HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 07 85 PC MinutesMay 7, 1985
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on Tuesday, May 7, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were:
Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr.
Tim Michel; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; and Mr. James
Skove. Other officials present were: Mr. James Donnelly,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald
Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; Mr.
Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia
Cooke, Ex-Officio. Absent: Mr. David Bowerman
Acting in Mr. Bowerman's absence, Mr. Cogan called the meeting
to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was
present.
The minutes of the April 16, 1985 and April 23, 1985 meetings
were approved as written.
SP-85-16 James B. Murray, Stephen B. Murray and Panorama Farms -
Request in accordance with Section 10.5.2.1 to locate 80 lots on
a 189.10 acre parcel with an average lot size of 2.13 acres. Zoned
RA, Rural Areas. TM 31, parcel 21. Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
It was determined this item was to be deferred until May 14, 1985.
Since the meeting was running ahead of agenda times, two items
at the end of the agenda were taken up at this time.
Site Plans and Subdivisions Involving Easements. Mr. Keeler
explained that several subdivision applications recently
have envisioned easements on the property of others (e.g.
sight distance easements, grading easements, etc.). He
stated staff felt it was not an efficient use of the Com-
mission's time to review applications which envision the
applicant obtaining such easements when there is no indication
these easements can be obtained. He stated staff cannot
refuse to present such an application to the Commission,
but it would be helpful if the Commission would adopt a policy
statement that would encourage the applicant to at least have
in hand a letter which states such easements are being
negotiated.
Mr. Payne stated that while a formal agreement may not be
necessary, some sort of enforceable contract would be
sufficient, such as a letter of intent. He stated this is
not so much a legal matter as it is a matter of administra-
tive convenience.
cm
May 7, 1985 Page 2
It was the consensus of the Commission that such a policy would
be beneficial, and that staff should inform applicants that
proposals which require such easements would not be viewed as
complete by the Commission until the necessary agreements had
been negotiated.
The Commission directed staff to proceed with composing a statement
to this effect.
Discussion of Newspaper Articles. Staff presented copies of
newspaper articles from Northern Virginia papers which dealt with
the review process in these areas and with the issue of
developers being permitted to make proffers to make road improve-
ments.
ZMA-85-10 David Wood - Request to rezone 3,333 square feet from
R-2 Residential to C-1 Commercial. Property described as TM61MU,
parcel 01-16 is located near the intersection of Dominion Drive
and Route 29. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He stated the applicant has
made no indication as to his plans for developing the property.
He also stated that Lot 17 would be most effected by this
rezoning. He further stated that since this rezoning would make
this property more developable, it might be desirable to
consider the issue of access to the private road at this time.
He explained that if the property is rezoned commercial the
access could be farther back from Rt. 29.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Wood, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained
that the piece of land being requested is less than 1/10 acre
and is a pointed piece of land that protrudes into the commercial
area. He stated the seller of the property had indicated there
were no objections from adjoining property owners. He stated
he had no plans for the lot, but was trying to make it more
developable. He stated about one and cne-tenth acre of lowland
exists between the Pizza Inn and this piece of property, and
this lowland has been given to the County as a gift.
Mr. Payne confirmed that the County Engineer is aware of the
applicant's offer to give the lowland as a gift and is very
interested in the offer, though he has not had time to review
the matter.
The Chairman invited public comment.
M
May 7, 1985 Page 3
Mr. James Cosby, a resident of Berkeley, addressed the Commission.
'%w He stated he was one of three members of the Architectural
Control Committee for Berkeley. He stated there are restrictive
covenants which the property owners in Berkeley must comply with
and he referred to some of these restrictions in relation to
land use and building types. He indicated he wanted the Commission
and the applicant to be aware of these restrictions so as not to
"be taken by surprise." He pointed out that the piece of property
subject to the rezoning request is still a part of Berkeley
and subject to those restrictions, and must be submitted to the
Architectural Control Committee for approval.
Mr. Cogan pointed out to Mr. Cosby that the Commission has
no control over the Architectural Control Committee or the
deed restrictions and cannot take those matters into considera-
tion. However, he stated the information presented by Mr.
Cosby should be noted by the applicant.
Mr. John Shotz, an adjoining property owner, addressed the
Commission. He indicated he was opposed to the proposal since
he felt the commercial property was large enough and he felt
there was no reason to take away from residential property
to make it larger.
