Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 23 1993 PC Minutes3-23-93 1 MARCH 23, 1993 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 23, 1993 in the Auditorium of the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the March 9, 1993 meeting were approved as submitted. SP-93-07 1781 Productions - Request for a special permit for an approximately 2,000 seat outdoor theater [10.2.2(44)] on approximately 100 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor. Property, described as Tax Map 94, Parcels 21 and 25, is located on the south side of Route 250 approximately 0.5 mile west of Black Cat Road (Route 616) in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area 4). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Johnson asked about the source of the figures for the anticipated water usage--5 to 10 gallons/seat/day. Mr. Fritz explained the figures were provided by the Health Department. Mr. Johnson noted there was a 11100% difference" in the range, which could be significant in trying to obtain necessary water. Mr. Keeler suggested that the higher figure be accepted because this will be an evening, after --dinner type use. Mr. Johnson questioned the size of the figures. In response to Ms. Huckle's question about traffic figures, Mr. Fritz explained the "best available data from ITE" had been used. The applicant, Mr. Charles McRaven, addressed the Commission. He attempted to address "misconceptions" which he felt the public had about the project and also described how concerns expressed at the previous hearing (with a different site) have been addressed with this site. His comments included the following: --An outdoor theater is proposed which will be used for an outdoor historical drama only; the theater will not be leased or rented to any other type of performance. Performances will take place outdoors and during the summer 3-23-93 2 months ONLY. The Zoning Ordinance definition is very specific in this regard. --The subject matter of the performance will be local historical events ONLY. --Neither a restaurant nor a hotel will be built. --There will be no large building with an indoor theater. --A 2000-seat theater is planned. Typically, 1,500 seats can expect to be filled each night. --The site is "deeply buried" (about 1/2 mile back) in the middle of 600 wooded acres and the topography and vegetation should well mask the sound. --Access will be directly off Rt. 250, straight into the property. --All the parking area will be totally hidden from any house. --All holes drilled in preliminary perk tests tested "good." --Lighting will all be aimed down into the deep hollow. --Three structures will be built. --This theater will be 1/24 the size of Scott Stadium. --The entire seating area is 78 feet deep. --The theater will not create new traffic, but rather will "divert" traffic that is already on the road. --If the venture fails, the special permit will be vacated and the land will return to agricultural designation. -Research done by an independent consultant (The Institute of Outdoor Drama) of the 92 outdoor theaters in the United States, shows that "in no case has the placement of an outdoor theater decreased property values and in no case has it increased taxes." --Police departments were contacted in towns where outdoor dramas exist and none had experienced any problems with the theater crowds. --A special permit is requested for the entire 100 acres (purchased by the applicant) and not just for the 6 acre theater site because "we were Zed to believe that that is the procedure --but we would be happy to do it the other way." Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Bowling if the property would "revert to rural areas" if the theater should cease to exist. Mr. Bowling responded: "It's a special use permit application and the property is going to be zoned RA whether you grant or do not grant the special use permit. But a special use permit request is a change in zoning. As a general rule of law, a special use permit runs with the land. If substantial sums of money are spent on this project, he may find it very difficult to restrict the special use permit to a personal use rather than a use which runs with the land." Mr. McRaven pointed out that the special permit request is only for an outdoor drama and, therefore, that is the only use which could be made of the land. It was also noted that q4 3-23-93 3 conditions which are attached to a special permit also are attached to the land. Ms. Andersen noted that requests for amendments to conditions can be made at any time. Mr. McRaven noted that the very definition of an outdoor theater, as written in the ordinance, was very limiting. He quoted: "An establishment, whether operated for profit or not, providing live performance re -creations of events of historic significance to, and having actually occurred within the locality or immediately adjacent localities." He asked: "If the Zoning Text Amendment, which allows the special use permit, is that specific, can we really ever perceive anything else being done on the property? We have no intention of doing anything else." Mr. McRaven continued his comments: --Figures from the Institute of Outdoor Drama estimate a first -year impact on the local economy of twelve million dollars. At 3/4 capacity, the impact is estimated at twenty