HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 22 1994 PC Minutes11-22-94
NOVEMBER 22, 1,994
The Albemarle County Planning Commission and the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors
held a joint public hearing on Tuesday, November 22, 1994, Room 7, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair;
Mr, Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmmm; Ms, Katherine Imhoff; and Mr. Tom
Jenkins. Other officials present were: Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Mr. Robert Tucker, County Administrator; Ms. Roxanne White,
Assistant to the County Administrator; Mr. Ken Baker, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Hipski
Planner; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney_ Also present were Board of Supervisors
members: Mr. Walter Perkins; Ms. Charlotte Humphries; Mr. Charles Martin; and Ms. Sally
Thomas. Absent: Commissioners Vaughan and Dotson.
A quorum of both the Commission and the Board being present, Ms. Huckle called the
Planning Commission meeting to order, and Mr. Perkins called the Board meeting to order, at
7:00 p.m.
a i IMrnavement Pra_gram 1995-96 through 1999-2000 (Joint Hearing) - To receive public
comment.
Ms. Roxanne White presented a brief summary of the proposed CIP.
The following members of the public addressed the Commission and the Board:
--Mr. John Carter, a resident of Eariysville - He was concerned about the request for
"public input with very little public knowledge." He raised questions about the effect of the
new 5-year procedure "on the flexibility of the budget and the CIP plans in the future," and
he felt "the general public does not know what is going on." He pointed out that no reason
had been given for the $5,000,000 increase in the projected cost of the new high school. He
expressed opposition to the revenue sharing program with the Virginia Department of
Transportation "because (VDOT) is going to build everything anyway."
--Ms. Becky Fisher (a County resident and Elementary Instructional Techonolgy
Specialist for Albemarle County Schools); Mr. Ken Clarity - Ms. Fisher and Mr. Clarity
expressed strong support for fimding instructional technology projects and she explained how
teachers use technology to increase productivity. She felt students "need to be ready for what
they are going to face."
--Mr. Davie} Anhold (representing the Crozet Park Board), Ads. Sarah Sprouse; Ms.
Kirsen Hanson - All spoke in support of funding for the replacement of the Crozet pool. Mr.
Anhold pointed out that this is the only publically operated pool in the County. He estimated
a total cost of $300,000 for the replacement project, of which $100,000 has been raised by the
11-22-94
community. Mr. Anhold said the existing pool has outlived its useful life and is dangerous as
it presently exists. Approximately 20 persons in attendance at the meeting indicated their
support for this project by a show of hands.
--Ms. Susan Thomas (representing Trees for 29) - She described this as a "private
project to restore trees lost in the widening of 29 project." She said that though f mds are
being solicited from the private sector, County support is needed also.
--Ms. Anne Messina - She was in favor of "the County remaining on its current '96
schedule for the Red Hill outdoor recreational facilities and the Walnut Creek project." She
felt these improvements were two decades overdue. She stressed that the southern part of the
County is growing rapidly.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed at 7:37 p.m. and the
matter was discussed briefly by the Commission and Board.
Nis_ Imhoff expressed support for postponing action on the CIP so that the Commission would
have time to consider the public comment. She favored another work session.
Mr. Nitchmann and Mr. Jenkins expressed no opposition to Ms. ImhotTs suggestion. Mr.
Jenkins expressed the feeling that the new 5-year planning process was an improvement in the
budget process. He expressed hope, however, that the new process would not mean that
projects which are not in this plan would have to wait 5 years before they could be
considered. He felt that historically the Commission and Board have recognized projects
which "have merit" and he felt that process would continue.
Mr. Nitchmann pointed out that the CIP Technical Committee had worked very hard to try to
balance the budget and create a "debt ceiling," At Mr. Nitchmann's request, Ms. White
explained the process. She stated the emphasis had been to "try to fund as many projects as
possible with general fund revenues and borrow the rest." She explaind there had been two
main factors: (1) to try to stay under the debt policy that was set by the Beard, while
considering the amount of new debt service that the county can absorb in one year, and (2)
the difficulty in planning a 5-year period given the fact that everyone wants their projects
funded in the first two years. She later added that an effort had been made to try to move the
decisions on the capital budget more in conjunction with the operating budget. She explained
"there may be some flexibility in looking at revenues together with the operating budget and
if the Board chooses to switch monies from the operating budget to the capital budget, that is
a decision that can be made at a later time."
