Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 18 1993 PC Minutes5-18-93 1 MAY 18, 1993 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 18, 1993, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Johnston. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. SDP-93-020 Wachter Site Plan Waiver Request - Proposal to construct a fourth dwelling on 91.72 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 101, Parcel 52, is located on the north side of Rt. 708 approximately 1.5 miles west of Route 20 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area IV). and SP-91-62 Barbara & Leo Wachter - Request for a gift, craft and antique shop [10.2.2(36)] on 91.72 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas, Property, described as Tax Map 101, Parcel 52, is located on the north side of Rt. 708 approximately 1.5 miles west of Rt. 20 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area IV). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff was recommending approval of both requests. The applicant, Ms. Barbara Wachter, addressed the Commission. She explained the dwelling would be occupied by her elderly mother. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Wachter Site Plan Waiver Request be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit shall not be a. Health Department approval b. Recordation of appropriate ensure maintenance of 450' of sight issued until: is obtained; sight easements to distance. 0 5-18-93 2 2. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following condition has been met: a. Relocation of fence to obtain 450' of sight distance. The motion passed unanimously- SP-91-62 In response to Mr. Blue's question as to why this could not be allowed as a home occupation, Mr. Fritz explained that the use will involve more traffic than normal residential and "potentially" could involve the sale of items which are not handcrafted on site. He stated this approach allows the applicant more flexibility. In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Fritz explained that though the permit can be used by another owner in the event the property is sold at some future time, the same limitations would apply. The applicant offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that SP-91-62 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Area devoted to the gift, craft and antique shop shall not exceed 500 square feet and shall be located in the structure proposed by SDP-93-020. 2. No auctions. 3. Building Official approval. 4. Relocation of fence to obtain 450' of sight distance. 5. Recordation of appropriate sight easements to ensure maintenance of 450' of sight distance. 6. No outdoor storage or display. The motion passed unanimously. SP-93-16 and SDP-93-013 - Centel Cellular Monopole Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct an approximately 80 foot high monopole for cellular telephones on Bear Den Bountain. This proposal requires amendment of SP-91-36. Property, described as Tax Map 74, parcel 23 is located on the south side of Interstate 64 in the Samuel 5-18-93 rl Miller Magisterial District. This site is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is within the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area III). Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Several photographs were passed among the Commission showing the site of the proposed building and tower from various positions. The photograhs and the orientation of the building were discussed briefly. In response to Ms. Andersen's question, Mr. Keeler explained the function and make-up of the Recreational Facilities Authority. The applicant was represented by Mr. Dick Gibson, attorney for Centel. He explained that the proposal has received the approval of the Preservation Authority and the Architectural Review Board. He described the pole as "a monopole facility, approximately 80 ft. in height." He stated the pole will be painted any color that the ARB desires. He explained that the pole will barely clear the tree tops and will not be visible from I-64. In response to Ms. Huckle's question regarding the placement of a dish on the the pole, Mr. Gibson (and one of Centel's engineers) explained that it is unlikely that a dish will ever be placed on the pole, but if so, it would be approximately 10 feet from the top. He indicated there were no plans to increase the height of the tower in the future. Given the fact that the tower will bearly clear the trees, Mr. Blue asked what will happen when the trees grow. The engineer stated that they have been advised that the trees "probably won't grow much more." He explained that the tower will clear the trees by 3 to 5 feet, and the antennae will be mounted on top of the tower. Mr. Jenkins asked if this pole would take care of future needs. Mr. Gibson explained there is currently one other site being contemplated. He added that he felt this pole would cover the needs for Albemarle County for the foreseeable future. Ms. Andersen asked why companies cannot share towers. The applicant explained there are no technological impediments, but the main reason revolves around each company's desire to provide the best coverage for their customers, i.e. a location may serve the customers of one company well, but not the other company. The applicant concluded: "From a business standpoint, it is usually not advantageous to occupy the same tower to provide the same coverage." He En 5-18-93 4 noted that the idea has been explored locally because towers are a sensitive issue. It was determined the applicant will be constructing the family division road to the point where it turns off to the site of the tower. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. SP-93-16 MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that SP-93-16 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Tower height shall not exceed 85 feet and shall be a monopole. 