Mr. Wood, the applicant, stated he was aware of the Berkeley
restrictions and he was aware that this piece of land will continue
to be subject to those restrictions. He stated the entire
piece of land is within the 50-foot buffer zone between
residential and commercial so there will be no possibility of
a building ever being constructed on it. He explained it
would simply move the line on his current piece of property
so that it would be buildable.
The Chairman asked for comments from Mr. Echols of the Highway
Department. Mr. Echols confirmed that adding this piece of
property might allow the entrance to be placed farther back
from Rt. 29, which is always desirable. He confirmed that
a commercial entrance location would be possible from the
private road.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that a building could not be located
in the 50-foot buffer, but a road could be.
Mr. Cogan stated the addition of this piece of property would
have two effects: (1) Permit a building to be located
further back on the lot, making it closer to Berkeley; (2) Will permit
the entrance off the private road to be set back further from the
intersection. He stated this presents a pro and a con, but
he felt the rezoning would not permit a larger building than
would be permitted without the rezoning.
May 7, 1985 Page 4
Ms. Diehl stated she felt it was a reasonable request, but
she added she would be concerned about buffering and screening
that would be present on any site plan for the property.
Mr. Cogan stated he did not feel the rezoning would be detrimental
to anyone, and at the same time would allow the commercial
entrance on the private road to be moved away from the intersection.
He added that the property owners most affected were aware of
the proposal and had not voiced objections.
Mr. Michel indicated he agreed with Mr. Cogan.
It was determined that a road or parking area could go within
20 feet of the residential property.
It was pointed out to the applicant that the issue of screening
from the residential property would be an essential part of
any site plan for the property.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-85-10 for David Wood be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
This matter was scheduled for the Board of Supervisors on May 15,
1985, though Mr. Keeler advised the applicant to check with
the Clerk of the Board, since this date was subject to change.
ZMA-85-14 Claude Cotten - Request to rezone with proffer, a 48±
acre parcel zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, to LI, Light
Industrial. Property described as TM 76M(1), parcel 2B,
2C, 3A, 3B, 4B, and 4C is located on the east side of Fifth
Street, approximately 2 mile north of I-64 and is a portion
of the Willoughby Planned Unit Development. Scottsville
Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report.
In response to Mr. Cogan's inquiry, Mr. Donnelly stated there
are approximately 160 acres of LI property in the urban area,
with public utilities being available only on that section
along Avon Street.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Cotten addressed the Commission. He offered the following
comments:
--The property has a contiguous boundary with the city
and the county.
--There is a need in the county for a corporate research
park.
--This property has the advantages of access to 164 and rya
the university.
--The reasoning behind the proffer was to allow for a
corporate park that could be a beautiful and useful
May 7, 1985
Page 5
facility and any warehousing that would be allowed
*W would have to be accompanied with an office attachment.
--In relation to the two uses which the proffer had
included under "uses not permitted" which staff
feels should be included under "uses permitted",
i.e. (6.) Engineering, engineering design, assembly and
fabrication of machinery... and (7.) Electric, gas, oil
and communication facilities..., he stated it was
the applicant's intent that heavy industry type uses
not be permitted.
--Regarding the bridge which links the property with
city property, he stated he is prepared to enter
into a maintenance agreement for the bridge if it
cannot be accepted into the state system.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
In response to Mr. Cogan's inquiry, Mr. Keeler explained that
staff would like to see items (6.) and (7.),which the applicant
has included under "uses not permitted", included under "uses
permitted." He explained item (6.)--Engineering, engineering
design, assembly and fabrication of machinery...-- would not
be an objectionable use within the type of development proposed
by Mr. Cotten, though it is the applicant's choice to delete
this if he wishes. However, he stated item (7.)--Electric, gas,
oil and communication facilities... --would be essential to the
development of the property. Deleting this use would prevent
the applicant from being able to connect to necessary utility
lines. He stated item (7.) is basically lightweight public
utilities such as collection lines and distribution lines, and
heavier uses such as substation and transmitter lines are per-
mitted by special use permit.
Ms. Diehl indicated she was not comfortable with the Commission
dictating what should or should not be included in a proffer.
Mr. Payne agreed with this, but stated,in this case, he felt the
applicant had not interpreted this item as it was meant to be
interpreted or he would not have excluded it from permitted
uses.
Ms. Diehl stated that whether or not item (6.) is left in as
a use not permitted should be left up to the applicant.
Mr. Cotten confirmed that he had not interpreted item (7.)
as deleting utility lines or he would not have included it
as a non -permitted use.
Mr. Cogan indicated it would be up to the applicant to confer
with staff regarding putting the proffer in the proper form
before Board review.
