Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 10 1994 PC Minutes5-10-94 1 MAY 10, 1994 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 10, 1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhoff; and Mr. Bruce Dotson. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Jenkins and Vaughan. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of April 26, 1994 were unanimously approved as amended. -------------------------------- Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions take at the May 4, 1994, Board of Supervisors meeting. -------------------------------- SP-94-11 Trinity Presbyterian Church - Proposal to amend a con ition of SP-93-01 to allow additional grading to occur on - site. Property, described as Tax Map 76, parcels 17C and 17C1, is located on the south side of Reservoir Road (Route 702) approximately 3/10 of a mile west of its intersection with Route 29/Route 250 Bypass in the Samuel Miller Magisterial District. This site consists of 17.54 acres zoned R-1, Residential and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay Distict. This site is located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 6) and is recommended for Low Density Residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Fritz noted that "no barriers to approval" were identified by the site review committee. Mr. Blue asked if the waste areas were owned by the church. Mr. Fritz responded affirmatively. Mr. Blue asked if the "pile of dirt" was going to remain. Mr. Fritz deferred to the applicant. (Mr. Tom Muncaster later responded to this question.) Mr. Dotson asked if what appeared to be an emergency access would continue to be barricaded. Mr. Fritz confirmed that it would remain as it currently exists with no access to Rt. 702. Mr. Dotson, pointing to a parking area on the plan, asked if the applicant planned to continue the fence as well as the trees. Mr. Fritz replied: "During the final review, we would do whatever is most appropriate or a combination. I believe they would prefer to go with the vegetation there, but you'd have to ask them. We would approve a combination." /515- 5-10-94 2 The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Muncaster. Regarding the fencing referred to by Mr. Dotson, he stated: "Whatever the planning staff asks us to do, we can do. There is fencing there on the distant parking lot. we prefer landscaping, but we would be willing--." Regarding the waste areas, he explained the history and stated that the church is presently attempting to get rid of the dirt that is in the front. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Imhoff agreed with Mr. Dotson's comments related to the existing fences and consistency in the future landscaping. She asked if a condition could be added addressing this concern, or is it enough just to direct staff to "make sure these areas link up." Mr. Fritz responded: "You can direct us to do it as part of the site plan review. If you feel more comfortable with a condition on there, by all means you can do that also." Ms. Imhoff concluded that she did not think a condition was necessary, but she voiced the feeling that "it would be awkward to have the fencing just stop." MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by both Ms. Imhoff and Mr. Nitchmann, moved that SP-94-11 for Trinity Presbyterian Church be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition: 1. Clearing of trees shall be limited to that shown on a site plan titled, Trinity Presbyterian Church, revised 2/15/93 and initialed WDF 4/27/94. The motion passed unanimously. ------------------------------ ZMA-94-02 Blue Goose - Petition to amend ZMA 90-20 on 1.4 acres Zoned PD--SC, Planned Development -Shopping Center. Property, described as Tax Map 56A(1), Parcels 53, 54, 54A, 55 and 56 is located on the west side of Route 240 between Route 240 and Carter Street approximately 400 feet south of the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad. The site is located in the White Hall Magisterial District. This area is recommended for Community Service in the Community of Crozet. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. staff was recommending approval of the petition. He explained that revisions to access, circulation and building size are proposed. It is the revision to access, "which is more than what was originally proposed," which cannot be approved administratively. He stated that the applicant had been unable to perfect the original plan for access because some of the necessary easements were not attainable. In place of the originally proposed entrance, the present proposal 5-10-94 3 is for an entrance on the southside of the property, directly to Rt 240. He stated that the originally proposed entrance to Carter Street has not changed. These changes resulted in a re- configuration of the interior parking plan and circulation and the building size. He noted that the Virginia Department of Transportation has reviewed the proposed entrance and their technical comments can be addressed during site review --no special