Ms. White confirmed that this meeting is the first opportunity the public has had to see this
proposed CIP. Because of this, Mr. Blue supported the suggestion for a Planning
Commission work session.
11-22-94
Mr. Nitchmann explained how the Technical Committee had approached the CEP study:
"Looking at 95-96, just funding the mandated projects dealing with ADA compliance, the
projects already in progress that need to be finished, then those projects dealing with safety,
security and health issues, and what we had left we tried to spread out the best way we knew
how." He noted that inost of the public comments had been about projects "at the bottom,"
which had wound up there because of the limited funds. He felt staff had done a good job,
given the restrictions and the parameters.
Ms. White reported that the Board would hold a work session on the CIP on December 7th
and a public hearing on December 14th. Mr. Perkins stated that the Board would like to have
a recommendation from the Commission by December 14th.
For the benefit of the public, Ms. Thomas asked that copies of the proposed CIP be made
available at the libraries.
It was determined to be a consensus of the Commission that a Commission work session on
the CIP be held prior to action. A work session was set for December 6.
Mr. Nitchmann advised the public that the Commission would not be looking at school
projects in detail. Those persons interested in these projects should be talking with the
School Board member and Board member. Mr. Nitchmann explained that it had been a
decision of the Commission not to review these projects in detail at the Commission level
because of a lack of expertise.
The CIP public hearing ended at 7:50 p.m. Mt. Perkins announced that the meeting would
recess briefly and the Board would reconvene in Room 5-6.
The Commission meeting continued after a brief recess.
The minutes of November 8, 1994 were unanimously approved as amended.
CONSENT AGENDA
SDP-94-059 Old Cqm= Buffet Preliminary Site Plan - Request to modify Section 4.2.3.2 of
the Zoning Ordinance to allow grading and construction of a retaining wall in an area of 25%
slopes.
Ms. Imhoff noted that though she generally has concerns about retaining walls and 25%
slopes, after having visited this site she felt a retaining wall was needed and that it would fit
the area.
� �l
11-22-94
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that a modification of Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance
to allow grading and construction of a retaining wail in an area of 25% slopes for the Old
Country Buffet Preliminary Site Plan be approved.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Moorman's River Agdcultural/Fgxestal Di trio - Review of the Moorman's River
Agricultural/Forestal District to continue the district for a time period of ten years. The
district consists of approximately 11,093 acres located on State Routes 601, 614, 658, 660,
662, 665, 671, 674, 675, 676, 677, 678, 680, and 821.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. The report explained requests for withdrawal have been
received on the following parcels: TM 28, Parcel 32C; TM 29, Parcel 7B; TM 59, Parcels
30, 30C and 30E. In addition, part or all of TM 28, Parcels 34 and 34A may be withdrawn.
Ms. Scala explained that Parcels 34 and 34A, TM 28 are jointly owned and though two
owners want to withdraw, the other two want to remain in the District. (This issue was
discussed later by the Commission.) Staff was recommending continuance of the District for
10 years, as requested_ The Advisory Committee unanimously supported the continuance of
the District for 10 years.
Regarding the jointly owned parcels, it was Ms. Scala's understanding that the two parcels are
in the process of being divided among the owners, but that has not yet occurred. Mr. Davis
feels that all 4 owners would have to agree to have the parcel removed from the district, or
the Board of Supervisors can decide that the two parcels be removed from the District. The
Advisory Committee supported the removal of these two parcels at this time. They can be
added back later, after the division has taken place. The Committee does not favor
withdrawal of parcels except at review times.
Ms. Scala called attention to a letter received from Ms. Garnett (an adjacent owner), Ms.
Garnett does not wish to participate in the District but is not opposed. Ms. Garnett also
wished to express her support for land use tax.
Mr. Imhoff felt what staff was saying was somewhat contrary to the County Attorney's
recommendation; Le, "that all four owners must agree to withdraw from the district." She
stated: "I am feeling an emphasis from him that we should leave the properties in and the
onus is on them to formally withdraw." Ms. Scala explained she had been in favor of
removing the parcels because a district is made up of "voluntary" participants. Mr. Davis felt
staff could not make that determination, but the Board can.
Ms. Imhoff preferred that the Commission remain silent on the issue with the resolution to be
arrived at by the families. Staff did not feel that would happen.
II-22-94
Mr. Blue felt one family member should not have the right to force another family member to
Participate against their will. Ms. Huckle pointed out that it would not be difficult for the,
ones who wish to remain to add back in later.