May 7, 1985
Page 6
Mr. Michel asked if the drawing was intended to be a type of
proffer also in regard to the areas that would be developed,
and particularly in regard to the 50-foot buffer along I64
and the undisturbed section between the road and Moores Creek.
Mr. Cotten confirmed that this was so.
In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Echols of the Highway
Department stated he is not familiar with the bridge issue and
would have to start from "scratch" in reviewing it.
Mr. Skove indicated he felt this was an appropriate use for this
land since the deletion of the connector road had effectively
removed this from the PUD already, and since utility lines were
available to the property.
Mr. Skove moved that ZMA-85-14 for Claude Cotten be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for approval.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion with the recommendation that the
applicant's proposal for buffering be put in writing before
the matter is reviewed by the Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Diehl stated that she was in favor of the LI zoning
on the parcel, but she wondered if there were any other
categories of rezoning that might be preferable, such as
a Planned Development -Light Industrial.
Mr. Keeler stated there is a Planned Development -Industrial Park,
but the minimum acreage is 50 acres and this proposal is for
about 48 acres.
Ms. Diehl stated that she would much prefer that this be dealt with
as a parcel development, rather than in a piecemeal fashion as
will occur with a rezoning. She asked if it would be possible
for this to remain a part of the PUD, with the LI zoning, so that
there would be a planned development approach to the entire parcel,
i.e. an amendment to the PUD.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that this was possible, but explained that
he felt there were conceptual problems with this approach since
the Ordinance intends that the industrial within a PUD bear
some relationship to the residential area. He added he felt
it would be artificial to maintain this under the Willoughby plan.
Mr. Michel indicated he understood Ms. Diehl's concern, but he
felt the applicant has limited the uses a great deal through the
proffer.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt Ms. Diehl's concern was a valid one.
In
9
May 7, 1985
Page 7
Mr. Payne confirmed that this parcel could not be rezoned
to Planned Development -Industrial Park because it is under
the 50 acre minimum, without amending the Ordinance.
Mr. Cogan stated that he did not feel the rezoning would
be detrimental to any interest.
Ms. Diehl stated she was going to abstain from voting, and
though she was in favor of the change in use, she would have
preferred a different approach.
The previously stated motion for approval of ZMA-85-14 was
approved with Messrs. Wilkerson, Cogan, Gould, Michel and Skove
voting in favor, and Ms. Diehl abstaining.
The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors
on May 15, 1985, though the applicant was advised that that
date is subject to change.
The meeting recessed at 9:10; reconvened at 9:20.
South Pantops Hecks Revised Site Plan - Request for administrative
approval.
Ms. Joseph explained that normally this would not be coming
to the Commission, but because of the number and significance
of changes to the plan, staff felt the Commission should
be informed of these changes. The changes are as follows:
--The square footage of the building is greater
(42,000 sq. ft. changed to 65,000 sq. ft.).
--Because of the extensive off -site grading, the
vegetation arrangement has been changed.
--The circulation pattern has changed, and is no
longer around the building.
--The parking design has changed.
It was determined a letter has been received from Dr. Hurt
which states that he has no objections to the grading that
will take place on his property.
It was determined a fire route around the building is not
required since the building will have a sprinkler system.
It was determined the County Engineer had requested certain
calculations concerning the grading and since he has not received
these calculations, he has not yet commented on the changes.
Ms. Joseph explained that the changes had gone through site
review and staff had decided they did not feel comfortable with
approving the changes administratively. She stated all comments
had been received except the County Engineer's.
q
May 7, 1985
Page 8
Mr. Cogan stated he understood staff's reluctance to approve
the changes administratively, and he felt by bringing this ,,
.400
matter to the attention of the Commission, staff was asking
if the Commission wants to see the plan again along with the
comments of the site review committee.
Mr. Michel agreed and stated staff's action was appropriate in
this case.
Mr. Cogan asked Ms. Joseph if the Commission should decide
that they do wish to review the changes, what time frame was
involved. Ms. Joseph indicated it would depend on when
Mr. Elrod's comments were available.
Regarding Mr. Michel's question about parking, Ms. Joseph stated
staff cannot approve the parking as it currently is shown, but
she felt that it could be worked out and finalized soon.
Mr. Payne stated that if the Commission directs staff to
do something, staff will do it, but he added there was no
provision in the Ordinance for the Commission to do "that."