conditions are required. The staff report concluded: "Staff opinion is that the modifications to the approved plan are consistent with the spirit of the origial approval and the Zoning Ordinance and, therefore, staff is recommending approval of this rezoning request. No agreements were contained in the Board's original approval for ZMA-90-20 and staff opinion is that none are necessary for this modification." In response to Ms. Imhoff's request for clarification, Mr. Fritz confirmed that the Commission was being asked to approve the entrance modification only. Mr. Fritz pointed out the areas on the plan which will be "available for landscaping." Mr. Dotson commented: "So there is no access between the main parking lot and the Carter Street parking lot." Mr. Fritz replied: "And there never was." Mr. Dotson asked if the proposed parking for the Carter Street units now meets the requirements of the Ordinance. (This modification reduced the number of spaces in the Carter Street parking area from 30 to 15.) Mr. Fritz replied that the parking still meets the Ordinance requirements. Mr. Dotson asked if the plan was subject to Architectural Review Board review. Mr. Fritz responded affirmatively and explained that the applicant has already had a conference with the ARB. A Certificate of Appropriateness will have to be issued prior to the signing of the final site plan. The applicant was represented by Mr. Sanford Wilcox. He explained that the concept is "to have a village -scale retail commercial shops." None of the spaces are over 3,000 square feet; most are of the 1,000 square feet variety. It is to designed to match "what has existed in Crozet for years and years." The entrance proposed on 240 "is an expanded version of what exists today, (which is) a commercial entrance, but it did not meet the standards." He explained that a second commercial entrance also exists "just to the north side of the building remaining on the front and we would propose to close that as we did in the original plan." The plan is laid out for 6 different "spaces." The two in the middle are served by the back lot and "the sidewalk around the side will facilitate some interaction between those." The design is intended to look like 4 shops from APB 5-10-94 4 the front and the Carter Street side is designed to "avoid looking like the back of a shopping center." In response to Mr. Blue's question about merchandisers using the same entrance as customers, Mr. Wilcox explained that the north side has a loading space which will serve one space, but in the other spaces the customers and merchandisers will use the same entrance. Mr. Dotson asked if consideration had been given to a pedestrian "Passageway" linking the front with the back. Mr. Wilcox explained that a passageway had been considered but because of the grade, steps would have been necessary and "switchbacks" would have been necessary for handicap accessibility. Mr. Wilcox concluded that "it had been difficult to do an urban renewal with this site ... and somethings are compromised, but not significantly so." He agreed that a passageway would have been advantageous, but he did not know how it could have been accomplished. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZMA-94-02 for Blue Goose, to approve a reduction in the building area and a change in access and circulation, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. ---------------------------- SP-94-10 Brass Incorporated (Owner) Christopher Grover (A licant) - Petition to establish a veterinary clinic on part of 5.734 acres, Zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2(18)]. Property described as Tax Map 121, Parcel 91 (part) is located on the west side of Route 20. The portion of the property proposed for use is located in the northwest corner of the Route 20, Route 712, Route 715 intersection in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area IV) . Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. (Mr. Fritz distributed to the Commission copies of a letter of support.) Mr. Fritz called attention to the conditions of approval which he stated were "important in this particular case because there is no site plan." Noting the description as a "base for large animal care," Ms. Imhoff asked if large animals would ever be brought to the clinic. Mr. Fritz responded that it was his understanding that this was primarily an office and that the applicant would visit the "other sites" to actually perform the veterinary service. He noted, however, that there was probably no way to guarantee that a large animal would not be brought to this site in an emergency situation. Mr. Fritz added that the "by -right use is off -site /__15�8 5-10-94 5 veterinary treatment." In response to Mr. Dotson's question, Mr. Fritz explained that this petition will not be subject to ARB review because it is an existing building. He also confirmed that animals will be confined to the sound -proof, air-conditioned building. Mr. Blue asked: "Won't there be a building permit?" JHe was referring to action recently taken by the Commission related to ARB review of renovation and maintenance operations. Mr. Fritz replied that a building permit may be required, but this ordinance change has not yet been approved by the Board. Mr. Dotson's understanding was that "if this was a maintenance operation, it wouldn't be subjected to the review, only if there was a significant alteration? Mr. Blue commented: "Significant is the key word."