HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 20 83 PC MinutesDecember 20, 1983
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, December 20, 1983, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David
Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Allen Kendrick; Mr. Tim Michel; Ms. Norma
Diehl; Mr. Corwith Davis, and Mr. Jim Skove. Other officials present
were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Planner;
and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Cogan.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of April 26, 1983 were approved
as submitted.
Wholley Preliminary Plat - Located on the north side of Route 637, at
its intersection with Route 682. Proposal to create 6 lots ranging in size
from 21.00 acres to 5.0 acres served by a private easement. Samuel
Miller Magisterial District, Tax Map 73, Parcel 17. Deferred from
November 22, 1983.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Because of the number of waivers
being requested, staff felt the plat did not meet the intent of the
Subdivision Ordinance.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Gale. He commented at length
I�ftw on issues related to sight distance and building sites and also on
the waivers being requested. He responded to Mr. Michel's questions
about the entrance location.
Mr. Wholley, the applicant, also addressed the Commission. He explained
his reasoning behind the proposed design. He stressed it was not his
intent to circumvent any of the ordinances.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Davis stated that even though a lot of waivers were required, he
felt the proposal was better than what currently existed.
Mr. Michel indicated he was sympathetic to Mr. Gale's comments.
There was a br1e.f discussion as to whether or not VDH&T had measured
the sight distance, Mr. Payne was under the impression Mr. Echols had
taken an "informal" measurement.
Mr. Davis expressed some uncertainty about waiver No. 4 dealing with
spite strips. Mr. Payne explained the meaning of a spite strip. He
confirmed he would prefer to see property lines run down the center of the
road and deal with double frontage than allow a waiver of 18-37(k) dealing
with spite strips.
December 20, 1983 Page 2
There was a brief discussion about waiver No. 1 (Section 18-36(d) and
confusion as to which lots were involved.
Mr. Payne cautioned the Commission that they were not required to
grant any waivers unless they found there to be a specific topographic
problem. He stated he was concerned by the suggestion that "we'll
give this waiver instead of that one or how many are we going to give?"
He reminded the Commission that the rule is that if it doesn't comply
with the Ordinance, it is denied and that is what staff is recommending.
Mr. Davis stated he did not feel that two entrances onto a state road
from 64 acres was "onerous."
Mr. Payne pointed out that the fact that it is better than something else
thatis equally unlawful doesn't mean that it's proper. He concluded:
"What impresses me is that there are other ways to do this that don't
require these waivers."
Ms. Diehl moved that the Wholley Preliminary Plat be denied on the
grounds that it does not meet the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance
and there is not sufficient reason to grant the waivers.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion.
Mr. Davis stated he would not support denial because he thought it
"would prolong our agony."
The motion for denial failed (3:3) with Commissioners Skove, Bowerman
and Deihl voting for the motion, and Commissioners Michel, Kendrick and
Davis voting against.
Mr. Davis moved that the Wholley Preliminary Plat be indefinitely
deferred. (He noted that he felt waivers 3,4 and 5 could be eliminated
and that No. 6 was more reasonable when dealing with an urban area.)
Mr. Michel seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Diehl stated she would support the motion but that did not
necessarily mean she supported the granting of three waivers (1, 2, and
6 as suggested by Mr. Davis).
Mr. Bowerman indicated he agreed with Ms. Diehl. He asked also that the
Highway Department look at the sight distance.
The motion for deferral passed unanimously.
Solomon Court, Section III Site Plan Amendment - Located north of Solomon
Road, near the intersection with Berkshire Road. Proposal to locate 50
rental units on a 90,000 square -foot lot. Charlottesville Magisterial
District. (TM 60A1, Parcels 28, 34). Deferred from November 15.
4.14
December 20, 1983
Page 3
AND
Berkshire Woods Site Plan - Located north of Solomon Road, near the intersec-
tion with Berkshire Road. Proposal to locate 22 duplex units on 22-acre
parcel. Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Tax Map 60A1, Parcels
28, 34) Deferred from November 15.
