Planning Commission

FAIRMONT PLANNING COMMISSION The regular meeting of the Fairmont Planning Commission was held on April 19, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. at the Public Safety Building located at 500 Quincy Street. President Straight called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and asked for a roll call of members. ROLL CALL OF MEMBERS MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT President Straight Commissioner Greene Commissioner Blickenstaff Commissioner Richardson Commissioner Parker Commissioner Majic Commissioner Carpenter Commissioner Yann Commissioner Colley Commissioner Parker motioned to excuse Commissioners Greene and Richardson from tonight’s meeting. Commissioner Blickenstaff seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. CITY STAFF City Planner – Sandra Scaffidi City Attorney – Kevin Sansalone City Manager – Robin Gomez Planning Secretary – Maria Cipolla PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM March 15, 2017 Commissioner Blickenstaff motioned to approve the minutes. Commissioner Yann seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING FOR April 19, 2017 1. Duane and Martine Cole requests the abandonment of a right of way along Union Street located between tax parcels 6-8-37; 6-8-39; 6-8-40; and 6-8-40.1. President Straight asked if there was anyone to speak in favor of this request. Duane Cole: The reason I want the right of way abandoned is that I own the property on both sides of the right of way. Nobody else spoke for or against this request. President Straight asked for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner Parker motioned to close the public hearing. Commissioner Yann seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0 President Straight asked Sandra Scaffidi for her staff report. Sandra Scaffidi: The application appears to be complete and in proper form. The applicant owns all the property as he stated along both sides of the unopened right of way. Two comments were received from outside agencies and departments regarding this abandonment. The Fire Chief, Ed Simmons, stated that the applicant must maintain fire department access to all present and future structures to a distance that is not to exceed 300 feet to all entrances of the 1 buildings. Dominion Hope Gas stated that there is a TL-408 High Pressure Dominion Transmission line that runs in the vicinity. The owner may need to contact PTI to make sure this application does not infringe on their ROW. Aside from those two comments, staff recommends the approval of the abandonment of the specific section of the ROW as requested in the application south of Freedom Street. President Straight asked Duane Cole about the high pressure line. Duane Cole: The high pressure line is on Union Street. It is not in the right of way. The line runs along the creek. It is not on my property. President Straight asked for a motion for this request. Commissioner Yann motioned to approve this request. Commissioner Colley seconded the motion. Motion carries 7-0 PUBLIC HEARING TO SET FOR May 17, 2017 1. James Keener requests the abandonment of a right of way between Clark Street and Satterfield Street at Clay Street. The proposed right of way abandonment is located between tax parcels 5-8-169 & 5-8-176. President Straight asked for a motion to set the hearing. Commissioner Yann motioned to set the hearing. Commissioner Parker seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. 2. Raymond and Paula Friend request the abandonment of a right of way between 1081 Westview Drive and 1091 Westview Drive. The proposed right of way abandonment is located between tax parcels 3-19-58 and 3-19-11. President Straight asked for a motion to set the public hearing. Commissioner Carpenter motioned to set the public hearing. Commissioner Blickenstaff seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. PUBLIC HEARING TO SET FOR June 21, 2017 1. Holbert Holdings, LLC requests the rezoning of 1083 Country Club Road from General Residential to Neighborhood Mixed Use. The property is located on tax parcels 3-12-9; 3-12-10. President Straight asked for a motion to set the public hearing. Commissioner Yann motioned to set the public hearing. Commissioner Colley seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. NEW BUSINESS 1. Request for determination and factual analysis under Article 8.10.4 regarding Kirk Naternicola’s request for rezoning of the Box Factory located on the 12th Street Extension (Tax Map 3-7-74.5) from Neighborhood Mixed Use to Industrial. City Attorney, Kevin Sansalone: I am the attorney for the City of Fairmont. It is my understanding, as reflexed by the minutes from March 15th, the Planning Commission had provided for a rezone for the property known as the Box Factory from Neighborhood Mixed Use to Industrial. In reviewing the minutes and attempting to assist Sandra [Scaffidi] in writing a report, the Commission is obligated to provide the [City] Council, for purposes of proposing ordinance to Council, it was noted that the necessary findings that are provided for in the Planning & Zoning Code 8.1.0 amendment had not been made by the Commission as part of their decision. I don’t know if you have Section 8.1.0 before you, but it 2 provides that before an amendment to the zoning ordinance, the Planning Commission must determine whether the amendment is consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. I did not know, after reviewing what was being proposed if such a finding was made by the Commission. Also, after reviewing the document and trying to assist Sandra in preparing the necessary report, in the same Section 8.1.0 subsection 4, it requires the Planning Commission make a recommendation report; particularly make a factual analysis and determination regarding