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. 4. Development shall be in accord with the revised plat of The Rocks initialled WDF dated 5/5/93. 5. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional tower, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section. The motion passed unanimously. SDP-93-013 Centel Cellular Monopole Preliminary Site Plan MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that staff be granted administrative approval of the Centel Cellular Monopole Preliminary Site Plan. The motion passed unanimously. CPA-93-03 Creation Within the Comprehensive Plan of the "Rural Service Center" - Proposal to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to allow for the "Rural Service Center" designation. The intent of this designation is to recognize and support certain areas in the County as the preferred location for providing services to the Rural Area. This would be accomplished by permitting and encouraging a greater variety of commercial, public, business and �9 5-18-93 5 agricultural support activities and services to locate in such Rural Service Centers. Mr. Benish presented the staff report. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. David Van Roijen, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, read a prepared statement expressing Opposition to the proposed CPA. (See ATTACHMENT A.) Ms. Mary Scott Birdsell expressed objection to the Comprehensive Plan being amended piecemeal. She felt such changes should be considered at the time of an overall Comp Plan review and recommended that the proposed CPA not be adopted at this time. Mr. Tom Olivier, representing Citizens for Albemarle, expressed opposition to the proposal in its current form. (See ATTACHMENT B.) Mr. George Clark, a Schuyler resident, expressed support for the proposal. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle: "I think it's a shame that these two issues have gotten tied together like this. We all understand why this thing was hammered out so quickly and what might be perfectly acceptable and perfectly useful in the Schuyler area, I can't see any excuse for covering the entire County with things possibly like that, where the people have not requested it and where it will disrupt people's lives and building plans. It seems to me that we are creating one problem in order to solve another one. There must be another way that this can be handled. Certainly, it needs a lot more discussion and lot more thought than we would be able to give it if we were to make a decision tonight. I think it should be discussed thoroughly by the public and given a lot of publicity. Nobody knows about this; nobody knows what could happen in their little rural crossroads if this thing is passed. I would like to see it deferred until it can be thoroughly discussed at the review of the Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Benish clarifed: "This action does not put any designation on the map. What you're doing is putting text in the Plan that allows this to be implemented in the future. So this will not designate the Schuyler service center or any other center. That will be a separate review which the Commission and Board will decide either on an incremental basis or on a full review of the Plan. It's yours and the Board's decision as to when you put that in 5-18-93 6 place. The process being proposed is to put this option into the Plan, and then it's your discretion as to when and where you implement the option."" Mr. Blue recalled that this had been the specific request of the Commission, i.e. "that we didn't want to mix these things up." He added: "But isn't it true --we might as well be up front about this --the impetus for this was staff's response to try to prevent a spot zoning in Schuyler." Mr. Benish: "It came up as an option to the Board's request for staff to look at the review for a Growth Area designation in the Schuyler area." Noting that some members of the public seem to be "in the dark" about this issue, Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Benish to expand upon the Board's direction to the staff. Mr. Nitchmann noted that there had been considerable newspaper coverage about the issue. Mr. Keeler explained the concept had been generated by a request for a public garage, but with the requested changes to conditions of approval, the Zoning Administrator had determined the use would then be a truck terminal, which is only permitted in industrial areas and is not permitted in the rural areas. (Truck terminals are permitted only in industrial districts.) The option was to put industrial zoning on the Zoning Map with no guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan, or to seek an amendment to the Plan to resolve issues of this nature. Mr. Benish continued: "So the Board referred the matter back to the Planning Commission to evaluate a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to review this general Schuyler area for its appropriateness as a growth area. We reviewed that request and determined, based on some of the characteristics down there, it had limited potential for a classic growth area, i.e. a village, a community or other urban designation. However, we did identify a need and, we felt, merit for some type of provision that would allow the existing use and uses related to the existing economic activity to occur. That's essentially the quarry and activities related to the Schuyler community in Nelson County and the trucking company." Noting that the quarry and industrial usage had been in existence for many years before the existence of the Comprehensive Plan, Ms. Huckle asked why the area couldn't be rezoned to Industrial. She asked: "Why do we have to endanger every