Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 03 1993 PC Minutes6-3-93 1 JUNE 3, 1993 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Thursday, June 3, 1993, Meeting Room 7, 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. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, 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 May 11, 1993 were approved as amended. Ms. Andersen suggested that the Commission should come to some agreement as to the definition of the word "public" in terms of public comment. She noted that groups which had been represented at the May llth meeting --Piedmont Environmental Council, League of Women Voters and Citizens for Albemarle --all represent the public. She felt there should be some consensus as to what is considered "reasonable public input." Mr. Blue agreed that those groups represent a substantial part of the public, but they do not represent all the public interests. He felt other groups need to be heard to get a "full expression of public opinion," (e.g. Blue Ridge Homebuilders, Chamber of Commerce, etc.). Ms. Huckle noted that the groups mentioned by Ms. Andersen are non-profit organizations who have the interests of all the public in mind, whereas those mentioned by Mr. Blue are special interest groups. Ms. Blue disagreed that the non-profit groups always have the interests of all the public at heart. He stated they certainly did not represent his interests. ZMA-93-05 Robert & Victoria Burton - Petition to rezone 18.5 acres from RA, Rural Areas to R-4, Residential. Property, described as Tax Map 32C, Section 3, parcel 2 is located south of and adjacent to the existing Deerwood Subdivision. A preliminary plat is being reviewed concurrently (SUB-93-01 Deerwood Preliminary Plat). This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is in a designated growth area (Community of Hollymead) and is recommended for Industrial Service. Deferred from the May 4, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting. AND SUB-93-01 Deerwood Preliminar Plat - Proposal to subdivide a portion of 18.5 acres into 38 single family lots and 36 i�- 6-3-93 2 townhouse lots. Access is through existing roads in Deerwood Subdivision. Property, described as Tax Map 32C, Section 3, Parcel 2 is located south of and adjacent to the existing Deerwood Subdivision. A request to rezone the property to R-4, Residential is being reviewed concurrently (ZMA-93-05). This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is in a designated growth area (Community of Hollymead) and is recommended for Industrial Service. Deferred from the May 4, 1993 Commission Meeting. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. In response to the Commission's previous concerns about the safety of the intersection at Rt. 649, Mr. Fritz's memo of May 25 stated: "Staff has contacted VDOT and has obtained comments from them. The comments indicate that the nature and alignment for the improvements to Route 649 are unknown at this time. The comments of VDOT establish that the proposed development alone would necessitate the need for right and left turn lanes. VDOT states that the existing level of traffic at the entrance to Deerwood is at or above capacity for the design of the current entrance. ... The Department of Transportation has stated that 'the addition of greater numbers of unprotected turning movements on a high -volume secondary road can only lead to increased accident rates and reduced level of service'. From this statement it is apparent that the increase in traffic would not be consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare without the provision of right and left turn lanes. The additional comments of VDOT reinforce their previous statements and staff's concerns in recommending for denial of ZMA-93-05 remains unchanged." Mr. Blue asked if the applicant had received a copy of staff's memo. Mr. Fritz stated the memo had been sent to the applicant (or possibly the applicant's representative) at the same time it had been sent to the Commission. Mr. Blue noted that Ms. Burton had indicated to him "last night" (by phone) that she had not seen the memo. Mr. Nitchmann asked how it is determined that the existing entrance is "at or above capacity." Mr. Fritz stated it was his understanding that determination is based on the lane widths and pavement strength of the entrance. Mr. Cilimberg added that turning movements on Rt. 649 are also a consideration. Mr. Cilimberg also explained: "The capacity of roadways are based on the ability of that intersection to handle the turning movements. It is an engineering calculation that is based on the number of lanes and the turning movements that occur and how they effect delays in traffic at that particular location." Staff confirmed there was no sight distance problem at the intersection. Mr. Nitchmann interpreted: "The capacity coming out is not impacted, but there will be a longer delay." Mr. Cilimberg 6-3-93 3 confirmed the delays are the primary factor in determining capacity." Mr. Blue felt there was a little more to the issue since the absence of a left turn lane on Rt. 649 would cause delays on that road also. Mr. Cilimberg felt the main issue was the delays on the main thoroughfare (649) and traffic conflicts. The