million/year. --It is estimated that 40% of persons living within a 200-mile radius will come to see the drama. --He expressed "major concern" about the Highway Department or the County requiring the applicant to install a left turn lane at the junction of Black Cat Road with Rt. 250 which is more than a quarter of a mile from the subject property. (Mr. McRaven was referring to suggested condition No. 10.) --He expressed concern about the wording of condition No. 7 related to sound. He stated: "We know that we will not generate any more sound than the applause of our audience." Though he expressed "no particular problem" with a limitation to "live, unamplified music," as stated in the condition, he explained that there could possibly be an instance where the musicians will "not show" for some reason and recorded music would have to be used. He asked the Commission to address this issue in greater detail. --The applicant will employ persons who will be responsible for traffic direction. --In response to Ms. Huckle's question about a possible traffic light, Mr. McRaven stated: "If the Highway Department decides that our theater creates the need for a light, we'll pay for a light." --In response to Ms. Huckle's question regarding his qualifications as a writer, producer, and director, Mr. McRaven described his background and experience in this regard. --The play is scheduled to run from 8:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. (barring interference from summer storms) and it is anticipated that the parking lot will empty in approximately 20 minutes after the end of the play. (Mr. Jenkins stated he would feel more comfortable if the anticipated operating hours were more clearly defined in condition No. 4.) �q5� 3-23-93 4 The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed support for the request: --Dr. Nick Evans (geologist): He was knowledgable of the bedrock in the area and stated: "There are sound geological reasons for believing that there is plenty of water to be had there." He could not predict how drilling of additional wells would impact existing groundwater supplies but stated that the applicant is prepared to undertake a geological study to verify the impact of extracting groundwater on the surrounding wells. --Ms. Yates Nobels (who served as the applicants' real estate agent during their search for property): She described in some detail the "earnest" search which the applicant had performed. --Mr. James Scales (a Lexington resident): He described research he had performed in the neighborhood adjacent to Lime Kiln Theater in Lexington. His research had revealed that the theater had "not had a significant adverse impact" on the lives of the adjacent property owners, that property values had not declined, and noise has not been a problem. Extra traffic has proven to be inconvenient, but not dangerous. --Mr. Meek Barton (a local tour guide). --Ms. Dorothy Lambert (an Albemarle resident for 10 years and former State Travel Director for the State of Mississippi): She asked that the Commission consider this as an industry --one which will not require County expenditures in terms of new schools, etc., and one which will offer increased employment opportunities for unskilled labor. --Ms. Amanda McRaven --Ms. Bobbie Cochran (Director of the Charlottesville -Albemarle Convention and Visitors' Bureau): She felt thie outdoor drama could add an extra boost to the local tourist industry. --Mr. Robert Bollinger (a Key West resident): He stressed that this is the "lightest of light industry --clean dollars." The Chairman invited additional public comment. The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed opposition to the proposal: Ms. Becky Critzer (she made reference to a petition of opposition which she had in her possession which contained the signatures of many of her neighbors); Mr. and Mrs. Bill Johnson; Mr. Bill Dorsey; Mr. Richard Lawrence; Mr. Carlos A. Savido; Mr. Aaron Zackroff; Ivan Jacobs; Dan Leak; Hobert Addington; Michael Harris; and Mr. Vernon Jones. (Approximately 50-60 persons were present at the meeting and expressed their opposition either individually or by standing when called upon to do so later in the meeting.) Their reasons for opposition were as follows: 3-23-93 5 --Negative impact on living environment and quality of life; --Interjection of a commercial venture into a rural area which will invite "more and more commercial uses;" --Granting this permit is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan's promise to protect the rural areas from this type of commercial enterprise; --Devaluation of nearby historical properties (e.g. Limestone Farm); --Light pollution; --Increased traffic which increases accident and injury potential; --Lack of a detailed site plan; --Skepticism that 680 vehicles can be emptied from a parking lot in a 20 minute period. --Reported accidents (1992 records) show there were 33 accidents on the 250 corridor between 164 and the County line; 5 accidents on the Rt. 616 corridor from 164 to the County Line --one actually at "that" intersection. [These figures were presented by Mr. Savido. Speaking as a member of the East Rivanna Fire Department, he was personnally aware of 3 vehicle accidents near the Rt. 616-Rt 250 intersection in 1992. The Pegasus medical evacuation helicopter was used to transport