} (NOTE: Mr. Fritz noted that this building had burned at one time, but the Engineering Department has found it to be structurally sound.") Mr. Dotson noted that only a small part of the parcel is being used for the proposed use. He asked if the special permit would apply to the remainder of the parcel. Mr. Fritz responded: "You can make it very specific. ... We've always taken the approach that the descriptions, the way it's written, and the discussions that take place during the meeting --it is very clearly defined as the old Keene Market located in the northwest corner of this intersection. The rest of the parcel is not in the northwest corner." Mr. Dotson: "But that exhibit would lead you to believe that the whole property might be (involved.)" Mr. Fritz explained the reason for that is because "we use this to identify adjoining property owners." He concluded, however, that the Commission could add a condition identifying the property as "that portion of the property lying northwest of 712 and Rt. 20." The applicant was represented by Ms. Bruce Murray (one of the owners) and, Dr. Christopher Grover, (the veterinarian). Regarding the question about treatment of large animals at the site, Dr. Grover explained "that wouldn't be a problem." He noted that he is presently operating from his home in Charlottesville. He stated that only small animals will be treated at site. In response to Ms. Huckle's questions, he stated: (1) He will be leasing the property on a long term basis; (2) He does not plan to modify the outside of the building, but he will be making repairs. The Chair invited public comment. Mr. Mike Davis, a resident of the Keene area, expressed support for the proposal. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. 15 q 5-10-94 6 MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that SP-94-10 for Brass Incorporated - Christopher Grover, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Animals shall be confined to an enclosed structure. 2. Boarding of animals shall be limited to animals undergoing medical treatment. 3. Use shall not commence until the following have been obtained. a. Health Depatment approval. b. Building Official approval. c. Provision of adequate parking. Discussion: Ms. Imhoff noted: "I think it was clear in the description of the petition that it is for that particular building --it is a portion of the 5.7 acres." The motion for approval passed unanimously. ----------------------------- SP-93-41 Pagebrook Farm - Petition to locate a total of six impounding structures in floodplain on 315.86 acres [30.3.5.2.1.11 zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Rivanna Magisterial District. Property, described as Tax Map 50, Parcel 34 is located on the east side of Rt. 231/640 intersection at Cash's Corner. This property is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area II). Due to new information provided by the applicant, the Board of Supervisors has referred this petition back to the Planning Commission. Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. She explained that this item had been sent back to the Commission for further review of new information. The Department of Engineering had reviewed the proposal and stated: "The additional detail presented in the study supports our original position. This Department recommends approval subject (to conditions)." Staff recommended approval subject to the conditions recommended by the Engineering Department. Ms. Hipski confirmed that adjacent property owners had been renotified. A letter from Mr. Peter R. Taylor, the downstream property owner most effected by the proposal, was attached to the staff report. Mr. Taylor expressed his "positive sentiment" towards the proposed plan. One of the applicant's engineers, Mr. Steve Driver, addressed the 5-10-94 7 Commission. (He was accompanied by Mr. Steve Blain (applicant's attorney), Mr. Jim Wyrick, and Mr. Bob McKee. He stated that the applicant has worked towards solving the concerns expressed at the previous public hearing. The use has now been clearly defined as "for cattle and raising of fish." The design will "provide a reliable and much needed water resource for Pagebrook Farm and at the same time will provide diversity in the stream that's necessary to improve the aquatic habitat for fish." He stated that the measures which are proposed have been used by the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the USDA Forest Service for quite some time. He explained that the water which will be extracted will be only about "1/3 of 1% of the base flow." Using data supplied by the County Engineering Department, the applicant "figures that even