seven issues that have to be addressed by the Commission before a rezone can be recommended to council. What we are asking the Commission to do is to make those factual findings and determinations so that the necessary report can be prepared and presented to Council regarding the requested rezone of the Box Factory. First, you have to make a determination whether the requested rezone is constant with the Comprehensive Plan. There also has to be a determination made for the need and justification of the proposed amendment; the effect of the proposed amendment on the property itself, surrounding properties, and the City as a whole: the relationship of the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and the general planning program of the City; whether there have been major changes of an economic, physical, or social nature within the area involved not anticipated when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted; whether those changes have substantially altered the characteristics of the area; whether the proposed amendment should be adopted by Council by an ordinance; and whether only notice requirements have been met. I clearly believe that all of the notice requirements have been met. The appropriate parties were provided notice and the class two legal ad was published in the Times West Virginian, which is a general newspaper in circulation in Marion County. We are asking the Commission to go through the minutes and based on the information, facts and circumstances that were presented at the previous public hearing, to make an analysis and determination with regard to A through F. President Straight: Does anyone have any question for Kevin [Sansalone]? Commissioner Blickenstaff: Is this a requirement each time a rezone comes before this commission? Kevin Sansalone: Yes, and as far as I know it has been satisfied in the past. I can think of two particular situations that I have been involved with and each circumstance it has been satisfied; one was the request of Stoney Quinto to rezone property at Maryland Avenue and Morgantown Avenue. In that case, the Commission, with Ms. Wyrosdick’s assistance, did make specific determinations with regard to each one of those factors. The other one I can think of is the issue with the gas station that was located at the intersection of Locust Avenue and Country Club Road. The individual that owned the property requested that it be rezoned from Neighborhood Mixed to Main Corridor Commercial so that they could establish the car wash that is there now. It is right across the street from Wendy’s. They did go through the analysis that time. They made a determination that it was an error of the original Comprehensive Plan in 2005 to identify that as Neighborhood Mixed Use when the surrounding area was commercial and it should have been Main Corridor Commercial. So they went through the factors and made the analysis. Most other circumstances, the determinations cannot be made without some stated use for the property. It would be hard to determine based on the speculated use that those conditions have been satisfied, I think. I do know in those two circumstances and other circumstances, the conditions have been satisfied and the analysis was made. Commissioner Yann: You mentioned about the Quinto property. I just wanted to mention that he couldn’t tell us what he wanted to do with the property at the time. Kevin Sansalone: He could not tell what he wanted to do with the property. That case is currently pending before the Supreme Court of Appeals. He still has no stated use for the property. So A was not satisfied in that instance because he could not state a use for the property so he could justify why he wanted it to be rezoned from Neighborhood Mixed Use to Main Corridor Commercial. His argument was that the need and justification for the proposed amendment use that Main Corridor Commercial corresponded more with Business B, the old zoning district, which was associated with that parcel. He felt that his rights had been taken away and his availability of uses had been taken away by the rezone. He does continue to maintain his non-conforming status so he can continue to operate his business just as he had under Business B. He wanted all of the other uses that were permitted by right, under Business B, without saying what he had a particular use in mind. He also attempted to make the argument, from my understanding of the situation and the minutes, that investment in the area caused the characteristics and the nature of the area to be substantially altered. Obviously there has been substantial investment made in both the school, Palatine Park, and the docks that the County is building as well the other areas in the general vicinity that Mr. Quinto’s property is located. However, if you look at the basic characteristics, they have not changed. The investment has changed. The area has improved, but the basic characteristics remain the same. There is a park. There is a school. The few bars that were there remain. None of the basic characteristics have 3 changed. So, that analysis was clearly made in Mr. Quinto’s case. In the other case [with the gas station], the Commission found that an error had been made. All the surrounding properties were all Main Corridor Commercial. Commissioner Parker: Kevin, thanks for being here tonight. I appreciate your expertise and the wisdom you bring reading through the code. When you look at the seven characteristics, is it your interpretation that on each of those particular points we have to find in favor the rezoning or may we come to different conclusion on each one, but treating it as a whole we could find the rezoning would be warranted even if one or two of those items may not be favorable. How do you interpret that based on your experience? Kevin Sansalone: I think if they generally weigh one way or the other that should assist the Commission in making the determination whether really if the first question in 8.1.0 has been satisfied; whether or not the amendment would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. You have to go through that analysis to make that determination. If it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan then, in reality, I don’t think the Commission should grant the rezone. Perhaps the correct route would be to, in the development of the next Comprehensive Plan, have discussions and provide for changes of the area as a whole as opposed to just zoning one particular property in a sea of Neighborhood Mixed Use to have one Industrial use. It is clearly something that would not be provided for by the code. I think you take to rezone one particular property that is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the benefit to the City as a whole cannot be described and the detriment or the benefit to the area can’t be described. That is what they consider an improper spot zone. Sandra asked me to define spot zoning, which I attempted to do without looking at the facts of this particular instance. If the Commission wanted me to look at the facts of this particular instance, there was a miscommunication. Commissioner Parker: I was interested in your opinion on that not just the definition of spot zoning, but whether or not this particular instance would reasonably be construed as improper spot zoning because there could be appropriate spot zoning. There can inappropriate spot zoning. There could be illegal spot zoning. So I was interested in drawing on your expertise what your thoughts were on that and that is why I am glad you are here tonight. I don’t want to put you on the spot, but I just think it would be constructive to the Commission to get your thoughts as opposed to a definition. Kevin Sansalone: If you start with a definition of what a spot zone is, if the spot zone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and furthers the City as a whole, than it is not an illegal spot zone. It would be a permissible rezoning of a particular property. An illegal spot zone is something that only serves the particular interest of a landowner rather than being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the City’s benefit as a whole. I thought you might ask me that question, so I went through the analysis that I would go through if I were in your position and had the authority to make the decision. I think you have to look at the surrounding uses of the area and the definition of what is industrial. There is a definition in our code book of industrial. It is not necessarily just limited to commercial. It has a specific definition. It is use engaged in the basic processing and manufacturing of materials or products predominately from extracted or raw materials, or the storage of or involved in the manufacturing process. So, if you consider the uses around the Box Factory, they might be commercial. There obviously are some that are commercial. There are the storage units that are commercial. There is the BFI that is commercial; neither one of these are technically manufacturing or industrial; neither one of those involve the combining of raw materials into something else or the storage of raw materials, or any aspect of the manufacturing process. They are commercial, but they are not necessarily industrial. Then you have residential use which clearly is at the opposite end of industrial or manufacturing. You also have educational and recreational uses. Really there is a combinations uses. Although historically it may have been technically industrial and involved in manufacturing processing, I don’t think that is the case anymore. That is one aspect that I look at. The area is no longer industrial. It is somewhat commercial, but it really is a mix of uses because it involves the residential. Educational, and recreational uses as well. Then I looked at whether it complied with the Comprehensive Plan. My familiarity with the Comprehensive Plan is that the City attempted to provide for recreational uses in that area, to provide a walkable city, and to improve the rail trails system. There are chapters in there that discuss the Beltline area. None of them discuss a reversion to industrial uses or the development of industrial/manufacturing uses in that area. So it is clearly not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 2005. Subsequent to the adoption of the 2005 Comprehensive Plan, the City undertook to have a Connectivity Plan done which determined the health and well-being of the City and provided for connections between its neighborhoods so that it is all walkable. Part of that plan was the rails- to-trails and involved the redevelopment of the Beltline area. So I don’t think it complies with that aspect of the Comprehensive Plan. As part of our Home Rule Plan, the City adopted an ordinance that attempted to eliminate the expansion of industrial uses in non-industrial areas. Elkins Iron & Metal, prior to the Home Rule ordinance, was purchasing property and to expand across Virginia Avenue and across the rail bed to the area close to the Monongahela 4 River. That is an industrial and manufacturing use. They recycle raw materials. So, the City attempted to curb that expansion by its Home Rule Plan which was approved by the Home Rule Board and then approved by City Council by ordinance. So Elkins Iron & Metal can no longer purchase property and add to its existing facility. It is constrained to its existing facility to lessen, and hopefully eliminate, the impact that it has on that area which is adjacent to the Beltline. That is another aspect of our Planning and Development stages that have been undertaken by the City that is