HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 13 1994 PC Minutes12-13-94
DECEMBER 13, 1994
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, December
13, 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; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Mr. Tom Jenkins. Other officials present were:
Mr. V. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development, Mr. Ron Lilly,
Senior Planner; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney.
Absent: Commissioner Vaughan.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of
December 7, 1994 were unanimously approved as amended.
Mr. Cilimberg gave a brief summary of actions taken at the December 7th Board of
Supervisors meeting.
CONSENT ACTENDA
1993 Annual Report - Staff explained that the report was later than usual because it had been
overlooked. It was agreed that in future years it should be completed no later than April. Mr.
Nitchmann asked that staff report to the Commission in January on items which were
approved administratively; and he also suggested that future reports should include those
items. Mr. Nitchmann also noted that the number of items reviewed seemed to be small when
compared to the number of meetings held.
MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the 1993 Annual Report be
approved. The motion passed, 4:0.2. Commissioners Imhoff and Dotson abstained because
they were not on the Commission in 1993.
ZMA-94-14 Highlands West Land Trust CaMlicantl. L B. Walton owner - Petition to
rezone approximately 1.20 acres from RA, Rural Areas to R-4, Residential. Property,
described as To Map 56, parpel 93, is locatcd on the south side of Route 240 approximately
0.4 miles west of the entrance to Highlands at Mechums River in the White Hall Magisterial
District. This site is recommended for Open Space and Industrial Service in the Community
Of Crozet.
Staff was requesting deferral to December 20, 1994 due to a notification error. Mr.
Cilimberg explained that staff had made an error in providing the placards for posting on the
property. He also explained that this deferral resulted in the Commission's hearing being one
day before the Board hearing. Neighborhing property owners have expressed concerns about
Y 7-
12-13-94 2
the meetings being so close together and also about them being so close to the holidays. Mr.
Cilimberg explained that a later hearing date would cause no problems with the 90-day time
frame in which an item must be heard because the clock began in late November._
Mr. Cilimberg gave a brief history of the deferrals on this item -=the first being made by staff
to allow the applicant time to provide staff with mom information, and the second being at
the request of the applicant because some of the information was still not available. This
third request is staffs because it was a mistake made by staff.
The applicant's representative, Mr. Hunter Craig, addressed the Commission. He initially
expressed a desire for the Commission to hear the item on December 20th, with the
suggestion that the Board hearing be moved to a date in January. Because he was willing to
wait until January for the Board's action, Ms. Huckle asked if it would not be better to
schedule the Commission hearing in, January also to give the public a chance to p icipate..
Mr. Craig then asked if the Commission hearing could be the first meeting in January.
Ms. Imhoff expressed support for a date in January to allow for more public participation.
MOTION: Ms.Imhoff moved that ZMA-94-14 be deferred to January 3, 1994. Mr. Jenkins
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-94-18 Donald.Robertson - Proposal to rezone 4.34 acres from RA to LI (Light
Industrial) for the purpose of establishing a mini -warehouse facility. The property, described
as Tax Map 55B, parcel 17, is located on the south side of Route 250, about 2/3 mile east of
the Yancey Mills interchange at Interstate 64, in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site
is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 3).
Mr. Lilly presented the staff report. Staff was recommending denial for the following
reasons:
--Inconsistency with the Comp P1an.The property is outside the growth area and within
the water supply watershed.
--Approval would be inconsistent with past actions on requests of a similar nature and
may set a precedent.
--Reasonable uses for this property are still available.
--The Crozet community has area available for industrial service uses.
--Possible impacts to the character of the area are not clear.
Referring to staffs comment that space may be leased to industrial users, Ms. Huckle asked
what type of materials were envisioned for storage_ Mrs Lilly explained that there may not
necessarily be industrial users, but the applicant prefers to keep his options open as to whom
space could be leased to. Ms. Huckle concluded that the storage of chemicals might be
possible. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "They could only be by -right activities, in that LI
district."
12-13-94
It was determined that this use is by -right in the LI district and by special permit in the HC
district.
The applicant, Mr. Donald Robertson, addressed the Commission. His comments and answers
to Commission questions were as follows:
--Proffers have not been offered at this paint because of difficulties in getting a
definition from the Zoning Administrator. That information has now been obtained and has
"cleared up a lot" of the applicant's intention-
--Self-storage differs from warehousing in that warehousing involves employees and
the movement of large vehicles in and out, loading and unloading merchandise. 70% to 80%
of self -storage facilities are used by individuals who visit the units infrequently, in 2-axel
vehicles. The average traffic count is 1 vehicle per hour per 100 units. Sometimes sales
people will store excess stock or infrequently used records in self -storage units.