Mr. Payne referred to Section 32.6.5 of the Ordinance which
states basically that "Any site development may be revised
provided that the request for such revision shall be filed
and processed in the same manner as the original site
development plan .... The foregoing notwithstanding, the director
of planing may approve administratively, without
submission to the site review committee or the commission, minor
changes to approved site development plans in any case in which
he shall determine that the site development plan, as amended...."
Mr. Payne stated it was clear to him that the director of
Planning has determined not to exercise his discretion as
provided under this section. He added that, technically, he
felt the Commission did not have the authority to direct him to
do "that". He added that he felt it would be extraordinary
for the Commission to direct staff to approve these revisions
when staff has determined, for specific reasons, that they
cannot approve the plan. He stated the Ordinance is designed
for the Commission to be the approving body of site plans
and there is only a narrow range of cases in which administrative
approvals are permitted under this Ordinance.
Mr. Keeler attempted to explain staff's position, and stated
he did not take issue with Mr. Payne's statements. He stated
it was understood at the time the plan was approved that there
would be adjustments in the building and it was understood that
staff would administratively approve those changes. However,
staff feels that expanding the shopping the center by virtue
of the off -site grading is inconsistent with what was approved.
He stated staff felt the building could have been accommodated
by shifting it somewhat and taking 10 or 15 feet off the building
to allow the landscaping to be on the level with the rest of
the development. The applicant had chosen not to do this, and
thus staff felt the Commission should be aware of the situation.
FA
May 7, 1985 Page 9
In response to Mr. Cogan's inquiry, Mr. Keeler confirmed that
this request involves only the Hecks building.
The chairman allowed applicant comment.
Mr. Wagner addressed the Commission. He stated it was the
applicant's desire that the request for approval be for both
sections, and not just the Hecks building. He offered the
following comments:
--The total area is considerably less than the total
area that was approved under the PD-SC.
--The Hecks building is larger than was shown, but the
Phase II area is smaller than was previously shown.
--The parking that had been behind the building was
determined to be of little value and thus the parking
area in the front was widened and spaces added where
they would be most useful to the public.
--Off-site grading had been shown on both plans.
--The elevation of the pine trees is probably a little
higher than was originally shown. The pines on
the back of the property line might be a little lower,
but they are still on the property line.
--He did not feel screening from the property at the
back was important since that property would have a
similar use.
--Staff had been made aware of the anticipated changes
in the building as early as February and they had
indicated it could be administratively approved.
Until April 23, the applicant had been operating under
the assumption there were no problems with
administrative approval and were expecting that
approval at the site review committee meeting. He
said Hecks had been proceeding on that assumption.
He said the applicant had been informed on April 25
that the matter would be brought to the attention
of the Commission "next week". He indicated this
actually meant 2 weeks and this was a crucial
amount of time to the applicant. He indicated he
felt staff had had ample time to review the
matter and should have informed the applicant
earlier if there were problems.
--He indicated the County Engineer's conditions of
approval were being taken care of.
--Dr. Hurt has no objection to the grading since it is
in his interest to have it done.
Mr. Chuck Rotgin, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He stated he did not feel the changes being requested
were significant. He felt further delays to the Hecks people
would cause an economic hardship and were unfair. He went
over the original conditions of approval (June, 1983) and stated
they still apply to this site plan. He indicated there would
be no changes in two weeks from what was presented now if
the Commission did not allow administrative approval. He
emphasized that the plan states that "there will be changes
in building design" and the Commission has approved that.
I
May 7, 1985
Page 10
He stated that securing administrative approval on the revised
site plan would do nothing more than allow Hecks to get a grading 14000
permit and all the conditions that were imposed two years ago
would still have to be satisfied.
There was still confusion among the Commission as to the Com-
mission's authority in this matter.
Mr. Payne repeated that the Commission did not have the authority
to direct the Director of Planning to approve this site plan
if he has determined that he cannot approve it. It is now up
to the Commission to approve the plan.
Mr. Keeler presented examples of the type of plans and
correspondence that have been received from the applicant.
He indicated these had not been in proper form and had been
difficult to interpret. He added that staff would approve
the plan administratively if the Commission sees no problems.
He stated that at one point staff felt they could not approve
the plan administratively, but additional information has been
shown on the plan which satisfies some of staff concerns.
He agreed that the applicant has been in contact with staff
since February, but he added that it is difficult to work
efficiently with an 81-, x 11 drawing for the entire shopping
center.
Mr. Skove stated he was still unclear as to what was being
requested. 140,00
Mr. Cogan stated it was up to the Commission to decide whether
or not the revisions are significant enough to require that they
be submitted to site review again and re -submitted to the
Commission, or if the Commission feels that the staff can handle
the matter.
