Loading...
PC_03-06-96_Meeting_MinutesMEETING MINUTES OF THE FREDERICK COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Held in the Board Room of the Old Frederick County Court House in Winchester, Virginia on March 6, 1996. PRESENT: Planning Commissioners present were: Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman/Stonewall District; John R. Marker, Vice Chairman/Back Creek District; Robert A. Morris, Shawnee District; Roger L. Thomas, Opequon District; John H. Light, Stonewall District; Marjorie H. Copenhaver, Back Creek District; Jimmie K. Ellington, Gainesboro District; George L. Romine, Citizen at Large; Robert M. Sager, Board Liaison; Vincent DiBenedetto, Winchester City Liaison; and Jay Cook, Legal Counsel. ABSENT: Terry Stone, Gainesboro District; S. Blaine Wilson, Shawnee District; and Richard C. Ours, Opequon District Staff present Robert W. Watkins, Director and Secretary; W. Wayne Miller, Zoning Administrator; Evan A. Wyatt, Planner II; Eric R. Lawrence, Planner I; Michael Ruddy, Planner I; Kris C. Tierney, Deputy Director; and Renee' S. Arlotta, Minutes Recorder. CALL TO ORDER Chairman DeHaven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. BIMONTHLY REPORT Chairman DeHaven accepted the Bimonthly Report for the Commission's information. 4152 Development Review & Regulations Subcommittee (DRRS) - 02/29/96 Mtg. Mr. Thomas reported that the DRRS discussed two issues -- telecommunication towers and buffer and screening requirements. He said that both of these items will be brought before the Commission in the near future. Economic Development Commission (EDC) Mr. Romine reported that the EDC is continuing with their discussions of water, sewer, and rail accessibility. PUBLIC HEARINGS Conditional Use Permit #001 -96 of Howard A. And Sheila A. Pohn to establish a Cottage Occupation for a blacksmithing business at 709 Cattail Road (Rt. 731). This property is identified with PIN 921 -A -18 in the Gainesboro District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Miller said that the applicant desires to use an accessory building on his property to produce ornamental iron products. Mr. Miller said that a blacksmithing forge is currently set up in a concrete block building on the property adjacent to the residence. He said that the structures are located approximately 3/4 mile from Cattail Run Road (Rt. 73 1) and are not visible from the road or any adjoining property. Mr. Miller described some faulty electrical and stove pipe work and felt it would be appropriate for the fire marshal to inspect this aspect of the facility to ensure a safe operation. Mr. Howard A. Pohn, the applicant, said that he will correct the electrical wiring and will install the proper spark arresting mechanism on the stove pipe and has no problem having the appropriate inspectors out to his property to inspect the work. There were no citizen comments. The Planning Commission had no particular areas of concern with the proposed 4153 3 conditional use permit and upon motion made by Mr. Romine and seconded by Mr. Thomas, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #001 -96 of Howard A. and Sheila A. Pohn for a Cottage Occupation for a blacksmithing operation at 709 Cattail Road (Rt. 73 1) with the following conditions: 1) All review agency comments must be complied with prior to operation and on a continuing basis. 2) If electrical power is required for the accessory structures, the proper installation of wiring must be made and inspected. 3) Any expansion of the use will require a new CUP application. Rezoning Application #001 -96 of Frederick Mall Land Trust (Pine Ridge Estates) to rezone 26.14 acres from RA (Rural Areas) District to RP (Residential Performance) District for 29 Single - Family Residential Lots. This property is located on the east side of Apple Pie Ridge (Rt. 739) and the north side of Glentawber Drive and is identified with P.I.N. 42 -A -198 in the Gainesboro District. Action - Recommended Denial Mr. Tierney gave the background information and reviewing agency comments for the rezoning. He said that VDOT has commented that there will be an added impact to the Route 522/739 intersection and VDOT also notes that if the development proceeds, additional right -of -way will need to be dedicated along Apple Pie Ridge Road for future widening. Mr. Tierney noted that the most recent traffic count (for the section of Rt. 739 from Rt. 522 to Rt. 673) available is from 1993 at 2,143 average vehicle trips per day (tpd) and the anticipated traffic from 28 new homes would be an additional 280 tpd, an increase of roughly 13% over the 1993 count. Mr. Tierney pointed out that the School Board felt there would be impacts to the schools and they requested this be addressed. Mr. Tierney continued, stating that the property is located in the Urban Development Area (UDA) and lies along the edge of the Sewer and Water Service Area (SWSA), with sewer and water available across Route 739. He said that the applicant has proffered that there will be no entrances on Apple Pie Ridge Road; but rather, the lots will front or have access to Glentawber Road, which lies along the southern edge of the parcel. He said that the applicant has proffered a limit of no more than 29 single- family lots, including the existing residence; they have also proffered $3,591.00 per unit for schools and parks & recreation and $20.00 per unit for fire and rescue. 