_..There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Imhoff asked if there would be a fee to re join later. Ms. Scala explained that there is a
fee to create a district, but not to acid.
MOTION. Ms. Imhoff moved that the Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval for a time period of 10 years and that
the Board consider removing the parcels with joint ownership (TM 28, Parcels 34 and 34A)-
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
f4-03 Cruz Stu y -Consider the recommendations of the Crozet Study to guide future
development in the Crozet Growth Area.
Noting that the Commission had previously discussed the Study at a work session, Mr. Baker
offered to answer questions.
Ms. Imhoff asked why none of the comments made by the Commission at the work session
were a part of staffs report, She had been concerned by some of the issues raised by the
Crozet study and stated she would not want it to be said she was "adopting it with open
arms."
Mr. Baker clarified that the Commission was being asked to tape action on CPA-94-03, i.e.
the addition of the following paragraph to the Crozet section of the Comprehensive Plan, as
set forth in his memo to the Commisison dated November 15, 1994. "Consider the
recommendations of the Crozet Study as a guide for development in the Community.
Adoption of this study as a guide does not constitute a commitment by the County toward the
funding of proposed projects or programs recommended in the study, Passible funding may
only occur after the full impact of a project or program in regards to all capital, personnel
and operating costs are understood. Also, all projects and programs recommended in this
Study must be properly evaluated and prioritized relative to all other County projects in terms
of possible funding. "
Mr. Baker pointed out that the wording of the Study would not change because it was a. study
developed by a community committee (formed at the direction of the Board of Supervisors).
He explained that the Commission, if it wishes, may forward any comments to the Board as
to how it feels about any aspect of the study. He reminded the Commission of the way the
Board had viewed recommended changes to the Neighborhood Three Study, i.e. "the intent
11 5
11-22-94
of these plans is that they be corrtmuni_ty ptargs and it shtrulai be, left alone-" He noted that
new Board members may have a different view.
Ms. Imhoff questioned the reason for the CommissioWs rc,,jcw of the Study if thw comincnts
were riot going to be sent to the-$"u, It was her tie st diag the reason fbF the Work -
session had been to get Commission comments, which would then be forwarded to the Board.
Mr. Baker did not think that had been the reason for the work session, rather it had been
simply to present the study to the Commission, for information.
Mr. Baker did not recall that the Commission had reached a consensus on any comments
which were made at the work session.
-% r. Jenkins pointed out that the group which had pr pa -red the report was comfortable with it
and he was not aware of any dissention. However, he felt any commissioner had the right to
communicatc individual comments to the Board.
Ms. Nitchmann felt Ms. Imhoff point was more one of "why did we waste two hours on this
if it was just going to be passed on to the Board_"
Mr. Baker explained staff had felt it was important that the Commission have at least some
presentation of the study and be made aware of it. He felt that had been the intent of the
work session.
Ms. Imhoff asked if the minutes of the Commission work session could be sent to the Board
along with the Study. 1`Ar. Baker reported no minutes had been taken for that work session.
Recatlliiig that some commissioners had had a lot of comments, Ms. Imhoff expressed
frustration that those comments were not recorded in some form. Reis. Imhoff began to list
some of the issues which had been raised. Mr. Baker acknowledged those issues had been
raised but he recalled there had been no Commission consensus on any of the comments. He
suggested that the Commission continue with the public hearing and then individual
commissioners who have reservations about certain parts of the ,Study can send those
comments on to the Board along with the Study.
Ms. Imhoff also wished the comments could have been available for the public. She
suggested that, in the future, the purpose of work sessions shoxald be made clear.
Ms. Huckle suggested that the public heaving be held, but Commission action be defeifed to
allow Commissioners who so wish to review their notes and mane their comments at the time
action is taken.
Mr. Blue recalled a main issue had been that those members of the Crozet coca ttnity wbicb.
were present at the work session had preferred that the residential density remain as it is, but
there had been some discussion MW Some Commission members "that the kind of density `dial,
11-22-94
we were proposing for the Crozet growth area was higher than that." fie recalled that there
had been other issues, but he felt the density issue had been predominant.
Ms. Imhoff also recalled there had been a lot of discussion about the area on Rt. 250 ;Nest,
and "generally, where was the downtownof Crozet."
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Tom Loach, a member of the Crozet Community Committee, expressed concern about
sending Commission comments to the Board with no explanation from the committee as to
why certain recommendations were made. He felt this would result in 'just the Plan against
the commen.tq, withant the full detail " Tt had been hia understanding that this meeting wnuld
be the time to re-lve some of the issues which were raised. He was disappointed that this
Aw not going .o happen.