during low flow or draught conditions, we would be demanding only about 7% or 8% even during the most extreme conditions." Regarding environmental impact, he stated: "The design of these structures has been fine-tuned by experts in the field --fisheries, biologists and hydrologists -- over a long period of time and they have been proven to be environmentally sound." All natural materials are used in their construction and they are very easy to install --each one taking only approximately 1 day to install. Water will always be allowed to flow continually, even during construction. These structures do not impound water, as the original concept implied, rather they create plunge pools below the structures, and it is from the plunge pools that the water supply will be drawn. Mr. Nitchmann stated that his questions and concerns regarding downstream impact had been answered. Regarding Mr. Green's concern about potential upstream flooding, Mr. Driver explained that he had spoken at length with Mr. Green and explained how the devices would work. He stated: "Based on the theoretical calculations which were done, we would anticipate an average water rise in water surface of 2 inches. But, the flooding that occurs in Mr. Green's field is not so much due to what is occuring downstream, but rather it is caused by a restriction at the road." Mr. Green had understood his explanation. Mr. Driver stated that were he in Mr. Green's place, however, he would probably want to have his concerns made part of the record. Ms. Imhoff asked if the improvements have resulted in less effect because of the plan to use plunge pools rather than than "ponding," which results in increased flow. Mr. Driver confirmed this was true. He noted that the original concept had implied that the base flow would be restricted, but "these structures are designed to allow continuous flow." He stated that though there will be "a little effect on backwater," it will not be nearly as much as the original concept would have caused. Referring to Mr. Driver's previous statement that he understood Mr. Green's concern, Mr. Blue asked why he would say that given the fact that he is familiar with "what little potential damage" 161 5-10-94 g there will be. Mr. Driver explained: "The reason I would do that is because if you're not doing anything in the stream at all you are having zero effect, but if you are doing anything at all you are having some effect. So although it is convincing that what we are doing is not going to impact his property, it would be good judgment on his part to take the position he has." He conclued, however, that he would not have any concerns about these structures and his contact with persons who have had experience with the structures make him "very comfortable that these things would not cause upstream flooding." There was a brief discussion of the use of "pasture pumps" for livestock watering purposes. Mr. Driver explained his understanding as to how the pumps operate, i.e. the pumps have a lever which must be activiated by the cow. The pumps work without electricity once they have been primed. Mr. Blue was skeptical that the pumps could operate as described by Mr. Driver. Mr. Dotson asked if there were any plans to fence the stream. Mr. Driver agreed that even with the pumps, there was no guarantee that the cattle would not go to the stream for water. Mr. Blue pointed out that most cattle will go to a stream to cool off, even if there is another source for drinking water. Ms. Huckle felt the proposed structures were an improvement over the original structures. However, she felt there should be a condition "saying that it (the stream) should be fenced." She asked if the applicant would be agreeable to such a condition. Mr. Driver replied: "On behalf of the applicant, I would prefer not to have a condition that fencing would be required and that he would be able to put cattle on the farm without that fencing, as are all farmers." Ms. Imhoff agreed that though it would be preferable to have the stream fenced, "because there might be some alternative places for the livestock to water, it is an improvement over what he could do by right." Mr. Blue added: "Plus the fact, Madame Chairman, that the only reason we are considering this is because it is in the floodplain and not from the environmental standpoint of protecting the stream, though I understand your concerns. But I don't think we can require such a condition." Mr. Dotson asked: "Can rely on the fact that you will be providing these alternate watering places and the pasture pumps? Would that be a part of the application so that in approving it we are approving that?" Mr. Driver replied: "If the special permit were approved, and we were to get cattle, then he would not have a problem with requiring the use of pasture pumps, or fencing, as an alternative to keeping the cattle out of the stream." Mr. Dotson asked: "I guess what I'm trying to figure out is, if we approve this should we expect the pasture pumps to be there --would they be?" Mr. Driver replied: "If he has cattle." /&07 