4154 LI Mr. Tierney concluded by saying that the Planning Department has received a number of letters, petitions, and phone calls expressing concern or opposition. Mr. Harry Benham, attomey representing the land owner, Mrs. Mary Ellen Pope, said that Mrs. Pope could create approximately five or six two -acre lots under the present zoning; her other choice is to rezone and subdivide the property into approximately 26 -28 lots, which would be about 1 /2 acre in size, taking into account streets, sewer and water extension, and buffer areas. Mr. Benham said that Mrs. Pope chose to rezone because it gives her some financial benefit and also generates funds for improvements to the property. He said that if the property is rezoned, she would: 1) eliminate any new driveways onto Apple Pie Ridge - -a road would be constructed parallel to Apple Pie Ridge which would feed into the frontage road located on the south side of the property; 2) provide public water and sewer; 3) improve the appearance of the property and create a screen/buffer by planting trees beginning at the frontage road running along Apple Pie Ridge to an existing 60' right -of -way; and 4) construct a berm along Apple Pie Ridge to aid in screening. Mr. Benham said that Mrs. Pope is also willing to establish some controls on the development of the land - -only single - family residences would be permitted; standard controls for signs and setbacks would be established, and restrictions regulating the type of construction would also be established. Members of the Commission had questions for the staff regarding the UDA and SWSA boundaries and where the closest undeveloped large tracts of land were located. Chairman DeHaven called for public comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Kenneth Y. Stiles, former Board of Supervisors Chairman and former member of the Planning Commission, came forward and stated that he was a member of the Commission and Board when the UDA and SWSA concept was developed and he wanted to provide some information for the record as to what was possible regarding this proposal. Mr. Stiles described the boundaries of the UDA and the SWSA. He stated that in order to extend sewer and water beyond this property, a number of policy decisions would have to be made, including changing the scope of the SWSA and changing the scope of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Stiles said that if the Board accepts the applicant's proffer that only single- family homes will be constructed, it will be legally binding and will forever preclude development at a higher density. Mr. Stiles also commented that considering the costs involved to develop this property, he did not foresee it possible to build low or moderate income housing on the property. Mr. Bernard Marsteller, President of the Spring Valley Property Owners Association, stated that the density proposed was too high for the size of the parcel in question and compared to the size of lots already established. He said that the local residents chose this area to live because of its low density. Mr. Marsteller said that Glentawber Road is the only ingress/egress out of Spring Valley onto Rt. 739 and therefore, traffic is one of their major concerns. He said that they are also concerned about the safety of children on school buses. Mr. Marsteller presented a petition representing 100% of the property owners of Spring Valley who were opposed to the rezoning. 4155 5 Mr. Jimmie K. Ellington noted at this point for the record that he was a property owner in Spring Valley, however, his name does not appear on the petition submitted by Mr. Marsteller. Ms. Diane Alexander, resident in Spring Valley, said that she and her husband chose this area of Frederick County to live because it was rural. Ms. Alexander said she was appalled at the idea of putting 28 homes in this tiny cornfield and she felt it would ruin the area. Mr. David Newlin, resident of Foxlair subdivision, presented a petition of opposition from the residents of Foxlair subdivision. Mr. Newlin expressed the following concerns from Foxlair residents: 1) the traffic congestion - -the sharp turn at the entrance to Spring Valley on Apple Pie Ridge presents a safety problem; few upgrades to the road have occurred; the addition to James Wood High School will add more youthful driver traffic; 2) the property in question lies on the boundary of the SWSA and UDA, so decisions about the property could go either way and the County should honor the integrity of the covenants of neighboring subdivisions; 3) impacts on schools; 4) the tax burden on the constituents is being fueled by the growth mode experienced in Frederick County in the past couple decades; this growth is causing a loss in quality of living; there is no infrastructure or community support for more growth; the property in question should be developed under the existing zoning; 5) resentment that the County Planning Department was recommending approval of the rezoning before listening to public input; 6) public representatives' obligation should be to the taxpayers and constituents and not to