crossroads in the County?" Mr. Benish explained that the Board had not favored that option and had asked staff to find an alternative to what they considered to be "spot zoning." '31 5-18-93 7 Ms. Huckle acknowledged that "spot zoning" was a bad word, but wondered if it might not be more appropriate in this case. She felt that often "we do things which seem harmless at the time, like this theater thing,...and then it comes back to haunt us." Ms. Andersen: "I feel with the Comprehensive Plan review coming up, it certainly would behoove us to discuss this one more time. It certainly wouldn't hurt. The language of the text is very broad and sweeping and because it is so broad there would be a lot of implications and scenarios that people could think of that could be discussed. It's been my experience that in cases where broad changes are discussed, the general public has trouble envisioning the specifics of what those changes are and frequently, where they do not thing of a specific instance where it might effect them directly, they do not come out for the public hearing. Therefore, I would like to give the public one more opportunity to discuss this and I think the time to do it is in the general Comprehensive Plan Review." Ms. Huckle agreed more specifics were needed. Mr. Blue: "I don't think it's any less specific than a lot of things we already have in the Comprehensive Plan. I have no problem with waiting until the regular Comprehensive Plan update...if we think we will get more public participation and there is no rush on this, other than one person who would like to see it passed soon for obvious reasons. ... I personally don't see anything wrong with it. I do not think that it opens up the County to a lot of things that it is not already open to, but I see nothing wrong with delaying it until the Comprehensive Plan update." Ms. Huckle felt it gives people false expectations. Expressing concern that 60 jobs are at stake, Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Bowling: "Is there anything that can give them the opportunity to run their business in a profitable productive manner until such time as this thing is settled? Mr. Bowling responded: "That's hard for me to answer off the top of my head because I don't have the procedural history of Schuyler Enterprises in front of me and I've lost track of it at the moment. This is not a case where the Zoning Administrator has made a decision and the applicant still has time to appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals and if he doesn't like what the Board of Zoning Appeals does, then appeal to the Circuit Court. We're past that mode, I believe. The Zoning Administrator has determined that this is a trucking terminal; it is not a public garage. ... One of the ways staff is trying to solve this, for better or worse, is by having a rural service center and key it into the Schuyler area because the Schuyler area is, frankly, an 5-18-93 8 anomaly. It's zoned RA, but if you go down there you know it is not rolling fields and farmland, etc." Mr. Keeler explained two aspects of spot zoning: "One is that it serves the proprietary interests of the property owner, and the second part of that phrase, not the general public interest. It doesn't necessarily mean simply a spot on the map." Me. Blue: "The only way that we could actually correct the problem that we have in Schuyler, is to get this CPA passed and then, assuming the applicant will come forward and ask for a designation at that point. But Ms. Huckle and Ms. Andersen have reasonable objecttions if once we pass the CPA, it may give rise to people wanting to do it in areas that we don't consider appropriate. The only way that we find that out is to have a public hearing at the review of the Comprehensive Plan. I agree with Mr. Nitchmann; I wish there were a way we could solve this one problem. I said right from the beginning, when this thing first came to us, it wasn't a growth area, it is not an industrial area, it is an existing use. Why couldn't it just stay as a non -conforming existing use and take off that restriction we have on the number of vehicles, or at least increase it? We saw fit not to do that --or the majority of the Commission and the Board did." Mr. Nitchmann asked if there were any way to request that the Board re-evaluate this specific issue. He stated that though he supports the Rural Service Center, whether at this time or some future date, he has questions, e.g. "How big can it get?" "What all can it include?" He asked if there were not some reasonable way to address the Schuyler issue with the laws that are currently in place?" Bowling: "One thing you can do is come up with a definition just for Schuyler. Staff went beyond just Schuyler with the Comprehensive Plan designation Rural Service Center, but certainly it is possible to come up with something in the Comprehensive Plan fine tuned for Schuyler." Ms. Huckle noted that the Schuyler area, because of the long-time existence of the quarry, has been industrial for many years. Mr. Bowling cautioned that rezoning RA to Industrial, with no public utilities, can raise "a host of other problems." Mr. Keeler pointed out that no application for industrial zoning has ever been reviewed. He agreed there may be other ways to address the Schuyler situation. Mr. Blue noted that the discussion was getting off the subject of Rural Service Centers in general. 