victims from these three accidents.] --Skepticism that traffic will not take a short cut to reach 164; --Residents on Rt. 250 (between the site and 164) should have received notification of the project. --Many volunteer firefighters live on the opposite side of this property. Response time will thus be increased when emergencies occur during times the parking lot for the theater is being filled or emptied. There is no pull -off area along the road. --What type of emergency the applicant on the site? --What will happen to the fails? provisions will be provided by property if the venture --Skepticism that the tourist market in this area will support this venture. --Skepticism that the venture will succeed here when a similar one failed in Williamsburg. --Fear that a restaurant will eventually be added to the project; --Skepticism that there already exists enough overnight accommodations on this side of town to meet the needs of this type of venture. Mr. Charles Kincannon, co-owner and seller of the property in question, addressed the Commission. He felt the limitations placed on the request would offer adequate protection and address the concerns of the property owners. He explained that the property is presently being timbered because of a large infestation of pinebark beetles on the 3-23-93 6 back portion of the property. In response to Ms. HuCkle's question, he explained the property being purchased by the applicants is primarily a "clear field, and oaks and chestnut oaks." At the end of the public comment Ms. McRaven addressed the Commission and explained some of the background of the proposal. She also attempted to reassure the public that many of their fears were unfounded. She stressed that the applicants had listened to the concerns expressed at the previous public hearing and had attempted to meet all those concerns when chosing an alternative site. Mr. McRaven again addressed the Commission. He explained that all "available" sites (total 104) had been considered by the applicant. He also expressed the opinion that many of the persons objecting to the project do not actually live in close proximity to the property. He also took exception to the insinuation (by a member of the public) that he was interested only in "lining his pockets." He noted that though he only needed 7 acres for the project, he was purchasing 100 acres "to protect you (the public)." A member of the public noted that the Chamber of Commerce had adopted a resolution supporting the concept of an outdoor theater but at the same time had expressed the feeling that homeowners in rural areas should not be disturbed. He also asked if consideration had been given to the purchase of County -owned property for this project. (Mr. McRaven explained that this possibility had been explored.) The Chairman closed the public hearing at approximately 10:10 p.m. Ms. Andersen asked why condition No. 5 [Approval of this request shall not be deemed to include uses such as craft shows, dog shows, music festivals and film exhibitions unrelated to the drama production.] was necessary, "given the definition of outdoor theater." Mr. Fritz explained the language had been developed with the Zoning Administrator and was an attempt "to clarify the use and ensure that it does not become something it was not intended to be," and also to facilitate the Zoning Administrator's enforcement capabilities. Mr. Blue expressed the feeling that No. 5 would do the opposite of what staff intended because though some possibilities have been enumerated, it is obvious that all possibilities have not been enumerated, which could lead to the perception that those things which have not been listed could be allowed. He felt that leaving it strictly to the definition of outdoor theater (i.e. for an outdoor historical drama) was sufficient. _)QV 3-23-93 7 Ms. Huckle wondered if the Zoning Aftinistrator's caution might be based on past experience with the Foxfield property. Mr. Johnson suggested that No. 5 be changed to read: "This approval is for an outdoor drama theater only." He felt the strict definition would exclude everything else. Mr. Keeler suggested the addition of the words "There shall be no accessory or subordinate uses." Mr. Bowling agreed the suggested rewording was acceptable. (NOTE: This issue was discussed again later in the meeting and ultimately the condition was changed as described.] Ms. Huckle noted differences in the sketch plan from that which had been submitted with the Milton site. She asked if only those buildings shown on the current sketch plan would be allowed. Mr. Keeler noted that condition No. 1 requires that development be in "general accord" with the sketch plan dated March 4, 1993. He explained that if more buildings were proposed later, it would have to be determined if the plan was still in "general accord" with the sketch plan. Ms. Huckle wondered if "general accord" was a loose definition. Conditions 9 and 10 were discussed at some length by the Commission. [9. Access shall be only from Route 250 and shall include left and right turn lanes on Route 250 to serve the site. -- 10. Construction of a 200 x 200 foot left turn and taper lane on Rt. 250 to serve traffic travelling north on Black Cat Road (Route 616).] Mr. Johnson noted that VDOT's letter had stated that a left turn lane eastbound on Route 250 "may