AND
Solomon Court Final Plat - Phases I and II - Request to delete condition
of approval No. 1(b) "Planning Commission conditional approval of amended
site plan for Solomon Court Phase III." Deferred from November 15.
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. The report explained:
The applicant is requesting approval of either plan (Solomon Court
Section III OR Berkshire Woods) without the requirement of stormwater
detention. The County Engineer has not been convinced that
stormwater detention is not necessary and therefore has recommended
approval of Solomon Court III amended plan subject to his approval of
stormwater detention facilities or off -site improvements and drainage
facilities. ... Staff opinion is that while the Solomon Court
Phase III plan is technically vague, it was approved that way in
1979. Staff was reluctant to ask for a new drawing because it
appeared that the developer might choose to drop this plan alto-
gether. Staff feels that deficiencies in the plan can be handled
through conditions of approval. The situation needs to be resolved
and staff has prepared conditions of approval should the Commission
wish to act on the amended plan this evening. ... Staff also rec-
ommends that the Berkshire Woods plan be deferred in order that a
more technically complete plan can be submitted. The Berkshire
Woods plan is a totally new plan, not an amendment, and must be
reviewed as such. The concept is preferable, due to its reduced
density and better compatibility with the neighborhood, but Staff
cannot recommend a waiver of stormwater detention in this critical
urban area.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Chuck Rotgin. He gave a brief
history of the project and explained the reasoning behind the proposal.
He stressed four points:
--The applicant is not insensitive to the stormwater issue, but
feels it is notreasonable to expect this 22 acre project
to build a 35-acre drainage basin. He pointed out that the
amount of stormwater which will flow, in both plans, is less than
what is currently approved.
--Past Commission policy has been not to impose any additional
restrictions on amended plans which show less impervious surface.
--The Berkshire Woods plan provides for better buffering and that
is the applicant's and the neighbors' preference.
--The applicant agreed, six years ago, to reduce density in certain
areas in turn for increased density in others.
He stressed that the applicant feels that detention measures cannot
be required because there is an approved plan; however, in a spirit of
cooperation, the applicant is willing to make a contribution to detention.
I�_
December 20, 1983
Page 4
He asked that both plans be approved without stormwater detention to
provide the applicant the flexibility to choose either plan. He
added that if the Commission did not see fit to approve both plans,
the applicant would prefer that the Berkshire Woods plan be approved.
It was determined staff had not recommended conditions of approval
for the Berkshire Woods plan because it was felt the plan was not adequate.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
The Commission's discussion dealt entirely with the stormwater detention
issue. Mr. Davis indicated he understood the applicant's objection
to detention for Solomon III because there is already an approved plan
and the proposed amendment shows less impervious surface. He questioned,
however, why the applicant felt detention should not be required for the
Berkshire Woods plan since it is newly proposed. Mr. Michel asked if
the County Engineer felt there was any room for compromise? Mr. Elrod,
the County Engineer, responded that he felt it was a compromise to
have the developer contribute a proportionate share to off -site
improvements based on the applicant's undeveloped property. In response
to Mr. Bowerman's question about timing of the contribution, Mr. Elrod
stated that the County would want the money "at the time the County can
do the project." He felt this was a key issue. Mr. Rotgin noted that
the applicant objected to a contribution being based on areas that are
not under consideration for development at this time.
Mr. Bowerman questioned how the County would fund the deficit for the
drainage basin. However, he felt the current proposal was "a minor
amendment to an existing plan." He stated he felt it would be unreasonable
to expect this 21-2 acre project to absorb the expense for the entire
35 acres at this time. The Commission agreed this was a long-term problem.
Mr. Payne suggested that condition 1(a) be amended as follows:
• County Engineer approval of stormwater detention facilities
or off -site improvements with the contribution to be calculated
according to the proportion of the total drainage area represented
by the area of Solomon Court, Phase III.