developers who are seeking financial gain at the expense of the residents. Dr. Jerome Boyar, an Apple Pie Ridge resident, stated that the proposal will adversely effect Glentawber Road, Apple Pie Ridge Elementary School, Apple Pie Ridge Road, and property values in the entire area. Dr. Boyar said that this area is one of the most beautiful, low density areas in Frederick County and it should remain that way. He said that there was no way anyone could place 28 houses in that small area and disguise it and make it look good, no matter how many trees were planted. Ms. Donna Barrens, resident of McGuire Hills, asked for a count of the number of people present who were in opposition to the rezoning, for the record. (estimate recorded at end of discussion) Mr. Robert Hess, resident of Apple Pie Ridge Road, spoke in opposition for several reasons: he had safety concerns due to increased traffic congestion - -he said that it was not unusual to wait in traffic at the Rt. 522/Rt. 739 intersection between 7:30 a.m. -8:15 a.m. for five to six changes of the traffic light; he felt that road improvements would be required to handle increased traffic; and he felt that pedestrian access to the school properties would need to be addressed. Mr. Hess presented photographs and a video of the traffic congestion taken as school buses were departing the area. Mr. Roger Koontz, former principal of Apple Pie Ridge School, spoke about the 4156 R heavy traffic in this area. He said that it was extremely dangerous for school children and school buses and he felt that the corner of Apple Pie Ridge and Route 522 was probably the worst intersection in Frederick County. Mr. Koontz said that he was Chairman of the Board of Supervisors when the Sanitation Authority installed the water line for the school and to serve the Sunnyside area. He said that any reserve that might be in it is pre- committed to the Sunnyside area. Mr. Koontz felt that a precedent would be set if this property was allowed access to the water line and development would continue all the way back to the foot of Gold's Hill. Mr. Bob Grogg, resident on Apple Pie Ridge Road for the past 20 years, said that a sense of community was lacking in this proposal and discussion. He said that the applicant had not looked at the type of housing existing there now - -nice homes on two to five acre parcels. Mr. Grogg said that he was not opposed to development of the property, but it should be consistent with what is existing there now. Mr. Bob Godfrey, resident on Apple Pie Ridge, spoke in opposition to the rezoning. Mr. Godfrey said that he counted 165 people who were present in the court room and he felt the vast majority of those persons were in opposition. Mr. Godfrey felt this rezoning would be detrimental to the quality of life for his family and other residents of the community. Mr. Jerry Bassler, resident on Apple Pie Ridge since 1974, requested that the Commission maintain and protect the rural character of this neighborhood. He was concerned that a precedent would be set if the County allowed the extension of the water line and subdivision of smaller lots. He asked the Commission to consider the investment made by the residents of the community and their choice to live in a rural neighborhood. Ms. Linda Martinson, resident at 211 Woodcrest Drive in the Beaver - Whitacre Subdivision, was in opposition to the rezoning for all the reasons mentioned by the other citizens that came forward. Ms. Martinson presented a petition of opposition with 166 signatures, including members of the Apple Pie Ridge School faculty and administration and James Wood High School teachers. Mr. Andrew Steidinger, resident of McGuire Hills, asked the Commissioners to consider the number of people present in opposition and to carry out the wishes of the constituency. Dr. Gregory Eads, resident at 214 Glentawber Drive, felt the applicant needed to present a compelling reason to rezone in order for the Commission to approve the rezoning. He felt the rezoning should be denied if the residents in the area were opposed to the rezoning. Mr. Dick Burn, resident of the old Lewis house located approx. '/2 mile north of the Pope property, said that his family chose this home because of its charm, potential, and the unique country and rural atmosphere of Apple Pie Ridge. Mr. Burn felt the rezoning would negatively affect the quality of life in that area. 4157 Mr. Tim Dayhuff, resident of Apple Pie Ridge, stated that the Route 739/Route 522 intersection needs to be improved, even without further development. He said that the congestion there is terrible, both in the mornings and the evenings. Mr. Dayhuff felt that if this property is developed, it should be consistent with the existing development in that area. Ms. Jennifer Crovatin, resident of Apple Pie Ridge, felt the proposal was not compatible with existing development. Mr. Nicholas Gemma, resident of Cottonwood Subdivision, felt the rezoning would negatively affect the quality of life on Apple Pie Ridge. Ms. Kathy Thompson, resident on Glentawber Road, felt it was interesting that the applicant was proposing to buffer the property with trees to hide from view what they apparently don't want to look at either. Ms. Katy Anderson, resident of Apple Pie