Mr. Payne stated this interpretation was not correct. He
stated the only choices the Commission has are to go outside
the Ordinance and direct the staff to do something that the
Ordinance does not provide for, or to let this follow the
normal channels.
Mr. Rotgin belligerently asked why Mr. Payne waited until now
to bring this up since this has been going on since February.
Mr. Payne declined to respond and the Chairman informed Mr.
Rotgin he was out of order.
Mr. Payne stated he felt he could make it no clearer, i.e.
that the Commission did not have the authority to direct
staff to approve something administratively that staff has
determined they cannot approve administratively. He further
stated that staff would follow the Commission's directions,
but such a direction would not have the authority of law.
/0
May 7, 1985 Page 11
Mr. Skove interpreted staff's action in bringing the matter to
'%No„ the Commission as being that they had decided that they could
not approve the matter administratively. Mr. Wilkerson
indicated this was his understanding also.
Mr. Payne indicated this was correct and stated he felt Mr.
Keeler had presented the matter to the Commission so the applicant
could be heard.
Mr. Keeler repeated that it had been clearly understood at the
time of approval that the plan would change, but he did not
feel that the change involving Hecks was within the limits
of that plan. He added that if the Commission had no problems
with the change, the staff would approve it administratively.
He explained that he had not wanted to approve a plan which
he felt went against the deliberations that took place when
the shopping center was first submitted. Mr. Keeler stated:
"I am not saying that we won't approve it administratively;
I am saying that I won't approve a plan that I feel could
be viewed as contrary to the deliberations that you had before
you." He added that the Commission had extended staff more
discretion with this plan than with any other, but he felt
that did not include this much discretion.
Mr. Michel indicated staff had acted appropriately since
this was in a "gray" area. He added that he did not feel
the changes were alarming, though he did feel that the Commission
had "bent over backwards" on some of the approvals for this
particular development.
Mr. Cogan stated he did not agree with Mr. Payne's interpretation
of staff's position on this issue. He felt staff was indicating
that they could approve the plan administratively but they
wanted the Commission to be aware of the changes before they
did so. He stated that if Mr. Payne's interpretation was
correct, i.e. that staff will not approve the plan, then he
would not be in favor of circumventing the Ordinance and
directing them to approve the plan. He emphasized he did
not feel this was what staff was indicating, however. Mr.
Cogan asked Mr. Keeler if his interpretation of staff's po-
sition was correct.
Mr. Keeler responded: "Yes sir."
Mr. Payne repeated that his understanding was that staff would
not approve the plan unless the Commission directed them to do
SO. He added that if his understanding was incorrect, and that
staff was seeking advice, then the Commission has the authority
to advise staff.
Mr. Skove and Mr. Wilkerson indicated they were in agreement
with Mr. Payne's interpretation.
May 7, 1985
Page 12
Mr. Cogan stated he felt staff was indicating they felt the
changes were significant enough to warrant the Commission's
attention, but not so significant that they could not approve
the changes.
Mr. Keeler once again attempted to clarify staff's position.
He quoted from the Planned Development section of the Ordinance:
"Variations in site development plans and subdivision plats
from approved application plans may be permitted by the
Director of Planning upon the finding that such variations
are, among other things, generally in keeping with the spirit
and concept of the approved application plans." He stated
that, in his opinion, the change involving off -site grading
was not in keeping with the spirit of that plan. He stated:
"If you all feel that it is in keeping with the spirit of
that plan, then we will approve it administratively." He
added that if the Commission did authorize the staff to
approve the plan administratively, staff will not approve
the parking scheme.
An engineer for the applicant stated that the parking plan
that was shown on the drawing was not what he had developed
and he had been under the impression that the original one
was what was being submitted. He felt the parking arrangement
would not create any problems.
Mr.Keeler stated: "If you authorize us to approve it, we'll approve
a parking scheme that satisfies us."
The Commission indicated this was understood.
Mr. Skove indicated he could not favor administrative approval
in light of Mr. Payne's comments.
Mr. Michel stated he could support administrative approval.
Mr. Gould stated he could support administrative approval though
he did not like some of the things that were taking place.
Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler if he was comfortable with the
"ball being back in (his) park."
Mr. Keeler responded: "Yes ma'am. If you all authorize us to
approve this administratively, I assume you are saying this
is consistent with what you approved before."
Ms. Diehl stated, -he was in favor of administrative approval.