inconsistent with the rezoning of that area from Neighborhood Mixed Use to Industrial. There is the rehabilitation of the Twelfth Street Pool which provides a recreational use in the area; the improvements to East/West Stadium that has provided additional recreational and educational uses in the area; there is the Middle School which an industrial facility that emitted fumes and exhaust would be inconsistent with having a school in that zone; and there is the City’s paving project. The City has invested money into the streets surrounding the stadium and the school that would be inconsistent with industrial uses and heavy traffic although I understand we still have truck traveling that route. Mr. Naternicola did not propose any intended use. His uses were speculative and nebulous. I didn’t think, given all that I have said up-to-date, that there has been a major change to the economic, physical, or social nature of the area since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2005. In fact, it would be the opposite. The City has tried, what has been in its power to, to bring the Beltline redevelopment area and the concepts that are outlined in the Comprehensive Plan to fruition. I ultimately concluded that it would not benefit the City as a whole. It would not benefit the adjoining property owners. It would benefit one individual; the land owner. It I were making a decision, I would probably recommend to City Council that the rezone should not be adopted based on all of those factors. Commissioner Parker: I think that is an excellent analysis. Thank you for that. So it comes back to that everything flows out of the current Comprehensive Plan effectively. Kevin Sansalone: Yes. I think that is the requirement of the statue that the Planning Commission operates under. I also think that is the premise under the cases that have been decided by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals. The Comprehensive Plan is basically the seminal document that all zoning and zoning decisions that are made by the City have to comply with. Commissioner Parker: And if there is a disagreement with what the Comprehensive Plan devises, the opportunity is coming up to amend that if the Commission believes that is the appropriate thing to do. Kevin Sansalone: In this particular instance, I don’t know if all of the meetings and public hearings have been concluded, but I would suggest to the property owner, Mr. Naternicola, that he discuss that with Sandra [Scaffidi] and then be involved in the development of the Comprehensive Plan and anybody else who has property in that area. I believe Judd [Doerfler] has been involved in some of the discussions. That is the route to go verses rezoning one piece of property for one particular person; particularly with how a specific use is described. President Straight: Any other questions? There were none. Kevin Sansalone: At this time, you need to make the requisite findings so that we can prepare the report to City Council regardless of any other item on the agenda. I understand there is an agenda item that provides for a motion to reconsider its decision of one of the person who voted with the majority in approving the rezone initially would choose that motion, however, should that motion not be made or fail, then we would left in the same position that we currently are without the necessary findings of fact and conclusions that the rezone should be approved to take to Council. At some point, within 60 days of this meeting, I have to prepare an ordinance to City Council either approving it, which has already been done, or a resolution affirming the action of the Planning Commission and denying it which isn’t even an available alternative at this point. The only alternative that I have is to prepare an ordinance. That has to be accompanied by a report with the necessary findings. I need you to tell Sandra what facts you relied on in A through F and how those different criteria have been satisfied by the facts that were presented at the March 15th meeting. President Straight asked Sandra Scaffidi for her staff report. Sandra Scaffidi: I think Kevin {Sansalone} specified a lot of the reasons I had for reasons why I should not be the one to offer recommendations because I disagreed with the opinion of the Commission. But because I am getting a better understanding of the rezoning process and I thought this would be a great opportunity for the Commission to learn as well 5 with me, so like Kevin [Sansalone] said, we need to go through A through F and provide a report that we can provide to City Council. I have a long list of suggestions for you that Kevin touched on. A lot of them are on the same topics but it is more important for the Commission to come up with their findings. President Straight: Some of the questions were not clear. We needed Kevin to explain some of this. With further discussion between Sandra and Kevin, we needed Kevin to be here tonight. I hope that it has satisfied some of your questions that you asked. Commissioner Parker brought up a good point. How should we be looking at each item, A through F? Do they have to meet each one of them when we are voting? I think if we knew what was going into the report than you could probably satisfy some of these questions. This is the same thing we did for R.J. Williams on Eighth Street. We satisfied most of the questions and we knew what was going in there. Sandra Scaffidi: We just need to go through point by point and make the argument for it. President Straight: Let me go through this with you. The applicant did not provide any justification for proposed the rezoning. No plan was offered was offered by the applicant. The applicant has not shown how this will benefit the City. The proposed amendment will be devastating to the area in general as well as the