alleviate somewhat" a sight distance problem at the intersection of Route 616 and Route 250. He interpreted: "It certainly isn't a recommendation or anything else. I don't see that we can or should require an applicant to correct something that he has minimal effect on, is already in existence and is really a problem of the State Department of Transportation." He was in favor of deleting No. 10. In relation to condition No. 9 he stated: "I would like the minutes to show, relative to the access, that this is inclusive and nothing else inferred." He referred to a comment which had been made about the possibility of a traffic light at this intersection. He stated: "We can't go ahead and have an open-ended requirement against an applicant of that nature. The Department of Transportation had not mentioned it and has not required it. I think at least the minutes should show that it is, at least, the opinion of the Commission that that condition No. 9 "is inclusive." Ms. Huckle noted that developers have been required to pay for traffic lights in the past. She noted that the 3-23-93 8 applicant has agreed to provide such a light. Mr. Johnson responded: "I'll not accept that statement of Mr. McRaven's. I'd like for him to think it over some more." He added that he felt this had been required of applicants where it has been recommended by VDOT. He could not recall the Commission ever having generated that requirement. Mr. Grimm added that none of the information presented to the Commission had made mention of a light on Rt. 250. He felt the Commission should stick to the information provided by staff. Mr. Fritz added that staff's conversations with VDOT had not included any discussion of a traffic signal. However, he noted that there had been a great deal of discussion about a turn lane on Rt. 250 to serve traffic travelling north on Black Cat Road. He stated that VODT is "recommending" that turn lane, and are "requiring" the turn lane on Rt. 250 to serve the entrance to the site. He further explained that VDOT could NOT "require" the turn lane to serve Black Cat Road because that is an off -site requirement; however, they have indicated to staff that they would require this improvement if they had the power to do so. He explained the reason for the turn lane to serve Black Cat Road is to provide a safer intersection for the traffic "surge" which this use will cause. Mr. Nitchmann questioned Mr. Fritz's interpretation of VDOT's position given the VDOT statement that the situation "may be alleviated somewhat." He felt if VDOT had wanted the .left turn lane they would have stated clearly that they felt it was a safety issue. In response to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Fritz stated there had been no discussions with VDOT about manpowered traffic control on Rt. 250. [NOTE: It was ultimately decided later in the meeting, after repetition of the same discussion set forth above, that condition No. 9 would remain as proposed and condition No. 10 would be deleted.] Referring to condition No. 6 [ Methods for controlling on -site circulation shall include manpower assistance or such other methods as may be approved by the Planning Department.], Mr. Blue wondered if it should be amended to include off -site circulation as well. Mr. Fritz noted that if the condition were to be changed as suggested by Mr. Blue, it should be amended further to provide for approval by the Police Department rather than the Planning Department. [NOTE: Though this possible change was discussed briefly later, it was ultimately decided that condition No. 6 would remain as originally worded with no changes.] ,qo 3-23-93 9 Mr. Johnson "took exception, technically and from a government standpoint" to condition No. 7 [Music shall be live and unamplified.]. He felt the Commission "had no authority or perrogative to tell an applicant how his music shall be oriented. Regarding the intent of the condition to limit noise and sound, he felt the condition would be ineffective given the fact that there is no limitation on the amplification of voice. Mr. Johnson suggested that Section 4.14.1 of the Zoning Ordinance be referenced to deal with the issue of noise in lieu of the suggested condition No. 7. Staff commented that Section 4.14.1 deals with the technical aspects of noise measurement and may require equipment which the County does not presently have ready access to. Mr. Johnson suggested that the condition be changed to read: "Provisions of paragraph 4.14.1 of the Zoning Ordinance are applicable." Regarding the issue of enforcement, Mr. Johnson noted: "we have it in our Ordinance; if we can't enforce it, maybe we ought to take it out of the Ordinance, but it is an enforceable, defined provision which has been staffed and reviewed, legally and otherwise, and also from the Zoning Administrator's office." He felt this would clarify the situation and "eliminate any overview of how the applicant operates within the noise limitations which I hope would allay any fears of the neighbors." (Mr. Johnson quoted from Section 4.14. and Section 4.14.1 of the Ordinance.) Ms. Andersen wondered if this could be challenged since it refers to industrial zones. Mr. Bowling explained that this is a special permit and the Commission has the authority to regulate noise from the activity that is to take place. Mr. Bowling could