Ridge, said that this proposal does not fit in with the existing development in this area which consists of two to five acre lots. Ms. Anderson felt the proposed density would negatively affect the aesthetics and the history of the area. Ms. B. J. Manuel Doherty, resident at the intersection of Gold's Hill Road and Apple Pie Ridge, said that her father purchased the 220 -year old stone house in which she lives. Ms. Doherty thought the proposal would negatively effect the quality of life in the area. Ms. Jody Heaps, resident on Warm Springs Road, said that she commutes in and out of town many times a day via Apple Pie Ridge Road. She said that there are certain times of the day, especially when school begins and ends, that she avoids Apple Pie Ridge, because of the traffic, and has to take alternative roads that are unpaved and unsafe. Ms. Heaps felt the proposed rezoning would cause even more traffic congestion. Ms. Becky Morrison, resident on Green Spring Road, came forward to speak on behalf of her family and parents, Mr. and Mrs. Harry C. Stuart, Jr. of Apple Pie Ridge. Ms. Morrison said that her family is opposed and feels it will destroy the nature of Apple Pie Ridge. Mr. John Anderson, resident of Apple Pie Ridge, said that it was his understanding that a baseball stadium is coming to James Wood High School and if this takes place, it will add to the traffic congestion. Mr. Anderson said that most of the people that have moved to this area within the last 20 years have done so because of the nature of the area and the two to five acre lots. Ms. Gina Lowder, resident at 195 Glentawber Lane, came forward to state her opposition to the rezoning. Ms. Mary Gillman, resident at 1208 Apple Pie Ridge Road, spoke about the terrible traffic congestion on Apple Pie Ridge Road. 4158 Ms. Rebecca M. Tavish, resident of Foxlair subdivision, said that she moved to this area because it was so aesthetically pleasing and would like for it to remain that way. She was happy to see such a large turnout of persons voicing their opposition. Mr. Don Stotler, resident of McGuire Hills, said that he and his wife moved here because of the beauty of the area. Mr. Stotler was opposed to the requested rezoning, however, he had no problems with Mrs. Pope developing her property as long as it was similar to the lot sizes of the existing subdivisions. Ms. Ann Grogg, resident of Apple Pie Ridge for the past 20 years, said that she saw no advantages to the kind of rezoning that is being requested. She felt that the proposed proffer would not cover the cost of one child in the County's school system for one year. Ms. Grogg asked the Commission to consider their obligation to the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Sager spoke regarding the cost of education and said that according to his calculations, using 2.5 children per household and a total of 28 houses, the amount of the proffer offered fell far short of the total amount needed to fund school expenses for those children. Members of the Commission felt that the proposed development, at the density requested, was inappropriate for this particular area because it was not compatible with existing development and would have a negative impact on the character of the area. Commission members noted that there were areas within the UDA for this kind of density, but not at the Apple Pie Ridge location. It was noted that the sewer line was extended to this location by the Board of Supervisors for the school system's use and then further extended to include the church. Commission members also pointed out that VDOT had acknowledged that the proposed development would have a traffic impact on the Route 739/ Route 522 intersection. Upon motion made by Mr. Light and seconded by Mr. Ellington, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby deny Rezoning Application #001 -96 of Frederick Mall Land Trust (Pine Ridge Estates) to rezone 26.14 acres from RA (Rural Areas) to RP (Residential Performance) for 29 single family residential lots by the following majority vote: YES (to deny) Ellington, Morris, Romine, DeHaven, Marker, Copenhaver, Light, NO: Thomas Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Light, the Commission unanimously agreed to make the four petitions containing signatures of opposition, the four letters of opposition, and the three pages of an informal count of the number of people present in opposition (107 signatures) during the meeting a part of the official record and file. 4159 N An Amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165 -37D, Zoning District Buffers Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Wyatt said that the purpose of this amendment is to reduce the amount of required buffer distance in conjunction with specific performance design standards. He explained that the performance design standards restrict all primary or accessory uses within the buffer zone and require a full screen containing a continuous earth berm with plantings of a greater height than is currently required. Members of the Commission asked who would make the decision on the amount of buffer reduction. Mr. Wyatt said that the amendment is not for a variable distance, but provides the developer with a choice of two alternatives. Mr. Wyatt