--There will be less run-off after construction than existed prior to construction.
--Environmental impact will be minimal.
--There is no impact on schools, utilities or water quality.
--The facility will add to the tax base while at the same time creating no need for
additional infrastructure.
--A request for rezoning to HC was considered originally, but was not pursued because
the Comp Plan recommends that there be no additional I4C on Rt. 2% Mr. Robertson
explained: "By special use permit, I find myself limited to the use of LI and being wilding to
proffer away the majority of the uses in U." CMr. Blue asked: "Are you saying you would
be willing to proffer out everything except this storage that you're contemplating`" Mr.
Robertson responded affirmatively.)
--There has been no meeting with the Architectural Review Board as of yet.
—Mr, Dotson asked about the location on the placard on the property. Mr. Robertson
explained that it is in the middle of the property. Mr. Blue confirmed that he had seen the
placard.
--It is anticipated the existing house can the property will remain and be used as the
rental office, with the current tenant possibly acting as an overseer.
--He described possible industrial storage as being wire stored by an electrician, or
stock stored by an Amway salesperson. The type of items stored are controlled, by State law,
i.e. no explosives, contaminants, gasoline, kerosene, corrosive chemicals, etc. are allowed.
--Hours are anticipated to be 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., with possibly longer hours in the
summer. No fences are planned. The facility will be "parameter buildings" with a gate for
access, i_e: the facility will be completed enclosed by buildings with all doors opening to the
inside. The units may or may not have internal lighting. Security lighting will be triggered by
motion detectors
--The facility could be shielded from 250 through a berm or plantings, or a facade
which is acceptable to the ARB could be used. The facility will be placed behind the existing
house.
Staff confirmed that the zoning will go with the land and the property could be used later for
any uses which are not proffered out. Mr. Robertson again stated: "We would be willing to
12-13-94
proffer away most of those uses. We are not particularly interested in doing anything but
putting warehousing in there at the present time and the other uses, of which there are about
16, could very easily be proffered away."
Ms. Imhoff asked Mr_ Robertson if he understood how proffers work. Mr. Robertson replied:
"I think so. It has been explained to me by staff," Ms. Imhoff pointed out_ "You have to do
this; we can't tell you (what to proffer)." Mr. Robertson replied: "Basically, we are willing
to proffer away the other things." He stressed that this use will be much less polluting than
other uses which could currently be placed on the property by special permit, e.g. a sawmill,
service station or garage.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Richard Stertevant, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission. He
expressed concern about impact on a stream which traverses his property and the impact of
this project on the valuo of his property. He explained that the only building site on his
property will be against the property line: He also expressed concerns about lighting.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Huckle asked staff if a stream runs across Mr. Robertson's property. Mr. Lilly was not
aware of a stream on this particular property, though he was aware of a small pond and
stream which is nearby. Mr. Robertson was not aware of a stream.
Mr. Robertson addressed the concern about lighting and explained that all lighting would be
directed to the inside of the units.
Mr. Jenkins asked how close the applicant can build to the property line if the property is
rezoned to L1. Mr. Lilly explained that the structure would have to be 50 feet from the
property line. (The setback is the setae in the HC district.)
Mr. Nitchmann asked why the applicant had decided to request Ll rather than HC. Mr. Lilly
explained that the Comp Plan says that HC should be in a designated growth area, with some
exceptions for certain industrial uses which have to be in the rural areas.
Mr. Nitchmann felt this type of facility is a "pretty benign use of the land." He stated he
could have supported the request if a proffer had been submitted as offered verbally by the
applicant earlier in the meeting.
Ms. Imhoff expressed the feeling that "this clearly is not supported by the Comp Plan." She
felt that if this area is not properly designated in the Comp Plan, it should be addressed
through a Comp Plan amendment. She said she could not support the request because "it
flies in the face of standing by the Plan." She sympathized with the fact that the area is
"somewhat convoluted, with a mixture of commercial and residential uses." She also ,stated
.„15-0
12-3 3-94
that her experience with this type of use is that they are often transitional. Thus, she was
concerned about eliminating all the other uses which would result in this property becoming a
►single -use zone." She preferred to have a detailed discussion about the future of this entire
area. She recalled that the Crozet Citizen Study had made a good case for ''building off of
the downtown Crozet area and there is Ll undeveloped land within Crozet." She concluded
that she could not support the rezoning.