Mr. Davis moved that the Solomon Court, Section III Site Plan Amendment
be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Building permits will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention facilities
or off -site improvements with the contribution to be calculated
according to the proportion of the total drainage area represented
by the area of Solomon Court, Phase III.
b. County Engineer approval of drainage facilities;
c. Service Authority final approval of water and sewer plans;
d. Administrative approval of landscaping and recreation area
(2,500 square feet minimum) plans;
e. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
commercial entrance;
f. Fire Official approval;
7 03
December 20, 1983
Page 5
g. Sidewalks on one side of entrance road from Solomon Road to site;
sidewalks to connect all buildings;
h. County Engineer approval of buildings which will be located
on twenty-five percent or greater slopes;
i. Revised plan to be submitted which meets conditions of
approval.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion.
Discussion:
There was a discussion as to whether or not 1(b) should be deleted
since this has already been approved with the existing plan. Mr.
Elrod asked if this approval "gave him another shot" at drainage
facilities. Mr. Payne advised that "it has to be reviewed at least
to the extent it is affected by the changes." Mr.Bowerman noted
that only the changes to the 22 acres were relevant.
The previously stated motion for approval passed unanimously.
The Chairman called for a motion on the Berkshire Woods Site Plan.
The applicant requested indefinite deferral.
Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Skove, that the Berkshire Woods Site
Plan be indefinitely deferred.
The motion passed unanimously.
Regarding the Solomon Court Final Plat, Ms. Scala stated this would
not require review and the applicant probably would be agreeable to
withdrawing his request for relief from condition 1(b). (Ms. Scala
explained that the approval just granted by the Commission satisfied
this condition.)
The applicant requested withdrawal of the request for relief from 1(b).
Ms. Diehl moved that the applicant's request for withdrawal be granted.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Pollock Preliminary Plat - Located north of Windsor Road in Farmington
Subdivision, ±2 mile north of Route 250. Proposal to create a 3.0
acre lot leaving 20.54 acres in residue. Samuel Miller Magisterial
District. (Tax Map 59, Parcel 59). Deferred from November 22.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
There was a question about the maintenance arrangements for Windsor Road.
411;_T
December 20, 1983 Page 6
Mr. Perkins, representing the applicant, felt this was probably addressed
in the Farmington Property Owner's Agreement. Mr. Payne stated he would
like to review this document.
Ive
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bill Perkins. He explained that
this was "not a division line of parcels, but merely an interior property
line."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Pollock Preliminary Plat be approved subject to
the following conditions:
1. The final plat may be signed when the following conditions have been
met:
a. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for use of
Windsor Road;
b. Compliance with Runoff Control Ordinance;
c. Owner's notarized signature;
d. Note date permanent reference materials are to be set;
e. Provide proper signature panels;
f. Plat showing the combination of parcels "A" and residue of "B"
as noted in plat, of Deed Book 674, page 63).
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
It was confirmed that staff was authorized to approve the final
plat administratively.
SP-83-78 Minnie White - Request to locate a mobile home on 23 acres of
vacant land zoned Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 26, Parcel
54, is located on the northeast side of Route 674, about 4/10 mile
from Route 673, White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He also explained the difference
between a modular home and a double section mobile home.
There was a discussion as to whether both No. 2's should be required
or one or the other as suggested by staff.
if Location as recommended by staff in sketch dated Dec. 20, 2983,
RSK." OR "This special use permit is limited to a double -section
HUD -approved mobile home."
Mr. Payne explained that staff's principle concern is the appearance
of the dwelling and if the dwelling will look like a conventional
dwelling then screening will not be necessary, but if it will look
like the traditional mobile home, then screening will be required.
December 20, 1983 Page 7
Mr. Skove expressed concern that the second option for condition No. 2
would almost be "setting policy."
ow Mr. Payne felt staff was saying that if the dwelling was functionally
indistinguishable from any other dwelling then there was no reason to
treat it any other way, "not only in this case but in all future cases."