Ms. HucUr. expressed the hope that there eoWld he minutes of wutk sas5ioiis in the fiaure.
it was determined that the Hoard would hold a pubtic hearing to "amend the Crozet profile to
include the wording in the memo (dated November 15, 1994)." He confirmed that the Crozet
community will have a chance to speak before the Board at that time.
Ms. Lnhoff praised the work done by the Committee and stressed that her comments were in
no way a criticism of what she felt was "a really good grass roots planning effort,"
NO. Huckle expResse1�i 4iAV {Lillt; to whetherornot to proceed with Commission aVi1yn or
delay.
Ms. Imhoff did not want be responsible for a delay in Commission action. one suggested
that each commissioner could send their comments to the Board, though the disadvantage of
this approach would be that the discussion would take place at the Board level.
Mr. Blue suggested that the Commission take time at this meeting to repeat their comments.
Ms. Hackle asked if there was any Airther public comment.
Mr. David Anhold, a. member of the Crozet Committee, addressed the :.ommission and noted
that the Committee had been wrldmg on the study for more than a year, He thanked the
county f6l JWduadijig the Study. He expwgged it willmt ghess tit weei widi die Cowmissioll
again if necessary.
Ms. Imhoff again said she did not want to delay action on the Study. She repeated what she
remembered to be the four major areas of the study about which she had been concerned:
(1) Lowering Residential Density - She expressed the feeling that it is a community
and not a village. Tt is a designated grot-Ah area of flue County mid :seeds to take iiW Pair
.26
11-22-94
share of growth. Utilities have been sized with the idea that Crozet would take on more
growth. She felt that, with good design, density could be well }candied and would benefit and
fit the scale and character of Crozet. She felt design standards would be a better way to
approach citizen concerns than would downzoning.
(2) Area on the Southside of 254W - She felt the downtown of Crozet is the
"downtown area" and it would "behoove us, when we look at the community of Crozet, to
delete that area ("little blip on the southside of 250W) from the
growth area of Crozet."
(3) Connector Road Alignment - She recalled that Mr. Dotson had expressed a lot of
concern with deleting that road and that he had also commented on the industrial area that is
difficult to access because of the railroad crossing and that perhaps that should be examined
for some alternate and better use.
(4) Large Area Within Designated Growth Area Shown as Open Space - She recalled
she had raised several questions as to why there was a large area within a designated growth
area shown as open space with no use described. She felt there should be a reexamination of
some of that land, or at least a justification as to why such a large area within the growth
area was undesignated.
Having reiterated those comments, she stated she was comfortable with sending it on to the
Board, knowing the Board would have the benefit of having seen the Commission's minutes
of this meeting.
Ms. Huckle recalled there had been some discussion about the recommendation in the Crozet
Study related to "infilling the downtown areas and perhaps some apartments on the second
floor which would, perhaps, help to increase the density but not destroy the village
atmosphere."
Mr. Jenkins acknowledged that Ms. Imhoffs points were important, however, he commented:
"This report is a result of having spent a fair amount of time discussing those issues and the
citizens of Crozet were asked to submit a report. And that's what we have. So I think it is
proper, if any commissioner, or if there is consensus here to submit additiionat comments to
the Board addressing these things, if, in fact, they are different than what the report says."
MOTION (by Mr. Jenkins): "With that in mind, I am ready to move forward, to send this
document, as it is, to the Board of Supervisors."
Ms.Imhoff asked: "Is that a motion?" Mr. Jenkins responded affirmatively.
Ms. Imhoff seconded the motion.
[NOTE: Mr. Jenkins' motion did not reference specifically the wording for CPA-94-03 as
presented in staffs memo dated November 15, 1994. Rather, it was a motion to forward the
Study on to the Board, as presented by the citizen's committee. Also, the motion did not
specifically make a recommendation as to what the Board's action on the Study should be.;
oIe,
i i�22-94
Mr. Blue noted that the Board always gets the i vmmisSion`s minutes, He felt it would be
appropriate, in this case, for that portion of the minute rciated to this i,ssuc, to be forwarded
Wong with the re port.
The motion to forward the Study to the Board passed unanimously.
ZTA-94-06-06 Six Stan Associates - Amend the provision of Section 27- .2 of the Light Industry
District to allow "outdoor recreation such as miniature golf, go kart&, bumper boats, batting
cages, etc." by special as@ permit.