not comment on the technical feasability of applying the regulation. Ms. Andersen asked if Mr. Johnson realized that there was the possibility that the regulation would be so restrictive the use could not take place. Mr. Johnson acknowledged that "anything is possible." He suggested that the applicant might want to do some preliminary testing. He concluded that the ordinance was written to protect residential areas. (Mr. Bowling interjected that the ordinance is written to apply "at the property line" and this is a 100-acre site which adjoins an RA zone.) [NOTE: It was ultimately decided that condition No. 7 would be amended as suggested by Mr. Johnson.] Mr. Blue felt the discussion about the concept of the proposal should take place before further discussion about amending conditions. He noted that though he had had reservations about the approval of the zoning text amendment which added this use to the rural areas (by special permit), the amendment had been approved by the Board. He expressed sympathy with the public concerns, but pointed out that the special use permit was created to allow this as a lawful use 3-23-93 10 I n that area. it is now the Commission's role to ensure that the conditions which govern the permit will minimize the impact on the adjoining property owners. He felt the applicant, in this case, has attempted to minimize the impact. He felt this was a much different situation than with the previous Milton site where there may have been fewer persons effected, but those persons were effected quite severely. He did not think this proposal would have a "severe" effect on anyone. He concluded he was in sympathy with the applicant. Ms. Andersen reminded the applicant that though a great deal of sensitivity has been shown in development of the project, "special conditions do run with the land and if at a point the land must be sold, (future owners) can request to have conditions changed or removed so these things are not set in stone." Ms. Huckle expressed concern about staff's statement that "approval of this request may encourage additional special use permit applications in the area." She agreed this would be the case. She was fearful that the theater was a way of providing others with a way to "get their foot in the door." Mr. Fritz clarified that staff's implication had referred to other uses which are permitted by special permit in the rural areas, e.g. craft and antique shops. He pointed out that any such proposals would require Commission review and Board approval. Mr. Grimm added that though those uses were possibilities he doubted their probability given the County's strong feelings about uses allowed in the rural areas. Mr. Johnson again noted that this is an allowed use, by special permit, under special conditions, i.e. "non-interference with adajacent localities." He indicated he felt the main concerns of traffic and noise could be adequately addressed by the conditions. Regarding the issue of water requirements, Mr. Johnson suggested that the Commission take the position that the "water required will be that determined by the Health Department without any inference that it might be 5, 10 or whatnot as far as gallons." He did not feel the Health Department should feel restricted or guided by any statement made in the staff report. Mr. Blue felt condition No. 2 would take care of this concern. He did not feel it needed to be a part of a motion. Mr. Nitchmann stated he could support the proposal with the deletion of condition No. 10. Mr. Grimm was reluctant to delete No. 10 because he felt it was staff's decision to include the condition based on discussions with VDOT. Mr. Nitchmann felt Condition No. 10 could be re -instated by the 3-23-93 11 Bc4rd if VDOT will make a specific: statement (in writing) that it is considered a safety hazard. He did not think the condition should be included because he interpreted VDOT's position differently than did staff. Mr. Blue wondered if condition No. 6 could be amended so as to address Mr. Nitchmann's concerns. He suggested some alternative language --"Methods for controlling on -site and off -site traffic at the intersection of 250 and 616 shall include manpower assistance or such other methods as may be deemed necessary by the Police Department.". Mr. Nitchmann was agreeable to this suggestion. Mr. Keeler stated that staff would get further comment from both VDOT and the Police Department before the Board hearing. It was ultimately decided that the wording for No. 6 would remain as originally suggested with no amendment at this time. There was further discussion about condition No. 7 and how staff had arrived at the suggested wording. Mr. Grimm felt it should remain as presented by staff. Mr. Johnson felt it should be amended as he had suggested previously. He noted that the Zoning Administrator had indicated to him that she felt his suggested wording would be the best way to address the issue. Mr. Johnson wondered if the applicant had felt compelled to agree to staff's wording in order to get a favorable recommendation from staff. Mr. Fritz explained that the wording had been arrived at after many discussions with the applicant amd had been agreed to and understood by the applicant. Mr. Blue stated he was in favor of "leaving it in" and Mr. Nitchmann noted he "could live with that." [NOTE: Later in the