Though he expressed agreement with much of Ms. Inihoffs comments, Mr. Slue was
concerned about turning down a benign use of the land. He pointed out that this whole area --
from Western Albemarle to I-64 has many uses which are much greater eyesores than this use
would be. He felt the main reason for not .approving the request was its non-compliance with
the Comp Flan_ However, he was concerned that staff was recommending denial of this
request, but approval of another request to be heard later in the meeting, which he felt was
very similar. He acknowledged there were differences, but he felt it would be hard to
recommend denial of this request and support staffs recommendation for approval on the later
request.
Nis. Imhoff pointed out that the differences were significant, i.e. this is a rezoning and the
later request is a special permit, this is new construction and the later request is use of an
existing structure. She again expressed the feeling that the Comp Flan is very important and
"we have done a pretty good job in sticking by it."
Mr. Nitchmann stated he views the Comp Plan as "a guiding light" and not as something that
is Set in concrete. However, he stated he could not support the request without a proffer. He
felt more study could have been done on this proposal, with perhaps more guidance offered
from staff. He thought it might be in the applicant's best interest to request a deferral to
allow the applicant to consult with staff further,
Mr. Dotson referred to the current zoning map and stated this is really an "infill question,"
He wished this was the Comprehensive Flan stage because he stated he was open to looking
at this area to consider its fate. He agreed that the use is benign and this type of facility is
very useful. It has been his experience that they are not usually attractive and he said he was
not sure he would want it to be in downtown Crozet. He concluded that he would prefer to
consider the item again after a proffer has been presented and after the ARB has seen the
proposal_.
Mr. Jenkins stated he was not concerned about the sequence of the procedure. He stated he
could support the request because he felt this was probably as good a use as could go on this
Site.
MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved that ZMA-94-18 for Donald Robertson be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval with the understanding that the applicant will present a
written proffer to the Board as discussed earlier in this meeting.
12-13-94 6
Mr. Davis commented: "I think the applicant indicated that he was willing to proffer out the
other uses. The offer would have to be in writing and voluntarily made by him to the Board
of Supervisors' public hearing."
Mr. Jenkins commented: "That's my motion."
Mr. Nitchmm n seconded the motion and noted that the Board would have the Commission's
minutes.
Diseussion;
Ms. Huckle agreed that the use was benign and possibly the best use for the site. However,
she was concerned because she felt "there is no compelling distinction between this property
and other properties which are outside the growth areas and within the water supply
watershed and that this may set a precedent for other rezonings which are not so benign."
She concluded that she could not support the motion.
Ms. Imhoff said she could think of "some properties, very similar, outside the watershed, but
in the rural area, on some of the major rouds==29 South and 250 East." She concluded: "I do
think it opens a dangerous door."
Mr. Slue felt Mr. Dotson`s comment about this being an infill situation was important.
If the Commission were to recommend approval, Mr. Dotson asked the applicant if it was his
intent to go before the AR$ prior to the Board hearing. Mr. Robertson responded
affirmatively. (Mr. Cilimberg noted that the ARB had not commented on this proposal
previously because no plan was presented to them)
The motion for approval passed (4:2) with Commissioners Imhoff and Huckle casting the
dissenting votes.
ZMA-94-1 Charles W. Hurt - Petition to amend the existing P.R.D., Planned Residential
Development, agreements of ZMA 88-04 to allow reconfiguration of access. Access is
currently permitted through the Franklin Development. The proposed access is through -
Ashcroft. Property, described as Tax Map 78, parcel 57 (part) consists of approximately 89
acres and is located west of and adjacent to the Ashcroft development in the Rivanna
Magisterial District. This site is net located within a designated growth area, (Rural Area 2).
Mr Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to modification of
previous agreements. [NOTE: Staff noted that agreement No. 8 should not have been
included in the staff roprrt as it had been deleted in 1988.1
:V =5' -;k
T3.-13-'94 7
Mr. Dotson asked: "Who is the Ashcroft Homeowners' Association? Who has authority to
order lands to join it or to prohibit lands from joining it'?" Mr. Fritz explained that almost all
homeowners' agreements provide for the inclusion of additional land. He added that the
applicant will have to prepare the final documents to "get the right of access to go through
Ashcroft, to hook into the road system, and to become party to the maintenance agreements
and other agreements." He did not know the status of these documents.