5-10-94 9 Mr. Dotson inquired as to the current use of the property. Mr. Driver explained the property is approximately 30% in idle pasture. There are currently no cattle on the property. Mr. Dotson asked if there was any aspect of a fishery existing at this time, e.g. "does he stock the ponds or is this a development plan for what he would like to do in the future?" Mr. Driver replied: "Yes, he does currently stock the ponds." Ms. Imhoff questioned whether the Commission could condition "what you are suggesting", though "we can put it in the minutes that it is the Planning Commission's hope and desire that they could fence or they could do these alternate watering (devices), but I don't feel we could condition the special permit that way." Mr. Dotson clarified: "I guess my question was whether it is the applicant's proposal --the justification for the impoundments or the enhancements is in order to make the pumps work." Ms. Imhoff determined Mr. Dotson was trying to ascertain whether the pumps "were part of the package." Mr. Davis commented: "I think you could make it a case that it is a reasonable condition relating to this permit. I think you need to be careful as to how you structure it, but I think you could make it a condition." Mr. Blue commented: "It seems to me that if neighbors up and downstream are not required to fence cattle, and it reallly doesn't have much to do with being in the floodplain, I don't think that we should condition that at all. If we agree that the structures themselves are not going to create a hazard or be detrimental as far as flooding is concerned, I don't see that we really need to look at the other aspects other than the fact that we have discussed them (and the record will show) we are interested in them. But I think any requirement would be wrong." Ms. Huckle asked if Ms. Imhoff had some wording she wished to suggest. Ms. Imhoff replied: "I was questioning it because I am not in favor of adding that condition. I feel that the dialogue during the meeting will indicate to the applicant --the only four conditions which I feel we need to add are the ones outlined in Don Franco's letter." The applicant's attorney, Mr. Steve Blain, commented: "It's not unlike the other proposed uses would result from these impoundment structures. We wouldn't suggest that the applicant be required to conduct a fishery, for example. So it's analagous; these are one of the uses, one of the benefits of these impoundment structures and if the applicant does raise cattle, he will use these drinking devices." Ms. Huckle expressed the original understanding that the reason for the request "in the first place" was "to water the cattle and 5-10-94 Me] have the water to put into these ponds to raise the fish." Mr. Blain responded: "Well, that's right but you are not requiring him to do those things. If he builds the impoundment structures, this is what he will do, but he may choose at some point not to do it." Ms. Imhoff recalled that the original report had stated that the applicant also wanted the impoundments for "aesthetic improvement of the stream." Mr. Driver pointed out that the impoundments will "increase the dissolved oxygen content in the stream, so that regardlesss of whether the applicant chooses to use water from the stream, they will be beneficial to the stream" Mr. Dotson noted: "So I guess what it comes down to, it's like the Blue Goose, we have a pretty architectural rendering but that is not part of the approval." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Imhoff expressed the opinion that "this will be an improvement to the stream and not a detriment." She also expressed understanding of the desire, whenever possible, to encourage "best management practices," and she hoped the landowner would consider all those things. She concluded: "But for right now, I think the four conditions outlined by the Engineering Department are appropriate." MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that SP-93-41 for Pagebrook Farm be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Department of Engineering aproval of Final Dam Design Plans and hydrologic/hydraulic computations. 2. water Resources Manager approval of the Water Quality Impact Assessment. 3. Department of Engineering approval of the Erosion Control Plan. 4. Compliance with applicable Federal and state permiting requirements for activities within perennial streams. The motion passed unanimously. ------------------------------ Individual Design Requirements - Resolution of Intent - Mr. Keeler explained that experience has shown that single -width driveways have not worked well in single-family (and some duplex) developments. One car often winds up being parked on the street even though the present Ordinance does not require that roads be 5-10-94 11 designed to allow on -street parking. Staff has developed some alternative designs for off-street parking. The purpose of the amendments is "to provide consistency in terms of review as personnel change and also in terms of the application and regulations." He