13 5-18-93 9 Mr. Benish pointed out that staff feels the Rural Service Center has merit "county -wide" though the concept had grown out of a request from the Board to study the Schuyler area. Though staff had felt that this idea should be reviewed in the Comprehensive Plan review process, that had not been the Board's direction to staff. Mr. Nitchmann again asked if there were not some way to give some type of "temporary use permit" to allow this business (Schuyler Enterprises) to work within the bounds of the law until the Rural Service Center concept can receive all the public scrutiny and input it should. Mr. Blue recalled that an attempt had been made to accommodate the business by amending the special use permit to increase the number of trucks allowed at the site, but that had not worked. Mr. Nitchmann felt that it had not been realized at that time (by those who voted it down) that this would "turn around and become what it is today." He felt there may have been a different outcome if that had been the case. He summarized: "Today, we have a business that employs 60 individuals, that wants to continue to operate, that has an excellent site for it, has more space than is required, will decrease the usage of parking (trucks) in other areas around the County --which is a safety hazard in my opinion --and we have this before us today. We'd think, in all our wisdom, we could come up with some way to solve this dilemma." Ms. Huckle brought up Mr. Bowling's earlier suggestion that something could be fine-tuned just for Schuyler, rather than putting something in place that would effect the whole County. (Mr. Benish interjected that this proposal would not apply to the entire county.) Ms. Huckle felt this was "the first step on the slippery slope." She asked: "What could be done to fine tune it?" Mr. Bowling replied: "Put Schuyler in front of it --Schuyler Rural Service Center. That needs more thought than you could resolve tonight." Mr. Keeler offered: "You could just ask us to come back with two paragraphs that describe the Schuyler growth area and I suppose we could do that. We were attempting, here, to take a larger viewpoint in the event an issue like this comes up again." He noted that Covesville has a large fruit packing business which could desire trucking at some future time. He pointed out that there are isolated industries around the county. I guess it is just a question of how you do it. Do you do each one individually with a couple of paragraphs or do you create a class for those and discuss whether or not to designate them as they come up?" 5-18-93 10 Mr. Benish: "If this goes forward, we're going to give you something for Schyuler as the Board has asked for. What this does is lay out the parameters by which we would write that and you would review it. If you want to just disgard this now and just evaluate Schuyler, I suppose we could do that but it doesn't seem to me to be rational planning just to build one and then come back with the standards in the future." Mr. Grimm agreed that would be poor planning. He continued: "I think we have something here which does represent rational planning. It is an attempt to show how certain areas, yet undefined in the county, could possibly be used as service centers in the future, depending on the demand that might be there, what is brought before us to consider, with the Commission and the Board having the right and the duty to decide whether or not those applied -for permits are appropriate in those given locations. I'm in favor of this particular CPA because I think that it would be a way in which to approach the subject and to provide a means by which the Schuyler area can be designated as a rural service center without changing it to an industrial zone. We don't want to make industrial zones in the rural area. What we're saying here, on the contrary 'Define, as needed, limited areas in the rural sections of the county, where service centers could be beneficial to the public.' That will take a lot of debate." Ms. Huckle: "Phil, you said you didn't want to see industrial uses in the rural areas. This is an industrial use and if it gets approved under this plan, then any other industrial use could be approved under this plan." She suggested: "How about if we tailor something to this specific area and then we discuss the rest of this --the county -wide proposal --during the review of the Comprehensive Plan when we have more people involved." Mr. Benish: "I think that's a legitimate recommendation you can make to the Board. You can recommend the procedure by which to implement this in the Plan. You could say, off the top of my head, 'On the basis of this format, move forward with the Schuyler growth area as a pilot, as a test. Do not implement or consider implementation of this and re-evaluate this during the Comprehensive Plan review.' If that's the way you feel comfortable with moving forward with this concept, I think you could give that direction to the Board of Supervisors as to how to implement this." Mr. Blue: "On the other hand, we could go ahead and vote on it tonight and perhaps recommend approval, and each rural crossroads, that some of the people here tonight are worried about, have to come to us for approval. I disagree that we are going to have industrial areas everywhere else. This was an existing use and if there is another existing use, 5-18-93 11 then maybe it will have to apply. But when somebody comes in and wants an industrial use at a rural service center, we have probably the obligation, not just the opportunity, to recommend against it." Ms. Andersen: "We are about to pass a very broad piece of text and it is my opinion that the thousands of people that could participate in the conversation are not represented. We are going to do this for 60 people. The 60 people do warrant consideration, but there are thousands of people who have not entered into this discussion and don't even know that it exists." Mr. Blue noted that this probably would not effect many people. Ms. Andersen felt there should still be the opportunity for participation. "Whether it effects them or not is their decision; it is not our decision to say whether or not it effects them." Mr. Blue stressed: "Whether