The applicant• was represented by Mr. Katurah. Rouell. He offered to answer questions.. He
eonfirmed. that the road will run. along,the ridge tops.- He� confirmed that. the applicant.
anticipates there will be no problems with gaming acces& through Ashcroft nor with any cif
the h6meorwner's documents.
Mr. Dotson asked if agreement No. 6 means that all' property owners will have to pay theft
fair share of road maintenance. Mr_ Fritz responded affirmatively. He said it was helpful to
have this as an additional "check" and to keep it consistent with the original '79 approval.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Dan Maclnenny asked whether there will be heavy construction traffic on Lego Drive.
Mr. Fritz addressed this question by referring to the Engineering Department's comments, i.e.
"the -existing road going through Ashcroft doesn't require any upgrading; any future approvals
inAshcroft would contemplate these additional 28 lots." Mr. 'Fritz confirmed that
construction traffic will have access through Ashcroft, and not through Franklin.
Mr. John O'Connell, Vice Chairman of the Ashcroft Homeowners' Association, addressed the
Commission. He expressed concern about the use of Lego Drive, saying "If there were
another solubov. I think we'd be in favor of it-" He was in favor of the ownerR of the
additional 28 lots becoming part of the homeowners' association. Mr. O'Connell confirmed
that all the private roads have been turned over to the homeowners' association. for
maintenance.
Ms. Dorothy Kelly asked if Leger Drive was a state road or a private road. ,Mr. Fritz
explained that a portion'is state maintained. He was uncertain of the details. He estimated
the portion of the extension to be maintained by the homeowners to be 1,200 - 1,500 feet.
Ms. Kelly was concerned about whether or not the fees from the additional 28 homes would
offset the cost of the additional maintenance. Ms. Kelly expressed concern about increased
traffic, particularly construction traffic and through traffic, on Lego drive.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
In response to Ms. Iluckle's question about how homeowners agreements are negotiated, Mr.
Davis explained that they are private agreements which the developer and the homeowners
agree to. He explained that additional properties will have to meet the terms of the existing
�53
12-13-94
homeowners' association, if they consent, or they could negotiate new terms, if they both
agree upon those terms.
Noting that this development will add a number of vehicle trips per day, Mr. Nitchmarm
asked if VDOT had plans to review the entrance onto Rt, 250, to ensure that the acceleration
lane is adequate. Staff was unable to answer this question, but explained that VDOT is a .part
of the site review committee. Mr. Nitchmann explained that he travels this part of Rt. 250
daily and he has noticed that it is difficult for vehicles corning onto 254 to merge with traffic
because the acceleration lane is inadequate_
W. Fritz explained that there are agreements which require that before the next phase of
Ashcroft can be built, certain improvements, as specified by the VDOT, must be completed.
He stated that the developer is currently working with VJ)O ' to finalize those plans. Mr.
Fritz believed that these agreements do deal with the entrance, but he was not sure whether or
not they included changes to the acceleration lane.
Mr. Nitchmann also asked if there were any way to prevent these lots, which are at a high
elevation, from becoming areas of light pollution, Mr. Cilimberg explained that this is an
old zoning and lighting was not addressed at the time of its approval. He pointed out that
this request is just to alter access and other issues beyond that have not been addressed. He
agreed that the Rt. 250 access was a pertinent issue, but he was uncertain as to how to
address the lighting issue. He did not think that any of the County ordinances restrict
individual horse lighting.
Mr. Blue noted that the proposed Mountain Top Protection Ordinance would protect areas
above 700 feet and the proposed ordinance shows this as an area for protection. Mr.
Cilimberg acknowledged that the area is shown for protection, but he stressed that Ordinance
has not been adopted, nor has it been "elaborated on in terms of development, no
development, or restrictions on development." Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that staff had not
reviewed this as a new rezoning request.
Ms. Imhoff felt Mr. Nitchmann's point about the impact on Rt. 254 amass was a good one.
She reminded the Commission that if there are questions about a rezoning rcquest, action can
be delayed on the request until the questions have been answered.
