2005-10-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

427 Mr. Lynch said he supports the Planning Commission's decision. He said there needs to be a specific proposal about what the applicant intends to do. He said the applicant has not made a compelling argument and the information provided is not enough to ensure a quality product. Mr. Caravati said he takes the adverse position. He said he thinks the Planning Commission was wrong to turn down the request because of a lack of information. He said there is nothing in the ordinance that asks for drawings at this juncture. He said the reason for that is so applicants do not have to spent lots of money when it might be moot. He said he supports the special use permit. He said he does not think it is our right to require drawings until the applicant has the authority to develop the property. Dr. Brown said that while he sees Mr. Caravati's point, a certain amount of information is needed to see if there is an adverse impact, and he agrees with Mr. Lynch. Mr. Caravati said if the permit is denied it will preclude the applicant from coming back for a year. He suggested deferring the matter so the applicant can develop more information. Mr. Tolbert said that Council can refer the matter back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Lynch said that the applicant is asking for a doubling of the number of by- right residents, and he needs to show what the benefit is to the City. Responding to a question from Mr. Caravati, Mr. Brown said that the applicant will required to meet the conditions of a special use permit if he chooses to utilize the permit. Mr. Caravati made a motion to defer the matter and ask the Planning Commission to work with the applicant prior to resending the matter back to Council, and Mr. Schilling seconded the motion. The special use permit was referred back to the Planning Commission by the following vote: Ayes: Dr. Brown, Mr. Caravati, Ms. Hamilton, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Schilling. Noes: None. REPORT: STATEMENT TO COMMONWEALTH TRANSPORTATION BOARD: PRIORITIES FOR SIX-YEAR PLAN Mr. Tolbert said that the statement is basically the same as was made to VDOT last year, with the Belmont Bridge moved to the second page. He said the amount for the eastern connector study needs to be clarified after action by Council and the Board of Supervisors. He said the statement will be presented to VDOT on October 18th and he asked that Council decide if one of them or staff should make the presentation. Mr. Schilling asked that the reference to the bridge be changed to Belmont Bridge in both references. Mr. Lynch proposed that ITS be taken out of the list, and to add a paragraph about its status. He also suggested including an update on Hillsdale Drive and the fact that a design firm has been selected for the Meadowcreek Parkway interchange. Ms. Hamilton expressed concern that transit is listed as #9, and Mr. Lynch suggested that it be put after the eastern connector study, and Council agreed. Mr. Caravati said that the County's contribution to the eastern connector study has been reduced to $300,000, and asked if their contribution has gone down, should not ours. Mr. Tolbert said that the Board of Supervisors is voting on their contribution on Wednesday.