applicant was represented by Earl Burton. He explained that he had received the memo referred to by Mr. Blue. (It had been sent to him rather than his mother.) He stated that a resident of Deerwood whom he consulted feels that this section of 649 is not dangerous. Accident records show that approximately 1 accident/month occurs on this road. He stated the applicant would not withdraw the request. He reminded the Commission that both the Real Estate and Zoning Departments had informed the applicant the property was zoned R-4 and based on that belief a considerable amount of money has been expended in the development of this plan. He stated the issue of the road had not arisen until after a considerable amount of money had already been spent. In answer to Ms. Andersen's question, Mr. Fritz explained the steps which had taken place in the processing of the application. Acknowledging that the County cannot require proffers on a rezoning, Mr. Blue asked if, from a practical standpoint, staff makes applicants aware of potential concerns such as these and the fact that "proffers would ease the process along." Mr. Cilimberg responded: "Yes. Applicants are advised where we see problems that can only be addressed through proffers." He confirmed that the traffic concerns had been discussed with the applicant. Mr. Bowling confirmed that it is acceptable for a proffer to be added to an application between the time of the Commission and Board hearings. Mr. Blue noted the following options (in the event the Board decides there is a significant safety issue): (1) The applicant can attempt to buy the property needed and proffer the improvements; or (2) Wait for the VDOT to make the improvements. Mr. Bowling added another option, i.e. the applicant can pay the cost of the condemnation for the County. Mr. Blue noted that the record shows that the applicant was aware that safety was going to be issue and "their reply was 'There is no wav we can make a proffer (to build the turn lanes) if we don't own the land."' 6-3-93 4 Mr. Bill Roudabush, representing the applicant, explained that the parcel of land in question has frontage on an existing state road. The portion of property which would be involved in the construction of turn lanes is off -site, approximately 1/5 mile away. He stated: "I know the history of this indicates that the applicant formerly owned the land that was off -site from this development. The question in my mind is how far down the road can you require a developer to make highway improvements if he has a tract of land fronting on a state road, with adequate sight distance into the state road. Can you make him do improvements further down the highway? I think that distinguishes this application, with the background and history that this site has. I wouldn't want to lose sight of the fact that this is a tract of land fronting on existing roads, in a subdivision, maintained and accepted by the Commonwealth as a state road. I can't think of any development where a developer has been required to go 1/5 mile down the highway and make highway improvements not adjacent to the parcel of land being proposed." Mr. Cilimberg: "You can't require anything. This is a legislative act; it is not a subdivision. The issue of requiring is not an issue. If it were a subdivision, that would be a very pertinent consideration. This is simply an act of saying 'Yes' or 'No' to a rezoning. Unless there is a proffer, that is all you have to act on, is the rezoning request itself. We have had off -sate improvements proffered as part of rezoning actions." Mr. Johnson attempted to clarify to what state road Mr. Roudabush referred. He asked: "The state road to which you referred is the one going through the existing tract, is that not correct?" Mr. Roudabush responded: "It goes to the boundary." Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Burton if the fact that the applicant had received the most recent staff information "only a couple of days ago" was of any concern to the applicant. Mr. Burton indicated his mother was "upset." (Mr. Blue again noted that he had been concerned when he learned Ms. Burton had not received the information. However, after staff's explanation, he felt the County had followed the proper procedure.) Mr. Johnson stated he was concerned about the applicants' feelings on this matter and he would support a deferral if the applicant so desired. Mr. Burton stated he did not feel the most recent report revealed any information which was not already known by the applicant. It was his feeling that VDOT's comments were merely "opinion" and were not based on factual information. In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question, Mr. Burton estimated a 5-6 year buildout period. He also stated that subdivision covenants are currently being developed but have not yet been finalized. �7 6-3-93 5 In response to iris. Huckle's question about the "force" of the Airport Overlay District, Mr. Cilimberg explained that those dwellings constructed within the overlay will have to meet certain decibel requirements within the unit. He added that this property is within the Airport Noise Impact Area but is not in the area immediately around the airport where no construction is allowed. Mr. Fritz confirmed that a note is included on the plan, and will be required on the plat, referencing the Airport Noise Impact Area. Mr. Cilimberg added, however: "We don't vouch for anything a potential buyer may or may not know." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann stated he had spoken with several residents of Deerwood (6 or 7) and only one had expressed any concerns about the traffic situation. Some residents expressed preference for residential development on the property as opposed to industrial, others expressed a preference for single-family dwellings above townhouses, and one expressed the desire that the property remain as is with no development. He noted that there is ample sight distance in both directions at the entrance. He also noted that the development will probably not be completely built out until the road has been upgraded. He concluded: "Right now, I am swayed to Zook at this rezoning in a positive manner for those reasons." He noted he would feel differently if at least half of the persons he had spoken with had expressed concerns about the safety of the road. In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Nitchmann stated he had visited the site at 5:30 in the afternoon. Mr. Blue noted that he had visited the property during the morning rush hour. He stated that though he was in favor of residential as opposed to industrial development of the property, and though he was sympathetic to the applicant's proposal, he felt the Commission "has to be really sensitive to the public safety" and must rely on expert (VDOT) advice. He noted that the additional information received from VDOT indicates that this proposal will create more safety problems. He expressed concern about turning movements into the subdivision. He agreed that there was adequate sight distance exiting the subdivision. He concluded: "I, personally, cannot vote to approve the rezoning in the face of VDOT saying 'This particular rezoing can result in an unsafe situation.' It is a tough one because I feel very sympathetic with the applicant with this situation." Mr. Grimm agreed with Mr. Blue and felt the Commission must rely on the expertise of the Virginia Department of Transportation. 6-3-93 6 Mr. Johnson asked if his understanding was correct, i.e. if this request for a rezoning is approved, there would be no opportunity to require modification to the intersection with the site plan. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "I think knowing, going into the rezoning, that it existed and approving the rezoning is essentially saying, when the subdivision comes through, even if there is a real safety problem that you might otherwise identify and turn the subdivision proposal down, you couldn't do it here, reasonably." Mr. Blue added: "And not even legally." Mr. Bowling confirmed: "That's right." Mr. Johnson asked if there was any "potential similarity" between this request and the approval for the outdoor theater where a condition had been "within the next three years, or something, if there was a change and improvement to that intersection, Rt. 250 and Black Cat Road, then the applicant would be obligated for their share of that and that would be based on relative traffic densities. Is there any potential parallel here where this could be approved with that proviso?" Mr. Bowling responded: "No. This is not a special use permit." Mr. Cilimberg added: "And not at your initiative either; anything like that has to come from the applicant." Mr. Johnson asked: "There's no way that we can approve a zoning change with a condition?" Mr. Bowling responded: "No, sir." Mr. Johnson concluded: "Unfortunately, and reluctantly, I think I will accept this comment from VDOT. I don't feel qualified to combat it." In the event of denial of the request, Mr. Blue asked that the record show that his vote for denial was based purely on "the traffic safety situation at the interchange and if a proffer were forthcoming from the developer that would address that and agree to build those turn lanes, I would be in favor of it. The other factors that other people have brought up are not significant enough to make me vote against it. It is strictly the traffic and if a proffer were to come forth to improve that intersection, I would be making a motion to approve it." Ms. Huckle agreed that the property was much more suited to residential than industrial, but she, too, felt the safety issue was an overriding factor. Mr. Johnson expressed support for Mr. Blue's comments. He added that could support the requests "if there was an access on either 649 or 606 which was considered safe." Ms. Huckle noted that though 606 is not as heavily travelled as 649, it, too, is a very dangerous road. 449 6-3-93 7 MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that ZMA-93-05 for Robert and Victoria Burton be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial due to concerns about the safety of the intersection at Rt. 649. The motion passed (6:1) with Commissioner Nitchmann casting the dissenting vote. SUB-93-01 Deerwood Prelimina Plat - Mr. Fritz asked that the Commission take action to grant staff administrative approval of the subdivision plat, in the event the Board should approve the rezoning. MOTION: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Johnson, that staff be granted administrative approval of the Deerwood Preliminary Plat subject to the approval of ZMA-93-05 by the Board of Supervisors. The motion passed unanimously. SUB-93-043 - Tantivy Farm Ordinance Waiver - Proposal to serve a new parcel and residue (to be subdivided from Tax Map 35, Parcel 26D) by a private road which also provides access to Tax Map 35, Parcel 43 which is presently used as a commercial stable. Property is located on Route 20 approximately 4/10 mile south of Route 641 east in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural Area II). Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the waiver request. In response to Ms. Huckle's question about subdivision rights on the other pieces, Ms. Hipski responded: "This piece does not have any further subdivision rights. This piece, I really could not answer that question. At the time that we received an application, we would have to review the road as well as the road frontage for this parcel of land at that time." She confirmed that the stable also uses the road (up to a point which she indicated on the plan). In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Ms. Hipski explained that a note will be placed on the plat restricting both parcels to access from the private road (though both have frontage on Rt. 20). She also confirmed that the road constitutes the boundary line between the two parcels. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Ms. Lynn Brubaker. She questioned why the County would want to take on the expense of maintaining another road when there are three parties willing to participate in the maintenance of a private road. 6-3-93 g She stated there are currently no plans for a dwelling on the 47 acres. She disagreed with the Engineer's recommendation for paving the road. She noted that there is very little traffic on the road, which is currently in good shape, and the road is regravelled twice a year. Mr. Blue agreed that it appeared to him that paving the road would be "overkill." Mr. Cilimberg noted; "The County Engineer, in a subdivision private road case, is the decision maker. It doesn't actually require a condition because they are essentially, by ordinance, given the decision." Mr. Blue: "I understand that; I wanted to make sure the applicant understood that." Ms. Brubaker stated that Mr. Kelsey (County Engineer's office) had informed her that a 6-inch gravel base would be required. He had not mentioned paving. Mr. Blue called her attention to Attachment C, page 2, of the staff report which recommends "prime and double seal surface treatment." Ms. Brubaker indicated that had not been her understanding. Ms. Brubaker again expressed her disagreement with the recommendation for paving. She pointed out that there are far less than 30 vehicle trips per day on the road. She explained that only 2 people currently live on the road. Ms. Hipski pointed out that there is also a special use permit for the stable. She called attention to the VDOT's comments, Attachment C, page 3: "This request for a commercial stable could result in a traffic generation of 30-50 vehicle trips per day based on information provided by the applicant for the number of students and employees." She noted: "It may be a case of the stable not maximizing the use of the special use permit; however, the County has no way limiting that use now. It had that opportunity with the special permit." She confirmed that the special permit is attached to the property. The applicant confirmed that she had received, and was aware of, the Engineer's memo dated May 3, 1993. Mr. Blue agreed that though paving of the road might seem unnecessary based on the present use, it might be necessary based on the potential use. He had called attention to the issue to ensure that the applicant was aware of the condition of approval. Ms. Brubaker replied: "No, I don't understand, because that is not what was said in the two meetings we had with Jack Kelsey." It was determined that paving would involve approximately 225 feet of road. (Mr. Johnson questioned where this figure was stated.) .r7 6-3-93 9 Ms. Andersen asked if the applicant would like to request a deferral to allow time to consider the road issue more thoroughly. Mr. Cilimberg commented: "She certainly could and maybe she is going to be getting into more than she realizes and will want to consider that. However, in terms of an action, if she desires a private vs. public road, there is really nothing that you are going to be doing tonight in granting a waiver that would effect what standards she has to abide by in the building of a road. So a deferral isn't really going to do her or you any good other than if she just is uncomfortable proceeding at this point because she is not sure what the requirement is. You can't change the Engineering Department's requirement." Mr. Blue: "You can sometimes make an argument at that level and the Engineering Department's recommendation might have been different because he did not have to recommend the paving —well, maybe he does." Ms. Brubaker felt that the Engineer had made a mistake. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the Engineer's comments are recommendations at this point, but a final decision as to what they will approve for private road plans will be a part of the final plat. Mr. Blue interpreted: "So she will still have a chance to make her case before him and whatever he comes up with we are not going to be able to change anyway." Ms. Brubaker expressed no desire for a deferral and asked that the Commission take action. Ms. Huckle clarified: "So all we're being asked to do is approve the waiver to allow a private road." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Johnson stated: "Unfortunately, I still cannot find any indication on this plat that indicates that the private road to be paved is only the first 200 feet, other than enclosure C which is a letter. On this plat, I see nothing." (Mr. Grimm pointed that that it has not yet been platted and presently it is a statement of the Engineering Department based on observation.) Mr. Johnson stated that the ordinance is very specific on the criteria for the approval of a private road. He quoted from section 18.16 of the Ordinance and concluded that the request did not meet the criteria of 30% less grading. He did not see how the request could be approved. 5Z 6-3-93 10 Mr. Blue felt that Mr. Johnson was technically correct. However, he called attention to the Engineer's comments: "Based upon the owner's written justification and my own investigation, this department is satisfied that alleviation of significant environmental degradation has been demonstrated. etc." Based on the proposed usage, he felt that to require the applicant to submit an engineering analysis to prove that a public road would require 30% more grading, was an unjustified expense. Mr. Johnson: "That may be, but the Ordinance says specifically 'It shall not be permitted."' Ms. Hipski called attention to road plans (received by staff this day) showing the existing road design. She confirmed that the County Engineer has reviewed the criteria and is safisfied. Mr. Johnson: "Anybody that has driven on that road knows that there is not 30% difference between public and private grading." Ms. Hipski: "The County Engineer reviewed these plans and determined that in order to make the existing road meet private road standards would require 5-foot widening of the road for approxiamtely 225 feet distance for an approximatey 1,100 square feet of area disturbed. 30% increase of that area would be 1,400 square feet disturbed to meet the significant degradation criteria of Section 18.36. A public road, on the other hand would require 24-feet of disturbance for 225 feet, for a total of 5,400 feet of disturbed area, plus a 30-foot radius cul-de-sac for an additional 2,800 square feet, for a total of 8,200 square feet disturbed area. It far exceeds the 30% requirements." Mr. Johnson: "Unfortunately, the Engineer has failed to read the Zoning literally. It says 130% of the total volume, not area. There's a difference." Mr. Cilimberg: "I think what we have here is an analysis by the County Engineer, and this illustration tonight is intended to justify, that his view, professionally, of this particular area, is that it meets 18.36(b)(1) of the Subdivision Ordinance. Now you can agree, or disagree, that it does. That is certainly your call. But the County Engineer has deemed that the provisions of the Ordinance have been satisfied. We go with that in making a recommendation to you and now it is your decision as to whether or not that, in fact, is the case. I have no reason to doubt the engineers in their professional review. Again, we always rely on what they provide to us." Mr. Blue stated he was willing to accept Mr. Cilimberg's statement. He also called the applicant's attention to the 6-3-93 11 information just presented by staff which says "Existing gravel drive to be widened where necessary and surface treated, which is pavement." Mr. Cilimberg added that the Engineering Department must exercise some discretion and a reasonable approach to a request. Mr. Grimm viewed the Engineer's recommendations as a compromise. Ms. Huckle noted that the problem is caused by the special permit for the stable because the two houses on the road would require no road improvements. MOTION: Mr. Blue moved that the Tantivy Farm Ordinance Waiver request be approved. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Johnson stated he would not support the motion because: "It does not meet the technical requirements of Section 18.36, notwithstanding the opinion, but undocumented and unproved opinion, by the Engineer." The motion for approval passed (6:1) with Commissioner Johnson casting the dissenting vote. MISCELLANEOUS Private vs. Public Roads - Noting that private roads are often approved in order to allow mountainous terrain standards, Mr. Johnson asked that Mr. Cilimberg arrange a meeting with VDOT (Mr. dePasquale) to discuss their position on mountainous terrain standards. He expressed concern about the potential for future maintenance problems with private roads. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the first meeting had already taken place. Two main questions were presented: (1) Exactly what is the policy for mountainous and rolling terrain standards for Albemarle County? and (2) What is the justification? Beyond that is the question of "How, depending on certain criteria or standards, we could allow mountainous terrain application in Albemarle County?" Mr. Johnson asked that a specific date be set for the meeting with VDOT. Upcoming Comprehensive Plan Review - Mr. Cilimberg reported that a "scientific" survey will be conducted this summer (with the assistance of the University) to receive input from citizens regarding public feeling about various aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. A Public Information Campaign will also take place this summer to make people aware of the 6-3-93 12 upcoming Review. He explained that the survey will be presented to the Board and Commission for review before it is distributed. Mr. Cilimberg also stated that a joint public hearing of the Board and Commission will be held after the survey has been completed. Mr. Blue asked that the survey include the issue of by -right development in the rural areas. Ad Hoc Committee on Training and Education - Mr. Johnson called attention to this document. He specifically stressed the recommendation for an "initial pilot program" 1(a)(7). He felt this was very critical from the standpoint that "we crawl before we run and not try to attack everything we can think of because that covers a very wide range and could lead to the failure of the whole effort...." He felt "very serious discussion" of the document was appropriate for the June 8 meeting. Commissioner Initiated Rezonina - Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Bowling to comment on the procedure for a possible Commissioner -initiated rezoning. He asked if this was "legal, appropriate?" Mr. Bowling explained that a Commissioner can make such a recommendation, and then it is up to the Commission as to whether or not it will be considered and ultimately passed on to the Board as a Resolution of Intent. Mr. Bowling noted that he would need to review the Ordinance to ensure that this was correct. He added that the Board of Supervisors is the ultimate decision maker in the process. (Later in the meeting, after having reviewed the Zoning Ordinance, Mr. Bowling stated: "You can make a motion to amend an individual parcel of zoning, but the matter goes to the Board of Supervisors.") In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question --"Does the applicant (owner) have to be part of this?" --Mr. Bowling responded: "I don't think so. I know he doesn't have to be part of that . " Ms. Huckle did not see how anyone had the right to decide that the zoning should be changed on someone else's property. Mr. Bowling pointed out that was how the initial zoning in the County had been established. Parks and Recreation Fees - As a result of the meeting with the City Planning Commission, Mr. Johnson presented a proposal (See Attachment A) to: (1) eliminate fees for youths, 18 & under, not participating as members of a league or organization; and (2) consider all persons residing within the outside limits of Albemarle County as "residents" in the determination of fees." He felt this would help keep young people occupied and off the streets. He asked that Mr. Mulaney prepare a budgetary evaluation showing the effect of this proposal on revenue and that the 5r 6-3-93 13 recommendation then be passed on to the Board, to become effective prior to the July 4th holiday. Mr. Blue felt it was an "admirable" proposal, but he doubted that it could be accomplished by July 4. Noting that it is not the Commission's role to become involved in budget analyses and decision making, Mr. Cilimberg suggested that if the Commission agreed with Mr. Johnson's proposal, it should go ahead and make that recommendation to the Board and then the budget analysis would then take place at the direction of the Board. He also noted that the City should be made aware of this proposal. Mr. Johnson disagreed with Mr. Cilimberg. Ms. Huckle agreed that she would not be in favor of forwarding a recommendation to the Board without some knowledge of the budgetary impact. Mr. Nitchmann agreed. Mr. Cilimberg was uncertain as to whether or not Mr. Mulaney would be able to provide the information requested on such short notice. He indicated he had no control over staff time in another department. Mr. Johnson continued to express the feeling that the information could be provided by the June 10 meeting. Mr. Nitchmann felt it should be possible to produce the figures requested in 1120 minutes." Mr. Blue pointed out that the political implications would "take longer than a month." Mr. Blue agreed with Mr. Johnson that if youth are involved in recreation they are less likely to become social problems. Mr. Cilimberg again expressed the opinion that the City Planning Commission should be aware of this initiative because he felt "something parallel needs to be happening in the City." Mr. Grimm asked that staff attempt to secure the information from the Dept. of Parks and Recreation as requested by Mr. Johnson. CIP - Education Breakdown - Ms. Andersen asked that the Educational Category for the CIP be broken down so as to show how much of the recreational dollars are shared with the Dept. of Parks and Reccreation. S6 6-3-93 14 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. V. Wayfie Cili ry Secretary Recorded by: Janice Wills Transcribed by: Deloris Bradshaw S;r