Mr. Nitchmatin felt the question of Rt. 250 needs to be answered because of the safety issue.
MOTION. Ms. Imhoff moved that ZMA-94-16 be deferred to December 20, 1994. Mr.
Nitchmann seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-94-31 Georr?e Hall - Petition to establish a public garage on 0.676 acres zoned RA, Rural
Areas [10.2.2(37)]. Property, described as Tax Map 95, Parcel 12B 1 is located on the mirth
side of Route 250 approximately 150 feet west of the Albemade,'Fluvaima County line. This
12-13-94
9
site is lccated in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is within the EC, Entrance Corridor
Overlay District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 2).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval suhjject to conditions.
Mr. Blue asked how staff differontiatod this rcquost from the one at Yancey Mills heard
earlier in the evening. Mir_ Fritz agrees that staffs position was based in part on the fact that
this is a special permit; not a rezoning, and this isanexisting building, not reconstruction. In
addition, Mr. Frit2 explained that there are other differences in terms of the Camp Plan
recommendations for Croat vs. the general recommendations for the rural areas. Also, the
use is by special permit "which is a recognition of the need to provide limited support
services in the rural areas to remote population." Another substantial factor in stafTs position
is the precedent of using this site as a support service to a rural population, i.e. it was a
garage and possibly a gas station at some point in the past_ Staff lead also considered. "what
reasonable rases the property has as a rural area property."
Mr. Dotson askod how long had it had boon sinco the property was used commorcially. He
also asked Mr. Davis. to comment on the provisions for non -conforming uses. Mr. Davis
explained that businesses which have not been in operation for 2 years lose their non.
conforming status.
Mr. Franklin White, owner of the property, addressed Mr. 1)otson`s first question. He
explained the history of the property and stated it had stopped commercial activity in August,
1994. He stated the eastern part of the building had been built as a garage. The gas pumps
and undergrotmd tanks were removed in 1991,
The applicant, Mr. George Hall, addressed the Commission. Answers to Commission
questions included the following:
--No storage of vehicles is plaiumd, except possibly one or two waiting to be moved
inside for service. These will be placed behind the building, out of site.
--Discarded parts will be removed from the property at the same time the new parts
are delivered.
--Screening measures have been recommended by the ARB and will be addressed with
the building permit. A fence is planned along the side.
--A floor drain (which will drain into a concrete containment area) will be installed if
one does not already exist. Arrangements will be made for recycling discarded lubricants,
fluids, etc.
--No changes to the plumbing system are anticipated.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. David Warren, the owner of property which surrounds the subject property, addressed the
Commission. He presented photographs of his home and explained his plans- to build 3
similar homes on the adjoining lots_ He explained that the access road to his home, and the
12-13-94 10
other properties, passes by the parking lot of the existing structure. He was very concerned
about the devaluation of his property and about possible water contamination as a result of
runoff from this property. He felt the store which had existed for many years was far less
objectional than the proposed use. Mr. Warren confirmed that he had installed the existing
fence between his road and the store property.
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Warren if he would be less opposed if the garage were surrounded
by a fence. Mr. Warren did not think a fence would be effective because the garage property
is lower than his.
Referring to the suggested conditions of approval, Mr. Dotson felt staff had "gone fairly far in
trying to restrict the use."
Ms. Karen Warren expressed support for her husband's comments. She asked if the same
conditions would apply if the applicant were to sell the property. Mr. Fritz responded
affirmatively.
Mr. Ken Clarity, Mr. White's realtor, reminded the Commission that gas had been sold at the
property as late as two years ago ('91 or '92). Because of existing vegetation and the
topography of the land, he did not think the garage would be visible from Mr. Warren's
property, though it is visible from Mr. Warren's access road.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Imhoff did not think the comparison of gas sales with a garage was a good one. Though
she agreed that this type of use is one which sometimes fits into the rural area, it must be
balanced against other existing uses in the region. She concluded: "After hearing from
everybody tonight, I am ending up being on the side of caution, which is I would prefer to
see a commercial use that is in character with what was there before and I tend to lean away
from wanting to see this converted into a garage." (Mr. White interjected: "This was a
garage for 25 or 30 years.")