City. The applicant has never expressed how this will benefit the surrounding properties and the City as a whole. I think when you come in front of a board like this, and everybody has their own interpretation, but when we look at the Comprehensive Plan that we have set out, and that is something we will go through as we are working on the new one as we speak. We as the Commission need to look at some of that; address some of the needs, and tweak it, but as of right now, it is what it is. Are there any other comments or questions? Sandra Scaffidi: Unless you want to discuss this in Executive Session, it might be easier to go point by point. We can discuss each amendment and then see if all of you agree. The Commission needs to set forth a document that the Commission can stand behind. President Straight: I think everybody has their book in front of them. If you go to 8-10, you will see the Planning Commission recommendations to governing body. That is what we will do tonight, either for or against. Then will send our recommendation what our findings are to City Council, which is the governing body. If you have any questions, please feel free to do so. Commissioner Blickenstaff: I would recommend anytime someone comes before us for a proposed change like this, they are given these seven criteria to present with their case not after the public hearing. Now the criteria show up and we have to justify the change we voted on. I think it passed by one vote so it was tight anyway. Looking over the seven criteria, I don’t think Mr. Naternicola met those, but did he know he was required to meet those. I didn’t know he had to meet those [criteria]. I’m new. I think everybody on this side of the table is pretty new, also. For him, what does this mean? Can he come back? Is he limited time wise by so many months? Sandra Scaffidi: It depends what happens. First of all, I do want to say that the criteria were listed in my staff report several times. It is not my responsibility to instruct Mr. Naternicola on how to proceed or respond to our zoning code. It is public. It is easily available. I do believe I have shared that with him. Under 8.10.6 [in the City’s code book], depending on the amendment, it says the governing body or the Planning Commission shall consider or reconsider a petition presenting the same amendment to an ordinance within a period of one year from the final determination on the initial petition provided, however, that the Planning Commission may recommend to the governing body a proposal be reconsidered within a period of less than year on finding there had been major changes of economical, physical, or social nature within the area since the initial consideration, that those changes have been substantially altered the basic characteristics of the area and the conditions had not been considered by the Planning Commission or the governing body in previous declarations. So yes, [he would have to wait] one year. Commissioner Blickenstaff: So when we go through the Comprehensive Plan, and say we did make a change to the zoning of that area, would that constitute him [Mr. Naternicola] being able to come back within that year because we did actually make a change? When we get to that point in the plan and we agree we overstepped in 2005 with what is still there twelve years later. Sandra Scaffidi: I would say so. 6 President Straight: You bring up a good point. If I am buying property, I want to know what I can do with that property before I even put money into it. They would know what they can do prior to that. Then the biggest thing would be meeting those criteria. He doesn’t meet any of it. The biggest thing is we need know what will be going in there. We have other people come before us and gave us information on what their plans were for their property and we could work with them. We didn’t break any rules or anything of that nature. Like Eddie [Parker] said earlier, do you have to meet all seven criteria? I would assume that if we knew what was going in there, maybe you wouldn’t have to do that. That’s just my opinion. Sandra Scaffidi: These are good things to consider, but our goal is to protect the City. I’m not a legal expert. It is not my job to provide guidance. My job is to protect the City to the best of my ability. Perhaps we can include that in our form for zoning. I think that is an easy adjustment but it is up to the applicant to make sure that they meet the requirements of our zoning code. We did mention these criteria at our DRC meeting with Mr. Naternicola. We did let the applicant know in advance (about the seven criteria). Again, these questions need to be responded to so that we can take them to City Council. Whatever way the Commission decides to go, we need answer these questions. President Straight: I think in this point in time you will need to answer these seven criteria, right Kevin? Kevin Sansalone: If you made a motion that the Commission accepts that analysis that I presented, which I am not suggesting that you do or not do that, that was if I was making the determination, if you were to accept that then I believe that based on the minutes and my understanding of the situation, Sandra would have sufficient information necessary to prepare the report. President Straight: I think with your analysis you gave tonight, it answered a bunch of questions regarding this. Kevin Sansalone: But that is not going to support the conclusion that the Commission came to at its March 15th meeting. It is in opposition to that, obviously. Commissioner Parker: The obligation under this portion of the agenda is to develop the facts and circumstances that support the favorable bid. Kevin Sansalone: Yes. Commissioner Parker: Everything we heard here tonight does not support that. So, I am going to make a motion to lay on the table item one under Section 8 of New Business and move to item two and offer the opportunity for those who voted the affirmative on the prior consideration of that motion to offer a new motion, if they so choose. If they don’t, then we go back to item one and do what has to be done. So I motion to lay item one of Section 8 on the table and have a discussion of item two. Commissioner Blickenstaff seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. Kevin Sansalone: If nobody makes a motion to reconsider or the motion to reconsider fails, then it will be necessary to go back to item one and address the factors and make the argument as to why those seven criteria are satisfied so the report can be made for City Council that the rezone has been approved. 