Mr. Davis stated he had a problem with making aesthetic judgments
in public meetings. He felt it was wrong to say a mobile home had to
be a certain style or a certain width to be approvable. He also felt
the position of the mobile home on the lot should be left to the
discretion of the applicant "as long as they are willing to screen it."
Ms. Diehl noted her disagreement with Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis stated he felt "forcing people to make greater economic
sacrifice for political reasons was not right." He felt important
issues in regard to mobile homes were: (1) Will it be a permanent
dwelling; (2) Is there any intent to replace it with a conventional
dwelling; and if so (3) Would a temporary permit be more suitable?
The applicant was represented by Mr. Brad White (son of Ms. Minnie White).
He presented photographs of the type of unit in question. He confirmed
he would prefer to have either option available as suggested by staff.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Bill Perkins, representing Mr. McNeely, addressed the Commission.
He expressed his opposition to the request.
Ms. Gina Sullenberger expressed concern about devaluation of property.
Ms. Teresa Gibson spoke in favor of the proposal.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Diehl stated she felt the request was reasonable. She noted the
applicant has indicated he is agreeable to either option, i.e. either
a standard mobile home with screening or a double -wide placed at the
front of the property. She indicated no objection to either but
suggested it would be preferable if the trailer could be placed away
from the neighbor's setback.
Mr. Skove expressed objection to staff's option No. 2. He felt there
should be a clearer definition for a double -section mobile home. He
was also opposed to changing the way the Commission deals with mobile
home requests without further thought. Mr. Michel agreed.
Mr. Michel moved that SP-83-78.for Minnie White be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Sec. 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Location as recommended by staff in sketch dated "Dec. 20, 19839 RSK".
December 20, 1983 Page 8
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
9
Frye/Winston Preliminary Plat - Located on the east side of Route 631
(Old Lynchburg Road) about two miles north of Route 708; proposal to
divide 10 acres± into two lots of t5 acres each, served by a private
easement, zoned Rural Areas. Scottsville Magisterial District.
(Tax Map 101, Parcel 25).
The applicant was requesting deferral.
Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Skove that the Frye -Winston Preliminary
Plat be deferred to January 24, 1984. The motion passed unanimously.
Georgetown Lane Preliminary Plat - Located at the east end of Inglewood,
south of its intersection with Solomon Road; proposal to divide 3.02
acres into ten (10) lots with an average size of .197 acres and 1.05
acres open space, zoned R-4 Residential. Charlottesville Magisterial
District. (Tax Map 60, Parcel 74).
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Fred Pugsley. He explained the reasoning
behind the proposal and also commented on runoff control measures.
Mr. Hereford, also representing the applicant, stressed that the applicant
has attempted to cooperate with the Planning Staff and the Engineering
Staff to arrive at a plan that is both marketable and in keeping with
the basic flavor of the existing neighborhood.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Hagg, a resident of Inglewood Court, expressed no opposition to the
request, but stated some concern about the ultimate development, particularly
the density.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Regarding the runoff question, Mr. Elrod, the County Engineer, explained
the applicant will provide off -site detention which will relieve existing
drainage problems. He felt a drainage basin would be a nuisance.
Mr. Skove moved that the Georgetown Lane Preliminary Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat may be signed when the following conditions have been
met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road
plans, profiles and drainage calculations, including sidewalks
and approval of channelized entrance off of Inglewood Drive and
Solomon Road;
`_ �7
December 20, 1983
Page 9
b. County Engineer approval of on -site and off -site road plans and
profiles and drainage plans and drainage easements;
C. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention facilities;
d. Compliance with Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer
plans;
f. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations;
g. A legal easement of fee -simple agreement recorded for lot
encroachment of TM60A-6-D1 (Joseph N. Purvis, Jr. property), and
the applicant's property;
h. Note on plat date permanent reference material to be set;
i. Note on plat, "Building separation shall be 30' unless approved
by Fire Official."