Mr. Dotson asked staff what type of uses could go on the property without Commission
approval. Mr. Davis answered: "The existing use would be a less non -conforming use than
what the prior use was as a gas station. So that use has been abandoned in lieu of the
existing use. So any use that was consistent with the commercial use that was in operation
within the last 2 years could be established." Mr. Dotson: "And that would be sort of a
country store, bake shop." Mr. Davis replied: "That's right --a store, retail type use, but not a
gas station, nor selling gasoline." Mr. Dotson responded: "So someone, like the Zoning
Administrator, would have to make a judgment call as to whether some proposed new use is
of equal or lesser intensity." Mr. Davis explained further: "Any use that was less intensive,
less non -conforming, could be put in place of the prior non -conforming use, or the sane use
as that which was non -conforming could be established as long as it was re-established within
two years." Mr. Dotson said the applicant could have tried to make a case before the Zoning
1�25 41
12-13-94 12
Administrator that this use was not more intensive. Mr. Davis did not think the Zoning
Administrator would not have agreed with that argument. Mr. Davis said: "It's correct that
there could have been alternative uses proposed which the Zoning Administrator could
approve." Mr. Dotson concluded: "In which case ... there would be no opportunity to put any
conditions on the approval.' Mr. Davis: "That's correct."
Ms. Huckle noted that the staff report had commented on the location of other garages in the
area. She asked if there were any other country stores in the area. Mr. Blue stated there was
a store at Boyd Tavern, approximately one mile away.
Mr. Blue questioaed whether the applicant would be able to get approval from the ARB
because there is no way to screen the building from Rt. 250, and: screening from 250 will not
address the adjacent property owner's concern. Mr. Blue noted that though the adjacent
property owner has said the back of the building will be visible from his property, the
building existed when he purchased the land. (It was noted later that the ARB can address
only the view from Rt. 250, not from the adjacent property.)
Ms. Huekle wondered if there was any kind of fencing which would address Mr. Warren's
concerns.
Mr. Dotsou was sympathetic to the fact that both the applicant and the adjacent property
owner are trying to succeed in their businesses. He was in favor of the Commission taking
action with the hope that the applicant and Mr. Warren could work out some mutual solution
to the screening problem prior to the Board hearing.
Ms. H uckle favored a deferral because she felt a favorable action at this time might hamper
efforts for the two neighbors to come to an agreement.
Ms. Imhoff noted that the debate of "what uses are appropriate in the rural area" keeps
coming up. She felt the only reason for this particular discussion 1.5 because it is an existing
building. (Mr. Dotson interjected: "And use.") She again stated she always prefers to err on
the side of being cautious with expanding uses in the rural area.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-94-31 for George Hall be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for denial.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Blue asked if it was appropriate for the Commission to defer an item to allow time for an
agreement to be reached between parties. Mr. Davis replied: "Since this is a special permit,
you have the ability to put conditions on the permit and if you need additional input from the
applicant or the staff in order to fashion conditions, I think it is appropriate for you to defer it
to get that information. If you are not looking to do that, then I think you should vote it up
or Gown."
12.13-94 12
MOTION: Mr. Blue moved that. SP-94-31 be deferred to January 3, 1995, to allow time for
the ARB to review the proposal and to allow time for the applicant and adjacent owner to
attempt to come to a mutual agreement about screening.
Mr. Imhoff asked if it was Mr. Blue's intent that staff develop conditions to address the
screening issue. Mr. Blue stated he would prefer the two parties reach some agreement and
then meet with staff. He did not think any additional information was needed from staff at
this time.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion.
The applicant was not opposed to a deferral.
The motion for deferral passed unanimously.
---------------------------------------
LMA-94-17 - Amend the Zoning Map as regards the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District
to reflect changes to the Rt. 63I alignment.
Mr. Fritz presented a very brief staff report.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, seconded by Ms. Imhoff, that ZMA-94-17 be approved. The
motion passed unanimously.
WORK SESSION - Economic D_eyelopment
Mr. Cilimberg distributed an outline which was meant to be a guide to the discussion of what
the Economic Development Policy will ultimately be.
There was a brief discussion about scheduling of the next worm session on this topic.
Recalling that there had been citizen opposition to a December 20th work session, Ms. Imhoff
felt discussion should not take place on December 20th, and should be postponed until a date
when more public could be present. There was no support for Ms. Imhoff suggestion. It
was noted that December 20th would be a work session and not a public hearing.
There being no further business, the meeting adj?ufned at 9:45 p.m.
_ • r
DID
V. wgne
.Z-11