2. Reconsideration of Kirk Naternicola’s request to rezone the Box Factory from Neighborhood Mixed Use to Industrial which is located on the 12th Street extension also known as 3-7-74.5. The request was voted on March 15, 2017. It was approved to be rezoned by a vote of 5-4. President Straight: I need a motion from one of the five that originally vote for the rezoning. Commissioner Blickenstaff motioned to reconsider the vote on the rezoning of the Box Factory. Commissioner Colley seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0. 7 Kevin Sansalone: You need to have a discussion just on the motion to reconsider. President Straight: Any discussion? Commissioner Parker: This is merely to decide whether we will take up the prior vote to reconsider or not and then we will go into a discussion of it as we did the last time. This is a procedural motion to simply say will we pick it up again or not. President Straight: Any questions? There were none. President Straight: Can I have a roll call vote on the reconsideration? (This just to reconsider the rezone not to vote for or against the rezone) Commissioner Blickenstaff – Yes Commissioner Yann – Yes Commissioner Majic – Yes Commissioner Parker – Yes Commissioner Colley – Yes Commissioner Carpenter – Yes President Straight – Yes Motion carried 7-0. Sandra Scaffidi: Now, this takes the Commission back to where they were right before the vote the last time. The public is only allowed to speak if you allow them too. You have to have a new discussion on the rezone. Commissioner Parker: Mr. President, I make a motion that the request for rezoning be rejected by the Commission based on the information provided by staff at the prior meeting and at this meeting and on the City Attorney’s most capable comments that were said here this evening. So, I make a motion reject and deny the petition for rezoning. Commissioner Yann seconded the motion. President Straight: Commissioner Parker can you restate your motion? Commissioner Parker: I motion the Commission deny the request for rezoning because the request would not meet the requirement of 8.10 subpart four of the code which dictate the review and the decision making process for a request of an amendment. I don’t think those criteria have been met. I make a motion to reject. Commissioner Yann: I second his motion. President Straight: Can I have a roll call vote, Maria [Cipolla]. Commissioner Blickenstaff: Yes. Commissioner Yann: Yes. Commissioner Majic: Yes. Commissioner Parker: Yes. Commissioner Colley: Yes. Commissioner Carpenter: Yes. President Straight: Yes. Motion carried 7-0 in favor of denying the rezone request. CITIZENS PETITION None 8 OTHER BUSINESS 1. Commissioners Comments: Commission Majic: None. Commissioner Blickenstaff: This was certainly a learning experience tonight. I hope when we come to the Comprehensive Plan, we give that area another look. In my opinion, maybe we were a little cart before the horse with zoning in that area that is grandfathered and what is commercial. Commissioner Colley: Tonight was very interesting. Commissioner Parker: I would like to thank Mr. Sansalone for coming here this evening and educating all of us. I appreciate his participation. Commissioner Carpenter: None. Commissioner Yann: None. President Straight: Hopefully we can have some work sessions in the future. It might get us more on the same page when we make these decisions. 2. Staff Updates: Sandra Scaffidi: I want to thank Kevin for his help. I do want to have a special meeting in May to discuss the Comprehensive Plan with our consultants. I know I am asking for an additional day of your time, but if you have any dates that are not available to you, please let me know. I think the first and the twenty-fifth are the only ones the consultant cannot do. If all of you could tell me when you are available, so we can have a meeting to discuss the new plan I would appreciate it. I want to be able to share our progress on the Comprehensive Plan. I am thinking May 24th. This is the Wednesday following our regularly scheduled meeting. We have a full slate on that meeting so I was thinking it would be best to have a separate meeting, if possible. The Commissioners agreed to meet on May 24th at 6:00 p.m. for a meeting on the Comprehensive Plan. I think you will be pleased with the Comprehensive Plan. It is really coming along. It is very interconnected. I am excited to share it with everyone. This will be a public meeting and we will advertise it. We will have a public meeting when we have a draft plan and present that to the Commission as well. Our office is always open for comments and concerns. We will take issues that are brought up to the consultants. I did bring up the area of the Box Factory to them. I can try to arrange a meeting with the consultant and the people in the Beltline area. ADJOURNMENT President Straight asked for a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Parker made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Carpenter seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0 9