or not this is passed as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment nothing is going to change without further review by the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. There will be no rural crossroads that will become a rural service center just because this CPA is passed." Ms. Andersen felt the time to become a part of the conversation is now, before it is "too late --after the fact." Mr. Nitchmann noted that his experience on the Commission has shown that public attention will not be drawn to this issue until it is passed on to the Board of Supervisors. It is at that time press coverage will draw attention to the matter. Then the Board can hold the work sessions and public hearings on the matter. Referring to the proposal presented by staff, Mr. Nitchmann commented: "I have gone over this thing. The Rural service Center does not promote growth; it does not promote central services; it does not promote automatic designation of a crossroads; it does not promote industrial growth. It does, however, limit the size of the facilities; it does specify accessibility; it does recognize the need for centralized activities in certain areas of the County and, I think, would direct individuals who so desire to have businesses within the rural area to look towards this type of designation and put their businesses within that, knowing that if they tried to put it outside those areas, they will have difficulty getting it approved by this Commission. I do not believe it promotes any more uses than are already permitted here other than those that were designated in 5-18-93 12 letter 'c'. To address the PEC comment that 'it lacks standards,' there are a lot of standards that have been placed in here." Referring to an earlier comment that this would make no difference, Ms. Huckle quoted the fourth paragraph of page 1 of the staff report, with the paragraph ending : "Location of a use within a Rural Service Center, consistent with the allowable uses as outlined, should be considered a favorable factor during the review of a special use permit and rezoning." She concluded: "So it does make a difference." Mr. Blue responded: "It does; I'll concede that. It gives it a little more standing. But I have always felt the reason you have a Commission and a Board of Supervisors is to treat things individually ---to make special considerations. If there was no give and take, the County Executive would write a law and say "This is it,' and he would administer it and there would be no reason for having a Board or a Commission. Therefore, I don't think a precedent is all that important. You consider each one individually." Mr. Keeler commented: "Mr. Blue said it would give it more standing. It would actually give it standing if it was a rezoning. A use that is not permitted in the rural areas zone and it is permitted in the Zoning Ordinance elsewhere, then definitely the Statement of Intent for that particular zoning district restricts it to growth areas. So, right now, the way the Zoning Ordinance is constructed, truck terminals are restricted to growth areas and it has no standing in a rural zone." Mr. Blue: "What I'm saying is, once the CPA is passed, it does not necessarily mean you have to pass each application for a rural service center. But Ms. Huckle is right, it does give it more reason to pass. But if there is no rural service center available, you've got no other choice." In answer to Mr. Jenkins question as to whether or not the item would be passed on to the Board if the Commission took no action on it, Mr. Benish explained: "I believe that you could defer it for further information before you take action." He added that the Board had requested that this item be back to them by March but he did not know if they would feel compelled to act on this proposal. Mr. Bowling pointed out that the Board had sent the item to the Commission because it wanted to receive Commission comments. He added that the Board might not like this plan at all and decide to look at Schuyler as a growth area. Mr. Blue was in favor of taking action on the proposal. He noted that there had been no specific comments about, or 5-18-93 13 suggested modifications to, A,B,C,D, and E. In the absence of such comments, he stated he was prepared to make a motion for approval and "see what happens." Ms. Huckle asked if he would support a motion to fine-tune the proposal to Schuyler and delay action on the rural service center concept until the review of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Blue responded that he would have supported such an alternative earlier in the meeting, but he had changed his mind after hearing the Chairman's comments. Mr. Grimm felt it had been the Board's intention that the Commission comment on the Rural Service Center concept as soon as possible. Mr. Jenkins suggested that there should be some statement in the proposal which "addresses the remoteness from existing facilities." He felt these areas, by definition, would be remote from existing facilities. (Mr. Nitchmann suggested the addition of the following at the end of the first sentence of paragraph A: "...those areas, and are considered remote from existing available services." Mr. Blue asked for staff's recommendation as to how to proceed at this point. Mr. Benish replied that he felt some legitimate issues had been raised by the public and he felt Mr. Jenkins' comment regarding remoteness was legitimate. He felt there was some fine-tuning which could be done to address these concerns. However, he noted that staff could spend a lot of time fine-tuning a concept which the Board may not "buy into at all." He summarized: "Maybe this is an incremental approach. If this service area is a concept worth pursuing, we can look at some of the issues which come up in subsequent public