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. (Included adminis-
trative approval of the final plat.)
Peter W. Williams Final Plat - Located east of the intersection of Inglewood
Drive and Solomon Road and west of the intersection of Inglewood Drive and
Inglewood Court; proposal to divide 5.033 acres into two parcels.
Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Tax Map 60, Parcel 74). Deferred
from November 22.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Fred Pugsley who offered no additional
comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Michel moved that the Peter W. Williams Final Plat be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will be signed when the following conditions have
been met:
a. County Engineer approval of drainage, slope or other easements;
b. Note on plat area for dedication of highway right-of-way;
c. Note on plat, "Building separation shall be 30' unless approved
by Fire Official:"
d. A legal easement or fee -simple agreement recorded for lot encroachment
of TM 60A-6-D1 (Joseph N. Purvis, Jr. property) and the applicant's
property:
e. Provide owner's notorized signature.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
IBM Final Plat - Located on the south side of Route 754 (Old Ivy Road);
proposal to divide 3.8154 acres into two lots of 1.9077 acres each zoned
C-1 Commercial. Jack Jouett Magisterial District. (Tax Map 61, Parcel
120V) .
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject
to conditions.
T 2Y
December 20, 1983
Page 10
The applicant was represented by Mr. Chuck Rotgin. There was a brief
discussion about a disputed property line. He asked if the applicant
could move "that line" once this dispute has been resolved. (It was
determined Mr. Rotgin was referring to the "interior dividing line.")
Mr. Payne stated: "I don't think there's any problem with what Mr.
Rotgin's suggesting."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Skove moved that the IBM Final Plat be approved subject to the
following conditions:
1. The plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been
met:
a. Written agreement between property owners regarding western
property line;
b. Sewer easements satisfactory to the Service Authority to be shown
on plat:
c. Drainage easement satsifactory to the County Engineer to be
shown on plat:
d. Soil Erosion and Sedimentation permit.
2. Stormwater detention facilities to be provided on both parcels at the
time of site plan approval.
(Note: The motion included administrative approval of a change in the
interior property line.) 400
Mr. Kendrick seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Phillips Building Supply, Storage Yard Site Plan - Located off the south
side of Route 631 (Rio Road West) on a private road adjacent to Phillips
Building Supply; proposal to locate an outside storage yard on a lot
containing 30,480 square feet and zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Charlottesville
Magisterial District. (Tax Map 61, Parcel 120V)
The applicant was requesting deferral to January 24.
Mr. Michel moved, seconded by Mr. Davis, that the Phillips Building Supply
Storage Yard Site Plan be deferred to January 24, 1984. The motion
passed unanimously.
Rio Road Gulf Services Site Plan - Located on the southeast corner of the
intersection of Route 29 North and Route 631 (Rio Road); proposal to locate
a self-service gasoline and convenience store containing 2,115 square
ffet and an office or retail space containing 1,359 square feet and 12
parking spaces on 0.64 acres zoned C-1 (Commercial). Charlottesville Magisterial
District (Tax Map 61, Parcel 122A).
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
December 20, 1983 Page 11
The applicant was represented by Mr. Ed Bain. He expressed strongly that
11#4w he felt the Highway Department's recommendations were unjustified because
this proposal will not increase traffic to any significant degree. He
also objected to the recommendations related to the entrances. He stressed
that there had never been any problems with the entrances. He pointed out
that if a variance should be required as a result of a future use in the
remaining portion of the structure, the applicant will seek a variance
at that time. He noted that only a low -intensity use would be possible
because of the limited space available.
Mr. Joseph, the owner of the business, commented briefly.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Commissioners Bowerman and Michel feltBB a dedication was sufficient to
meet Highway Department requirements. Mrr. no ed that there were no existing
problems with the intersection or access to the property. He also
indicated concern about the issue of water and sewer. He felt public
sewer was desirable, "if at all possible."