said that the existing requirement is for a full screen with a 100' distance separation, however, within that 100' distance there could be accessory uses, such as tractor trailer loading and staging. He said that if the developer determines that it is more appropriate to utilize the space, he has the option of developing and reducing the buffer, however, no accessory or primary uses would be allowed within the buffer. He said that if there is a desire for a reduced buffer, the developer would have to adhere to the performance standards. Mr. Wyatt noted that the buffer reduction would give the developer the potential to use more of his property, however, in considering adjoining property uses, he would have to make some concessions by removing uses that would normally be allowed in that area. He said that the buffer reduction reduces wasted space by allowing the developer to build closer to the property line. There were no citizen comments. The Commission members spoke in favor of the amendment as proposed. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Marker, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of the amendment to Chapter 165, Zoning, of the Frederick County Code, Article IV, Supplementary Use Regulations, Section 165 -37D, Zoning District Buffers, as follows: 165 -37D Zoning District Buffers (7) Land proposed to be developed in the M1 (Light Industrial) District and the M2 (Industrial General) District may be permitted to have a reduced buffer distance that is consistent with the required side or rear building setback line, provided that the following requirements are 4160 10 met: A. The property to be developed with a reduced buffer distance is part of an approved master planned industrial park. B. There are no primary or accessory uses within the reduced buffer distance area, including driveways, access drives, outdoor storage areas, parking areas, staging areas, loading areas and outdoor dumpster areas. All- weather surface fire lanes necessary to meet the requirements of Chapter 90, Fire Prevention of the Code of Frederick County. Virginia shall be exempt from this performance standard. C. A full screen is required to be created within the reduced buffer distance area which shall be comprised of a continuous earth berm that is six feet higher in elevation than the highest elevation within the reduced buffer distance area and a double row of evergreen trees that are a minimum of six feet in height and planted a maximum of eight feet from center to center. Master Development Plan #001 -96 of Hill Valley to develop 26.123 acres of residential land for 54 single - family detached cluster homes. This property is located in the northwest corner of Valley Mill Road and Greenwood Road and is identified with PIN 55 -A -56F in the Shawnee Magisterial District. Action - Recommended Approval Mr. Charles W. Maddox, Jr., engineering consultant with G. W. Clifford & Associates, was representing the owner, Vera V. Dove. Mr. Maddox said that they have spent a considerable amount of time with VDOT in determining a suitable entrance to the site, in light of the proposed improvements scheduled for Greenwood Road. He said the entrance they are proposing, which has been approved by VDOT's Design Section in Staunton, is not only useable today (by site distance and state standards), but is also useable later, after Greenwood Road has been relocated. Mr. Maddox presented VDOT's approval letter, along with a copy of the revised master development plan (to substitute previously submitted plans). He then described various features of the site, including storm water management, roads, utility lines, etc. Mr. Maddox said that they were proposing to keep a 3+ acre section of the parcel, located at the southeast corner, out of the open space to be conveyed to the property owners association because it is a potential area for road construction impacts to occur. Members of the Commission pointed out the concerns raised by the County Engineer. There were concerns regarding the feasibility of proposed roads due to elevation differentials and a request for grading plans for the entire subdivision, due to steep topographical conditions. 4161 I1 Mr. Maddox stated that all roads within the subdivision would be state - maintained and all requirements of the County Engineer would be satisfied. Members of the Commission asked how far die proposed entrance would be from the proposed Valley Mill relocation. Mr. Maddox replied that it would be approximately 350' to 400', noting that the distance is much further at the present time. Mr. Lawrence came forward to present staff review comments. He said that the master plan reviewed by staff and the reviewing agencies was not the same plan that was just submitted by Mr. Maddox. He said that there were debates early on about where the entrance onto Greenwood Road should be; and, apparently, VDOT and the applicant have decided upon an appropriate entrance, but it has changed the master plan as previously submitted. Mr. Lawrence raised the question of whether or not it was appropriate for the Commission to act on the revised plan before the reviewing agencies had an opportunity to review it. Chairman DeHaven called for citizen comments and the following persons came forward