hearings and fine tune those to address some of the concerns." Mr. Nitchmann: "I've tried to categorize this in terms of what it does and what it does not do. I think it does have specifics which do limit what can go on in a rural service center. (I think we could spend a lot of time trying to amend A through E) but I think overall it is a good initial first step to define a rural service center and I would like to see it move foward because there are jobs and the well-being of families at stake in this particular area. It dismays me that we have to be voting on this because of that; I wish that wasn't hanging on to this, but it is." MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that CPA-93-03 to amend the Comprehensive Plan to allow for the Rural Service Center 3g 5-18-93 14 designation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff. Mr. Blue seconded the motion. Discussion: Referring to Mr.Nitchmann's comments that 1160 jobs are at stake," Ms. Andersen asked for an explanation of Schuyler Enterprises present situation. Mr. Nitchmann explained that, according to his understanding, the business is presently operating as a "garage" but has more trucks than it can legally park there even though it has adquate facilities and appropriate area to park the trucks. The area has been industrial for many, many years and presently the truckers must either drive their trucks home or park them at various spots all over the County (e.g. Stone Robinson School, 29 North, 29 South, 250 West). This creates additional safety hazard on the roads. Mr. Nitchmann felt that moving this on to the Board will invite more public input, and allow more fine-tuning of the document. He saw no advantage to be gained by postponing this until the review of the Comprehensive Plan. He felt it could get all the review that is required now. Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the use of the phrase "encourage certain businesses," in the Goal. She felt there was a great deal of difference between "permit" and "encourage." She felt consideration had to be given to people who have chosen to live in the Rural Areas because they are rural and have been managing to function very well with services as they currently exist. Mr. Nitchmann indicated his interpretation of "encourage" was different than Ms. Huckle's, i.e. "We don't what you to move 5 or 10 miles up the road and put this thing, we would 'encourage' you to put it within this area that has been designated as a rural service center area." Mr. Grimm agreed with Mr. Nitchmann's interpretation. Mr. Nitchmann stated his motion stood as presented. Ms. Huckle admitted that she would not favor the proposal any more even if the word "encourage" were changed to "permit." Ms. Andersen stated that though she was not opposed to the proposal, she would not support the motion because she felt it should be reviewed along with the general Comp Plan review "where more people can be part of the conversation." M_ 5-18-93 15 Mr. Jenkins: "It's been quite a while that we have been going through this Schuyler thing and it's not like this is a new document. It's new from the time that staff has brought it to us, but it is something that has been in the process for the best part of a year. Everybody here would probably write it slightly differently. It bothers me that we have the kind of interests groups that we have come say they are against it and, yet, the Board of Supervisors has asked us to try to come up with a vehicle other than just saying we are going to approve that spot for the use that it has. I am probably more in favor of that than I am in approving this, in light of the dialogue that we have had. If we had a motion to say, 'OK, right here in Schuyler we are going to allow this use of up to 30 trucks or whatever the number is and address this someplace down the road, I'd probably go home tonight a little more comfortable than I am. It Ms. Huckle suggested that Mr. Jenkins vote against the motion and then offer an alternative motion as he described. Mr. Jenkins replied that he had a problem with voting against the motion because he felt a lot of effort had gone into the idea and it is a document which has been generated over the last several months. Mr. Blue: "I concur with what Tom said, exactly." VOTE: The motion for approval of CPA-93-03 failed to pass (3:3) with Commissioners Grimm, Blue and Nitchmann voting in favor and Commissioners Huckle, Andersen and Jenkins voting against. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved that CPA-93-03 be "sent back to the staff and be fine-tuned to address the question of Schuyler Enterprises in a Rural Service Area and the further discussion of the Rural Service Area throughout the rest of the County to be taken up during the review of the Comprehensive Plan." (This motion was later withdrawn.) Mr. Keeler asked: "In other words, you want David to present you with a Village designation for the Schuyler area, because that is all that is available, or to create some language particular to Schuyler. But the Service Area is not in the Plan so we can't bring it to you as a Service Area . " Mr. Nitchmann stated he could support a motion "to change CPA-93-03 to Creation within the Comprehensive Plan of the Schuyler Rural Service Center." He asked if that was a possibility. Mr. Benish: "You have to create the Service Center before you can designate it. That's what this does. What we're W 5-18-93 W doing, I think, is what you're telling me to do right now. You just don't like the way we've given it to you." Mr. Bowling again confirmed that it could be fine-tuned to fit the situation that exists in Schuyler only, if that is the Commission's desire. Mr. Blue felt that was "ridiculous." Mr. Benish: "Let me see if this addresses what you are trying to get at. Could you