meeting, the condition was amended as suggested by Mr. Johnson.] Attempting to clarify the Commission's position on condition No. 10, Mr. Keeler asked if the Commission would favor including the condition "if the Highway Department clearly recommends that that improvement was occasioned by this development?" Mr. Blue responded affirmatively "if the condition was going to become unsafe without the turn lanes as required in 10 because of the traffic from this applicant's production." He concluded: "From a safety standpoint, I don't see how we could vote against it." There were no objections to Mr. Blue's comments. Mr. Johnson noted, however: "I think we should we operate on the information on hand and not leave it open to future comments." Mr. Grimm felt condition No. 10 should remain and should be presented to the Board along with any further information that staff might receive from VDOT. Mr. Blue did not think the item should be passed on to the Board without a recommendation from the Commission on the 3-23-93 12 issue of the turn lane. He concluded that he felt No. lu should remain with instructions that staff get further information from VDOT. [NOTE: Condition No. 10 was ultimately deleted.] Mr. Grimm stated he could support the proposal because he felt it was an appropriate use for the land and he felt the applicant had performed the required study to locate a piece of property which meets the requirements of the zoning text amendment. He felt there would be minimum impact to the surrounding area and he felt the project would provide much -needed employment opportunities for the area. Ms. Andersen reminded the Commission that she had been opposed to the zoning text amendment (based on staff's recommendation). She felt this type use is not related to bona fide agricultural/forestal uses and would be more appropriate in a growth area. She supported the concept but did not feel the land use designation, by special permit, was appropriate. She felt the citizens of Boyd Tavern were equally as important as those of the Milton area. She concluded she would abstain from any action to approve the request. Ms. Huckle reminded the Commission that she, too, had not supported the original zoning text amendment. She felt the scale of an outdoor theater is inconsistent with the rural area and she felt approval would be unfair to those persons who have invested their lives and financial resources in their property. She concluded she would not support the request. Mr. Johnson stated he could support the proposal with the conditions suggested, with the exception of Nos. 7 and 10. However, he stated he would not support the request at this time if those two conditions were included. In response to Mr. Blue's inquiry, he stated he would enthusiastically support the request if those two conditions were amended as he had previously suggested. Mr. Jenkins agreed that the applicant had submitted a responsible, well --researched proposal, but based on the citizen objection he stated he could not support the request. He noted, however, that he agreed with Mr. Grimm's assessment of the benefits of the project. In response to Mr. Blue's request, Mr. Johnson enumerated the changes he would require in the conditions in order to support a motion for approval, i.e. rewording of No. 7 and deletion of No. 10. He also felt No. 5 would be more definitive if it simply referenced the definition of outdoor drama. 3-23-93 13 MOTION: Mr. Blue moved, seconded by Mr. Johnson, that SP-93-07 for 1781 Productions be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Development shall be in general accord with sketch dated March 4, 1993 and initialled WDF. 2. Site plan shall not be processed until Health Department approval for potable water service and sewage disposal system has been obtained. 3. Lights used to illuminate parking areas shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining Rural Areas and away from adjacent streets. Lighting spillover onto public roads and properties zoned rural areas shall not exceed one-half (1/2) foot candle. Prior to final plan approval a lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and Architectural Review Board (ARB) which shall include methods for directing light downward. 4. Productions shall not be scheduled to extend after midnight. (Productions after midnight shall be permitted due to delays beyond the applicant's control such as, but not limited to, rain or lighting). 5. This permit is for an outdoor drama theater only. There shall be no accessory or subordinate uses. 6. Methods for controlling on -site circulation shall include manpower assistance or such other methods as may be approved by the Planning Department. 7. Provisions of Paragraph 4.14.1 of the Zoning Ordinance are applicable. 8. Staff approval of site plan. 9. Access shall be only from Route 250 and shall include left and right turn lanes on Route 250 to serve the site. The motion passed (4:2:1) with Commissioners Grimm, Blue, Johnson and Nitchmann voting in favor, Commissioners Jenkins and Huckle voting against, and Commissioner Andersen abstaining. CONSENT AGENDA - Administrative Approval for 456 Reviews - Discussion was deferred to a later date. MISCELLANEOUS �S� 3-23-93 14 Ms. Huckle volunteered to serve on the MPO Bypass Committee. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. DB