plan amendment. Ms. Huckle asked if staff felt the intent was clear. Mr. Cilimberg replied: "I think the intent of the Planning Commission has been stated. The problem was poor wording in the last action letter and I think we can convey to the applicants the expectations based on the meeting tonight and the discussion." Before calling the roll, the Recording Secretary asked for a clarification of the motion. Ms. Imhoff confirmed that the motion was to deny the request, as originally stated, with no further qualifications. The motion for denial passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- Building Permits in the Entrance Corridor overlay District - Ms. Marsha Josepft presented the staff report. Having had experience with the administration of a similar ordinance in another area, Ms. Imhoff expressed support for the proposed amendment. Since these proposed amendments had been initiated by a member of the Commission, rather than by staff or the Board of Supervisors, Ms. Imhoff wondered if there had been interest on the part of the Board. There was a brief discussion about the next step in the process. Mr. Keeler explained that the Commission could either send it to the Board for their consideration, or go ahead and adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance, which would initiate the public hearing process. Though Mr. Blue was of the impression that the topic had already been discussed by the Board, Mr. Cilimberg recalled that the Commission had asked for further information before the %D 1-25-94 11 consideration of a Resolution of Intent. The Board's only exposure, thus far, has been through the Commission's minutes. At Mr. Nitchmann's request, Ms. Huckle invited public comment. There being none, Mr. Nitchmann proceeded with his comments, Mr. Nitchmann was opposed to sending the item to the Board. He explained: "I think there are a lot of issues here that we need to take into (consideration). There are a lot of implications here to the business community which need to be taken into consideration. What is beauty to one may be ugliness to another. We are starting to legislate aesthetics and, quite frankly, I would not go to the Japanese restaurant if it didn't look like a Japanese restaurant. If it looked like Monticello, I would go there to get a chicken dinner, but not a Japanese dinner. I think one of the draws for ethnic type of businesses is the facade they put up. I think to restrict that, in my opinion, we really need to get an input from the business community. From my perspective, I think it's wrong. I'd like more information on just how much more staff time this is going to take. ... I'd like to know more about the fiscal impact on the businesses, on the businesses that are now going to be faced with having to hire someone to come up with something that I'm not sure what it is. (He referred to the staff report statement "The applicant may be required to submit additional information.") He concluded: "I think this needs to go to a public meeting and I think we need to have representatives here from the business community to discuss these issues and see what they feel the impact will be on the business community as a whole, hearing from business people. I also have this concern about the Entrance Corridor looking all alike, up and down the road. That may be good in Williamsburg... and I don't know if the majority of the public in this County feel that all businesses in the Entrance Corridor should take on the historic ambiance of the County." Ms. Imhoff felt the Albemarle Architectural Review Board has been set up so as to have "quite a bit of flexibility... in order to recognize the individuality of all the different buildings." She expressed concern, however, about spending Commission time on this issue if the Board of Supervisors is not interested in pursuing it. She was in favor of getting comment from the Board before proceeding. Mr. Nitchmann replied: "That's fine with me as long as they are going to send it back and we can go to public hearing." Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that "it has to happen that way." MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that comment be sought from the Board of Supervisors as to whether or not they want the issue of ARB review of Building Permits in the Entrance Corridor explored further. 1-25-94 Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. 12 The Recording Secretary asked for clarification as to whether or not the motion was a Resolution of Intent. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the motion be worded as a resolution which would say that the Commission's "intent would be to go to public hearing if the Board so supports." Mr. Keeler added, for clarification: "If you do a Resolution of Intent, and the Board agrees to go forward with it, then we can just schedule it. If you don't do a resolution, the Board thinks it's a good idea and sends it back to you, then we have to do what we have to do following this and that is, do a resolution at a future date which puts it off another 21 - 28 days before you take it up." Mr. Keeler made the Commission aware of the language which should be used for all Resolutions of Intent. The motion was revised as follows: MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that the Albemarle County Planning Commission, to serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice, recommend that the Board of Supervisors consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 30.6, EC Entrance Corridor Overlay District, to include the ARB review of building permits in the Entrance Corridor. Mr. Jenkins again seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. ----------------------------------------- Accessory Apartments - Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow -"accessory apartment" in any zoning district which permitted single-family dwelllings. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He again explained that the adoption of a Resolution of Intent is not a commitment to amend the ordinance, but simply allows staff to advertise the item for public hearing. It was Mr. Blue's recollection that this had been meant only for the Rural Areas. He asked: "Was there an equity reason why we decided to start out with all single-family, regardless of zone. He recalled that issue had been discussed. Mr. Keeler responded: "You discussed it; but I'm not sure you ever actually did decide. It would be a little peculiar to identify a use as being accessory to a single-family dwelling by FRI 1-25-94 13 a particular zoning district. ... But that's not to say that we can't legally do it." Ms. Huckle commented that accessory apartments would be more "safely represented" in the growth areas where there is public water and sewer. Mr. Keeler asked the Commission to recall the reasons why it had felt this was "a good thing to go forward with, and those reasons are not peculiar to any zoning district." Mr. Blue disagreed, saying: "I think they are, strictly from a philosophical viewpoint. I think that people that live in the more urban areas, perhaps, are a little more particular about what they want to do. That's why you have subdivision codes. People who live in subdivisions want to live with a certain group of people so they restrict them as much as they can by floor space, and so forth." He continued: "I think of the accessory apartment thing as something in the rural area where it's a mother-in-law apartment or a child come back home, or something like that, and even though this came out of the Affordable Housing Committee, and I think it has some minor effect on that, it seems to me it's a good idea and it would be more in keeping with that area than it would be getting into the subdivisions, the more urban areas, that don't want it." He brought up a point which he has made on previous occasions, i.e. "We classify so much of the County as rural areas, when a lot of it ought to be called rural residential." He pointed out that there are a lot of people in the rural residential areas (e.g., West Leigh, Key west, etc.) who don't want this, even though they might be better equipped for utilities." He agreed that it makes a lot of sense for the rural areas, provided the Health Department approves the septic adequacy. There was determined to be no public comment. It was decided that action on a Resolution of Intent would be deferred to February 15, 1994, to allow new Commissioners time to become familiar with the topic. Staff was asked to provide new Commissioners with copies of the Housing Advisory Committee Report. WORK SESSION VDOT Six -Year Secondary Road Construction Plan (1994-2000 Mr. Benish presented a general overview of this year's process and identified some of the issues for discussion at future work 43 1-25-94 14 sessions. Particular issues on which Staff asked for direction were: --Whether or not to continue participation in VDOT's revenue sharing program; --Whether or not to continue the existing policy of recommending the minimum amount required by State Code for upgrading of unpaved roads; --Whether or not to increase funding for "county -wide" projects (Priority 1, currently set at $600,000). Staff estimated the next work session would be February 15 with a public hearing projected for early March. There was a brief discussion about VDOT's priority No. 19 (the bridge over the CSX railroad). Mr. Benish explained the history of the project and VDOT's "sufficiency" rating system. Mr. Nitchmann asked for more information as to what criteria are used in determining sufficiency ratings. Given the recent road problems with the weather in relation to school closings, Mr. Nitchmann asked if there would be input from the Education Department regarding their priority list. Mr. Benish replied that they have already supplied such a list. Ms. Huckle expressed an interest in seeing the list. Mr. Nitchmann expressed an interest in knowing what percentage of County roads are unpaved. ----------------------------------------- MISCELLANEOUS In response to Mr. Dotson's request, Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Benish briefly described the anticipated schedule and process for the upcoming Comprehensive Plan review. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question as to how the participants in the survey had been selected, Mr. Cilimberg described the process. Staff suggested that an orientation -type work session for new Commissioners (and interested others) be scheduled for 5:15 February 15. Mr. Cilimberg and Mx. Benish asked that the Commission be considering appointees to the following committees: City -County - University Technical Committee; the Visioning Advisory Committee; the CIP Technical Committee; and the Charlottesvile Area Transportation Study Update Review. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question about the Fiscal Impact Study, Mr. Cilimberg briefly explained the current status. A/ 1-25-94 15 Mr. Benish asked if Commissioners could meet at a 5:15 Work Session on February 1 for dicussion of a conceptual outline of the City -County Survey. No opposition was expressed to this suggestion. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. W