explained that presently there is actually no regulation on the books and "this would codify and give the applicant foreknowledge as to what to design to." He explained that the amendment proposes changes in the review process to "make sure that any difficult lots are identified" as well as other proposed changes. The Commission was being asked, at this time, to adopt a Resolution of Intent "to enable staff to advertise the amendments at a point in time where we've accomplished the rest of this review." He called attention to a report of an Ad Hoc Committee, made up of Engineering, Inspections, Zoning and Planning. Mr. Kelsey (Engineering) suggests in the report that "prior to the adoption of any textual amendments, the administrative policies of the Engineering Department must be distributed to the staff and the development community for review and comment." He stated that would be done before the amendments are brought back to the Commission. Ms. Imhoff asked if any citizen groups are routinely advised of proposed zoning text amendments. Mr. Keeler was unaware of any specific requests from citizen requests for such notification. He stated that staff would be happy to meet with any citizen groups.* Ms. Imhoff felt the Albemarle County Housing Committee would probably like to be made aware of any items which could effect the cost of housing. Mr. Keeler felt this amendment would be of such "infrequent use" that it will not likely significantly effect any housing cost "unless there is a situation where off- street parking isn't going to work and the roads have to be widened as a result." He felt most developers would avoid this type of situation because there are less costly off-street designs than going to an additional 16 feet of pavement. Ms. Huckle felt it would be less costly for the developer to follow the proposed amendment than to have to repair damage which has been done. She also felt it would save the County money in terms of staff time "involved in trying to repair some damage." Mr. Nitchmann asked if any of the slope recommendations contained in the proposed amendments had been compared to any areas which have steep terrain, such as Pittsburg or West Virginia. He pointed out that if these proposed percentages were adhered to in those areas, it would not be possible to build anywhere. He pointed out that the homeowners in those areas do not seem to mind those slopes. He noted that as the most desirable land gets used up for development, "at some point in time down the road we are going to be using more land that is of the nature of the Mill Creek area." He concluded: "I just want to make sure that before we start requiring certain percentages of slopes that we do look into some other areas to be sure that we are not *Ms. Lmhoff also asked that Citizens for Albemarle receive notification. 5-10-94 requiring something that is too Imhoff felt this was a separate overall discussion about steep 12 much." Mr. Blue agreed. Ms. issue and should be part of an slopes, infill development, etc. Ms. Huckle explained that the situation which "had brought this to a head" had had adequate space for a flat place to park, but it wasn't developed as the site plan suggested and very steep driveways were allowed to remain." She had been advised that "some cars have run away ... off the driveways." She felt this was a burden for the average homeowner. Referring to No. 2 in staff's report, Mr. Blue asked why a different slope was proposed for upslope (12%) and downslope (8%). He reasoned that this would work only if you have one-way driveways. He pointed out: "What goes up must come down and it seems to me it ought to be the same." Mr. Keeler explained: "You want somebody to be able to stop before he gets to the road." Ms. Imhoff expressed the hope that when discussions on slope do take place that there be slides available showing what the different slopes are. Mr. Dotson also suggested that a self -- guided field trip would be helpful. Ms. Huckle commented that these steep driveways also add to the problem of can -street parking and can hinder access for emergency vehicles. She was aware that scene cars had had to be towed during the bad weather. Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that the owner of the home "knew what the driveway was like when they bought the property. Ms. Huckle did not think this was always true since sometimes homes are purchased before they are complete. Ms. Imhoff attempted to make a motion but there was first some discussion as to exactly what was being approved. MOTION:Mr. Nitchmann moved that the Albemarle County Planning Commission, to serve the public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good zoning practice, adopt a Resolution of Intent to consider the amendment of the zoning Ordinance to require design standards for individual driveway design. Ms.Imhoff seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Dotson expressed the feeling that the language used in the staff report "was very, very vague." He felt the language of the motion should be more specific as to what was being considered, for the benefit of the public, e.g. "to provide for on -street parking, or to provide for at -curb bays, etc., in situations where slopes are in excess of..." Ms. Huckle pointed out that 5-10-94 13 the "meat" of the amendment will come later after further study. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the Commission's motion is not a public notice and that the public notice will be more descriptive and will refer to specific sections and intent of amendment. Ms. Imhoff explained further: "This just gets the ball rolling and directs staff to be more detailed when they put out the public ad." Mr. Dotson concluded: "As long as the public (notice) says more than design standards in certain cases, then O.K." Mr. Cilimberg also explained that the language for the motion adopting the Resolution of Intent is necessarily general so that the study can cover a number of things which the Resolution might not have covered. The previously stated motion was unanimously approved. ------------------------------ MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Nitchmann asked if the upcoming Comp Plan review should take into consideration the City's possible reversion to town status. He felt this would have a significant impact on the County. He wondered if this question should be posed to the Board. Ms. Imhoff suggested that this question be put on the agenda for the joint Board and Commission meeting. (Mr. Cilimberg stated staff was attempting to set a meeting for late June. He added that he was of the impression that before a change could take effect, there would have to be new comprehensive planning at that time. Mr. Davis added that the Blue Ribbon Commission recently completed by the City addresses a lot of these issues and one recommendation is that a body, composed of city and county residents and representatives of each Planning Commission, be formed to study the issues surrounding consolidation. He agreed this was a good question and felt it would be appropriate at the joint meeting with the Board.) ------------------- Ms. Imhoff reported that she had attended the meeting of the Housing Committee. She stated that the meetings will be held the fourth Thursday of each month, with the next meeting being set for May 26th at 9:00 a.m. in the 4th floor Board room. Agendas will be forwarded to staff for inclusion in Commission packets. Ms. Imhoff reported there will be an Open House sponsored by the Sustainable Development Committee on Sunday, May 15, 2:00 to 5:00 at PVCC. Ms. Imhoff requested a tour of the UREF site (North Fork), prior to the May 17 meeting. Ms. Huckle felt other Commissioners might also be interested. Mr. Dotson cautioned that no more than 2 /6 1 5-10-94 14 Commissioners could be present (because of public notice requirements). Ms. Imhoff was of the opinion that if no decisions were being made, site visits as a whole Commission were allowed. Mr. Davis commented: "You can always meet as a body and go on a site visit as long as it's announced and the press is aware of it. ...and the best way to handle it is to announce it at a meeting that you are going to do this at a set time and then convene to that time. If you don't meet, that's not a problem, but if you do meet then it's a public meeting and everyone knows about it. The understanding is that you don't conduct business, formally there, but you are meeting as a Commission." Mr. Dotson suggested that those interested meet at 5:00 on May 17. Mr. Cilimberg stated that arrangements could be made. He noted, however, that the presentation that will be made by UREF at the May 17 meeting will not be related to a specific proposal since one has not yet been submitted. Given that information, Ms. Imhoff stated she would prefer that a site visit be delayed until the specifics of the proposal are known. The applicant is unsure when that will be. Referring to a section out of the Background Report which Mr. Benish had distributed at the May 3rd meeting, Mr. Dotson expressed the feeling that it was exactly the type of document which the Commission needs to focus on. He also expressed the feeling that the Commission needs to stick with one topic at a time until progress has been made. Ms. Imhoff suggested that the Commission might submit individual written comments on this section of the report to staff by May 17. Mr. Cilimberg suggested that the Commission might want to hold comments until the rest of the report has been distributed. The Background Report is almost complete. Mr. Dotson again expressed the feeling that one topic at a time should be addressed before moving forward. He seconded Ms. Imhoff's suggestion that comments on the Employment section be submitted to staff by May 17th and possibly a work session scheduled to discuss the section. Mr. Dotson asked if the Carrsbrook Site Plan would come before the Commission. Mr. Cilimberg replied affirmatively. ------------------- There being there no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45. m . wayne Jcilimnerg, tiepj7erzary 16 F