There was a discussion as to whether or not public water and sewer was
"reasonably available." There was some question as to whether or not
the Highway Department would allow utilities in their right-of-way.
Ms. Diehl questioned why the Health Department had given approval to use
the existing septic tank system, "given the position of the septic field
and the well."
After very little further discussion Mr. Michel moved that the Rio Road
Gulf Services Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will be issued when the following conditions
have been met:
a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation acceptance of
26' dedication from centerline;
b. Staff approval of additional landscaping of the grass islands.
Mr. Kendrick seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Diehl stated she could not support the proposal without public
water and sewer.
The motion for approval passed (4:2) with Commissioners Diehl and Skove
casting the dissenting votes.
Amvest Final Plat - Request for administrative approval. Located on the
south side of Route 250 West; proposal to divide one 2.933 acre parcel
leaving 35.392 acres and 4.46 acres residue. Zoned Highway Commercial.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District. (Tax Map 59D(2), Parcels 2 and 17).
lf�
December 20, 1983
Page 12
Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval
subject to conditions.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Amvest Final Plat be approved subject to
the following conditions (including approval of a waiver of Section 18-36(b) 4
to allow a private road in the urban area):
1. The plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met:
a. County Attorney approval of access easement and maintenance
agreement between 2.933-acre parcel and 4.46-acre residue;
b. Water line easement to be shown on plat to the satisfaction of
the Service Authority;
c. Note on plat: "No further subdivision without Planning Commission
approval."
Mr. Skove seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
(Note: Because the Chairman had failed to call for either applicant
of public comment on this proposal, the matter was re -opened for
reconsideration. It was determined there was neither applicant, nor
public comment. The motion for approval was re -affirmed.)
Squire Hill Section II Site Plan Reconsideration - Located on the west
side of Rio Road; request to amend condition 1(b). Zoned R-15 Residential.
Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Tax Map 61, Parcel 129D)
Ms. Scala presented the staff report.
The applicant was requesting reconsideration of site plan approval
condition No. 1(b), "Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of road plans and profiles for proposed fifty -foot (50')
dedicated road."
The staff report explained that the applicant's basis for the request
was due to the fact that if building permits were not obtained before
the end of the year, the financing of the project was in danger.
There was a discussion about the way the Highway Department is proposing
that approvals be handled, i.e. that approval be in the hands of
the County Engineer, but with the requirement that the roads be built
to State standards. Mr. Davis felt the Highway Department was just
looking for a "scape goat," in the event there were problems. Mr.
Payne agreed this was a possibility.
Mr. Payne felt there was no particular problem with this particular
request.
Mr. Elrod, the County Engineer, explained the history of this
case. He stated there would be no significant change except for
the drainage.
9
R
431
December 20, 1983
Page 13
Mr. Payne stated it was a question of "modifying the condition so that
what they have done substantially satisfies the condition."
Mr. Michel asked if the Commission could advise staff tha the condition
has been substantially satisfied? (He added that he would prepared to
take that action but he was not prepared to support the suggested
rewording of the condition.)
Mr. Payne responded affirmatively to Mr. Michel's question. He
added that the rewording stated in the staff report should be considered
new business and should not be taken up by the Commission at this time.
Mr. Roudabush, representing the applicant, commented briefly. He
stated this site plan reflected the Highway Department's current thinking.
Mr. Bowerman asked: "Are you two saying that what you'd like to do is
say that condition 1(b) of the original approval of this is substantially
complied with --sign it off --and forget it?" Mr. Roudabush responded
affirmatively.
Mr. Bowerman responded: "That's fine with me."
This was determined to be the consensus of the Commission. No objections
were raised to handling the matter in this manner.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:15 p.m.
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms, 10-89
t 4 �
Ir /
Secreta
Y 3Z