to speak: Mr. Mark E. Bozar, adjoining property owner at 457 Valley Mill Road, had questions about the adequacy of the treatment facility to handle additional dwellings and where elevation changes and property disturbances would take place. Mr. Ralph Simmons, resident on Valley Mill Road, said that he was one of the directors of the homeowners association. Mr. Simmons was opposed to approval of the master plan because of the traffic on Valley Mill Road. Mr. Simmons said that the traffic on Valley Mill Road is terribly congested. He added that his homeowners association was not notified of this proposal. Members of the Commission were well aware of the traffic congestion in this area, but noted that Greenwood Road was the number one priority project designated for county road improvements. They felt that the development of single - family detached cluster homes was compatible with existing residential development and that the proposal complied with zoning requirements. Member of the Commission also felt the revised entrance location was compatible with the planned realignment and improvements to the Greenwood Road and Valley Mill Road intersection, however, the applicant would need comply with all review agency concerns. Upon motion made by Mr. Thomas and seconded by Mr. Romine, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Frederick County Planning Commission does hereby unanimously recommend approval of Master Development Plan #001 -96 of Hill Valley to develop 26.123 acres of residential land for 54 single- family detached cluster homes and does also hereby grant the staff administrative approval authority to approve the revised master development plan, with particular attention that the County Engineer's requirements are satisfied. 41.62 12 In closing, Chairman DeHaven felt it was not particularly fair to adjoining property owners, who may have been shown a plan or been told about a plan, and then have a different, revised plan presented and discussed at the public hearing by the applicant. 1996 PLANNING COMMISSION RETREAT RESULTS No Action Mr. Watkins presented a list of issues and strategies discussed at the 1996 Planning Commission Retreat. Members of the Commission brought up the subject of staff recommendations for application review. They suggested that the words "meets all specifications" or "does not meet the following specifications..." be used instead of the phrases "approval" or "disapproval." Members of the Commission felt this subject was worthy of further discussion. Members of the Commission asked about the status of the Stephens City Well -head ordinance. Mr. Watkins said that a reply was sent to Stephens City stating that the County can not legally enforce or support the ordinance as it would apply outside of the Town boundaries. It was noted that dialogue is continuing on this subject. 1995 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Action - Approved Mr. Ruddy presented the 1995 Annual Report of the Department of Planning and Development and stated that the report was intended to provide the Commission and others with information to evaluate the previous year's planning activities and to aide in comprehensive planning for the upcoming year. Members of the Commission felt this was an informative and excellent report and made a good quick - reference guide. Members of the Commission felt the report was so useful, they wanted to see it expanded to include VDOT activities in Frederick County, such as the current year's expenditures or mileage of road constructed, and also some statistics about county residents, such as occupation, education, etc. Upon motion made by Mr. Marker and seconded by Mr. Romine, the Planning 4163 13 Commission unanimously approved the 1995 Annual Report of the Department of Planning and Development. OTHER The Commission and staff next talked about the County's Capital Improvements Plan (C.I.P.), which the Commission recommended for approval at their meeting of February 7, 1996. In particular, questions arose as to how the values were arrived at and whether or not the process was sound financial planning. Some of the points raised were: The Planning Commission does not have the tools for financial planning and it is not their role; the reason the Virginia Code designates the Planning Commission to review the C.I.P. is because of its tie to the Comprehensive Plan. By placing projects on the C.I.P., they become eligible for proffers. There may be an item on the C.I.P. that the County has no intention of ever funding, but if it is on the list, there is the potential that other money sources may be used to fund the project. The values designated on the C.I.P. will fluctuate and are only to be used as a guide. The Commission also discussed the subject of public hearing signs and whether or not they were large enough or distinguishable enough for the public to recognize them. They also raised the point of whether the staff should oversee where the signs are placed. Commissioners and staff were open for suggestions and felt the subject deserved further discussion at a future time. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, Chairman DeHaven adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Charles S. DeHaven, Jr., Chairman 4164