advise the Board to move forward on a specific service center profile, based on the concept before you today, but do not apply this to any other area until the review of the Comprehensive Plan where this whole concept can be re -considered." He explained: "What that would do for me is that I could take this concept and then draft what the Schuyler Service Center area would look like and submit that to you or the Board but with the condition that you would not apply this in any other part of the County until you went through the full review of the Comprehensive Plan. The problem I'm having is fine-tuning. This is the tuning instrument. This is what tells me how to draft the service center." Mr. Bowling stated he could advise staff as to how to fine-tune the document so that it would only work in Schuyler, if that was the desire. Mr. Nitchmann: "But that is not the point of this whole thing. It is to be a planning tool and to be applicable to, hopefully, more than one area so that we can plan on certain types of growth in the the Rural Area." Ms. Huckle stated that was what the review of the Comprehensive Plan was for. Mr. Benish: "We have to create this district before we can designate it on the map. The only other alternative is to designate it as a Village and I suppose you could designate it as a Village without any residential area." Ms. Huckle suggested that Mr. Bowling meet with staff to develop some wording that would be more acceptable to the Commission. Mr. Bowling felt that would be difficult since the Commission was evenly divided on the issue. Mr. Keeler: "I guess the question is, under any circumstances is this going to get resolved as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan? If that's not the case, then I think that leaves Schuyler Enterprises in a position to make an application for Industrial zoning. I don't think they've done that before. We'll Just review it in that mode." q/ 5-18-93 17 Noting that the motion for approval had ended in a tie vote resulting in the matter being passed to the Board with no definitive recommendation, Mr. Nitchmann asked if it could be sent to the Board with Mr. Benish's statement as a prologue. He did not see any reason for it to come back to the Commission. He noted that the Board would have the Commission's minutes and could read the Commission and staff comments. Ms. Huckle withdrew her motion. There had been no second. Ms. Grimm: "I don't know what else to do this evening, other than to leave the vote as it and allow it to move on to the Board of Supervisors, as is, with the comments made by David. I hate to do that, but we are in a situation where we cannot come to a solution that everybody can agree on." Mr. Nitchmann asked if Mr. Benish would make sure that his comments were clear in the minutes. Mr. Benish: "I'm going to let Deloris read what I said, because I want to make sure --I assume that is the consensus of the Commission." He stated that the minutes would be forwarded with the staff report, but he had no plan to make any addition to the staff report. An attempt was made to determine if it was the consensus of the Commission to agree with Mr. Benish's statement. He explained his statement was "essentially my offer of a way to address several of the concerns and still allow public comment on the concept, but would essentially allow us to pursue a pilot--Schuyler--and that could be a test case." Ms. Huckle indicated her support. There was no negative comment to Mr. Benish's statement. Mr. Bowling suggested a motion would clarify the Commission's position. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that "the statement that was put forth by David Benish be specifically included as a prologue to the minutes regarding the discussion on CPA-93-03." Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Blue: "I still feel that we're trying to do something that we shouldn't be doing. I happen to agree with the Rural Service Center objectives and goals as they are 41"A 5-18-93 18 written with, perhaps, some minor changes. I don't disagree with them; I think there are other places they could be applied and I think we are going to have a chance to accept or reject them as they come up. I'd rather have it go on like that. I don't really object to that motion, but it seems to me it is not necessary." Mr. Nitchmann felt the purpose of the motion was to "bring emphasis to the statements, so they will stand out clearly to the Board." Mr. Benish: "Right now you have no recommendation to amend this into the Comprehensive Plan. All you've done is made a motion as to an offer of a way, a suggestion to the Board as to how to proceed." Mr. Bowling: "Your recommendation is 'No,because it has been defeated. VOTE: The motion passed, (5:1) with Commissioner Blue casting the dissenting vote. MISCELLANEOUS Outdoor Theater - Ms. Huckle wondered why this had been approved with ancillary uses (e.g. seminars), when the Commission had recommended that there be no ancillary uses. Mr. Keeler explained that there had been some changes to the conditions at the Board level. He also noted that the defintion of the use restricts it to a "local historical drama" and it is not necessary that that be restated in the conditions. Ms. Huckle was of the impression that the staff report which went to the Board had "left out some of these things." Mr. Keeler responded: "No it did not. The staff report that went to the Board was the same staff report that went to you and the conditions that went to the Board were the conditions that you recommended." He explained that any changes which were made subsequent to the Commission's review were done at the direction of the Board in an effort to resolve issues of conflict between the applicant and opponents." There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. DB