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. The report concluded: "Commercial recreation
establishments in the LI district do not further the industrial purpose of the distriet, but may
be consistent with the permitted uses of the district in certain cases. Given the uncertainty
that a particular LI parcel will be appropriate for this uw, staff recommends this use be
alloyed only by special use permit."
Mr, Blue wondorod if the, LI districts were far cnough away from residontiai areas so that
then would not be the same type of objection as has been the case with previous proposals in
the Commercial districts. He did not think this would really improve an applicant's chance of
getting this type of use approved. Ms. Hipski felt it might be easier Because it is understood
in industrial districts that some uses are going to be incompatible with residential areas and
persons living adjacent to industrial districts would, therefore, be more accepting of the use.
Nis. Imhoff wondered it part of the ratioftale for the request had been to open up oplious.
She explained it has been her feeling that there is more undeveloped LI land than.
commercial and thus this would result in more possible sites for this type of use. Site asked
specifically: "I'm not worried about a specific site; haw much vacant Li land do we have? ...
Is there mare Ll vacant land than comincrcial vacant land in Albemarle County?" Ms. Hipski
could not answer the question directly. She stated, however: "Historically; staff has been
concerned about using industrial property for nonindustrial uses. That is another reason why
it would be appropriate to have this as a special permit application. Nis. Imhoff asked if a
zoning map was available which would show the location of presently zoned LI land. Ms.
Hipski was unable to locate such a map in the meeting room.
It was Ms. Huckle's understanding that the applicant has a particular site in mind, thus the
reason for the request, Ms. Hipski responded- "At the rim.o that we had received this
application, we had received a rezoning request and theapplication did talk about allowing an
amusement par. center."
The applicant, Mr. Wendall Wood, addressed the Commission. He explained that this is a
"market -drivers project." Presently, most of the market locations for this type of use are
commercial and are in close proximity to residential property. He stated this type of project
must be close to the market ift is going to se^re, which, in this vase, is the urban ring of
11-22-94 10
Charlottesville. Mr. Wood confirmed that it was his intention to follow this request (if
approved) with a request for a zoning snap amendment (which has already been submitted),
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Jack MacDonald, President of the Forest lakes Homeowners' Association, addressed the
Commission. He expressed opposition to the proposed amendment. He asked if staff would
identify the property which is under consideration.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if Mr. MacDonald had any suggestions as to where in the county this
type of use might be accptable. Mr. Nitchmann expressed the feeling that the County lacks
recreational activities for youngsters. Mr. MacDonald responded that this is not the only type
of recreation possible for young people and is simply a commercial. enterprise. It was his
feeling that an amusement parr is not a necessity in order for "a citizenry to grow up wise
and enjoying themselves." He pointed out that this is not a park, rather it is a commercial
business. He felt this distinction should be made by each commissioner. He could not
answer Mr. Nitchmann's question as to a passible location because he questioned the
appropriateness of the facility.
Ms. Imhoff stated what she felt was the "heart of this philosophical difference," i.e., "that
you don't have to permit every use in a community that somebody has dreamed up_"
In response to Mr. MacDonald's question about the location of the potential site which led to
this request, Ms. Huckle stated the newspaper had reported it to be somewhere near Forest
Lakes. Ms. Hipski responded affirmatively, and explained that the properly is near Forest
Lakes South, in the vicinity of the radio towers. The property is currently zoned. RA. She
explained that the rezoning request had not been forwarded to the Commission or Board
because the applicant later submitted this zoning text amendment and staff has, therefore, not
yet reviewed the rezoning request.
Ms. Kathy Stevenson, an Earlysville parent, expressed opposition to these type of recreational
facilities which she described as "big time wasters for children." She preferred recreational
activities which involve more physical and mental activity.
Ms. Karen Strickland, an Earlysville parent, expressed concern that a request is being made to
change a law, based on one person's benefit. She felt the discussion should be on ghat effect
approval of this request would have can the Ll property throughout the entire county.. She
pointed out that go-carts are often referred to as "a nuisance" and she wondered "why we are
working so hard to get a nuisance into any part of our community,"
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Because of the fact that a zoning text amendment involves the entire County, Ms. Imhoff
found this to be a difficult request to evaluate without having a better sense of the amount
11-22-94 11
and location of existing industrial land. She also felt it would be helpful to know how other
areas have dealt with this zone and the types of uses allowed, she acknowledged that
because this would be by special permit it made her feel secure because each request would
be addressed on a case -by -case basis, but she wondered "if this is really how we want to
make the best use of our industrial property." She viewed this as "diluting the power of our
industrial zoning districts." For the reasons stated above, she stated she would find it
difficult to have a positive response to this request.
Ms. Huckle read the following prepared statement: "This request seems harmless on its face
but is this really an appropriate use in the LI? We are urged to encourage new industries in
the County. Will the presence of such an entertainment facility discourage an industry from
locating nearby? Likewise, we should support existing industries. Most of us remember that
the Daily Progress objected when such a facility was proposed across the road, citing late
night noise, etc. Recreation and entertainment were listed in the article as the small business
most likely to W. They don't offer good paying jobs, so is this a good trade-off for a
possible industrial use? I assume that teenagers and young families wilt be the largest users
of such an entertainment facility. Industries often work more than one shift and often involve
the use of trucks of all sizes. Is the mix of teenage drivers and industrial traffic a wise
decision?"
Mr. Nitchmann expressed agreement with both Ms. Imhoffs and Ms. Hackle's comments. He
suggested a possible deferral to allow time for a work session and to get more information
from staff.
Mr. Jenkins also expressed some sense of security in knowing that the use would be by
special permit. He was surprised that the discussion had included a specific site, which he
had not been aware of prior to the meeting. He felt it was "near impossible" for the site in
question to be designated as commercial in the near feature. But he felt the request was a
natural one for anyone who is trying to find a site for such a use. He concluded: "It does
get a little confusing."
Mr. Blue expressed agreement with most all Commission comments. kie again expressed the
feeling that approval of this request would not make it any easier for this type of use to be
approved because the same people are going to be opposed. He suggested that a recreational
facility of this nature needs "a special place for it, a special zone for it." Though he agreed
with Mar. MacDonald that this type of recreation was not essential for the development of
children, he also expressed the feeling that "we aren't meant to work all the time and
sometimes we do some foolish things and waste our tune." He agreed that it was appropriate
that this topic be discussed in a work session. He expressed no preference as to whether this
request should be denied or deferred at this time. It was his feeling that a large segment of
the population feels this use is not appropriate for the Albemarle County; but he also believed
there were many people in the City and County who would love to have the facility. He
concluded it was the Commission's job, prior to taking action on this ZTA, to decide first if
4-11
11-22-94 12
the use is appropriate anywhere n the County and, if so, where. He stated he was opposed to
passing the request at this time.
Ms. Huckle again expressed the feeling that the use was not appropriate. riven the
Commission's busy work schedule at the present time; she wondered if it would be better to
deny the request at this time and then discuss it along with the land use discussions for the
Comp plan.
Mr. Jenkins noted the it was scheduled for the Board of Supervisors on December 14th.
Ms. Imhoff stated that though she had been undecided on this issue, if a decision has to be
made at this time she would support a denial.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that ZTA-94-46 for Six Star Associates be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Blue seconded the motion:
Discussion:
fvir.Nitchnmann commented: "To vote for it or against it, without a feeling of really due
diligence other than reading this and having a couple of people talk against it, doesn't set well
with me."
Mr. Jenkins commented: "My problem is similar to that.... If in fact the staff has looking
into this and they are recommending it and, in fact, other areas addressed this issue by going
Light Industrial; I am inclined to go along with that, with the provision that we have the
special use permit so there is control over it at that point. But I can understand ever rhody
else's opinion also."
iris.." Ume said her Earth in the special pei it y�Lem was not as great as some
Commissioners.
Mr. Blue pointed out that there nave previously been tour time consuming special permits for
this use. He stated: "I think if you pass it with the special use provision in it I think all it is
going to do is maybe raise the hopes of the people who want to develop this commercial
enterprise and give the idea that it's going to work this time. I personally believe that it isn't
(going to workV'
The m tin for denial. paged �4:1; d.jth Comm,ss.'^ner Nitehm»nu ^astiner the d:ssalit;na
vote.
MISCELLANEOUS
A-z'0
11-22-94
13
Ms. Imhoff again expressed the feeling that the intent of work sessions .should be made clear
in advwnce, c.g. "this is an information item, this is an item we need your commcnts onp or
this is an item which will require action at a later meeting."
Ms. Huckle reported on a meating of the Rural Area Transportation Study meeting. she W
suggested that a Park & .Ride system be tried. She asked that staff look into this possiblity;
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
121