Mr. Cogan stated that if Mr. Keeler had had serious concerns
he would have conveyed those concerns to the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson indicated he could not favor administrative approval
in light of Mr. Payne's comments.
/Z
May 7, 1985
Page 13
Mr. Cogan emphasized that he understood the County Attorney's
*SW comments and he agreed with them and supported them; however,
he felt the issue had not been presented in the fashion that
the County Attorney felt it was. He stated he could support
administrative approval.
The Chairman admonished the applicant for their detrimental
treatment of staff and stated the Commission would not tolerate
any "potshots" being taken at the staff.
Though no formal motion was made, the poll of the Commissioners
determined that administrative approval was granted with
Mr. Cogan, Mr. Gould, Ms. Diehl and Mr. Michel in favor and
Mr. Wilkerson and Mr. Skove opposed.
Reed Rubin Final Plat - Request for clarification of condition
of approval, i.e. Health Department approval of existing septic
location.
Ms. Joseph explained that the Health Department has indicated
it is very difficult to locate the existing field without
actually digging up the property.
Mr. Cogan explained, however, that he had been in contact
with the Health Department and it is not necessary to dig
up the entire field, but it is necessary to locate the septic
tank and uncover its top and then locate the distribution box
and uncover its top. A judgment decision can then be made
as to whether or not the system is workable. He stated that
Morris Foster had objected to this since it was still necessary
to locate the system. Mr. Cogan stated he felt it would not
be too difficult to locate the system. He further stated that
Mr. Foster had informed him that two alternative locations have
been located which are suitable for both a new system and a
back-up system. Mr. Foster had felt this should satisfy the
condition that was placed on the plat.
It was determined the Commission was concerned because the
property is located next to a stream which runs into Lake
Albemarle, and often with very old houses, there is no
septic system.
Mr. Payne confirmed that if a system does exist and is workable,
it is "grandfathered" and can be used, even though it is in
the 100 foot floodplain area.
Mr. Forbes Reback, representing the applicant, stated a
system does exist and the applicant knows approximately where
it is. He emphasized that if this system is inoperative
there is room for a new system and a back-up. He also stated
the existing system has been proven to work. He questioned
if the Commission had the authority to attach such a
condition of approval.
12
May 7, 1985
Page 14
Mr. Payne confirmed that there is authority to ask for the
Health Department's review of the septic disposal for any
lot or subdivision.
It was the consensus of the Commission that the requirement
was not a burden on the applicant and given the proximity
to the stream, the Commission confirmed the original
requirement, i.e. evidence that either a septic system exists
and is workable or, if that is not the case, that conditions
are acceptable for a new system.
Resolution of Intent - Mr. Keeler explained that there has
been interest shown recently in certain types of uses that
are commercial in nature but involve a sort of transient -type
of residential use, e.g. vacation resort, which cover a broad
range but do not fit into any of the current districts. He
asked that the Commission adopt a resolution of intent to
amend the Zoning Ordinance to include a district for transient -
type residential uses.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that a Resolution of Intent be adopted to
amend the Zoning Ordinance to include a district for transient -
type residential uses.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
A discussion followed relating to the Commission's handling of
the South Pantops Hecks matter which had taken place earlier in
the meeting.
Mr. Payne stated that he felt the Commission's handling of
this matter, i.e. granting the staff administrative approval,
had been damaging to the approval process. He felt the
Commission had allowed the developer to "strongarm" the staff,
and had also allowed the developer to bypass the process.
He felt the Commission had overruled staff's decision not
to approve the plan administratively.
Mr. Cogan disagreed and stated he did not feel staff had said
they would not approve the plan.
There was major confusion as to staff's position on this
request. The Commission understood that staff was not re-
fusing to approve the revisions to the site plan, but because
of the number of changes, they were not comfortable with approving
the changes without the Commission being made aware of what
was taking place. It was theconsensus of the Commission
that had they agreed with Mr. Payne's interpretation, i.e.
that staff was refusing approval, they would not have granted
administrative approval and would have required the revised
site plan to follow the usual review process.
May 7, 1985
Page 15
Mr. Keeler stated that these particular developers were not
going to follow the system and would continue to submit in-
complete plans.
Mr. Cogan stated that if staff's position had been as Mr.
Payne interpreted it to be, all that would have been necessary
was a statement from staff that "I will not approve this
administratively."
Mr. Cogan pointed out that he had repeated what he felt to
be staff's position at least three times and no one had
said that his interpretation was incorrect.
Ms. Diehl indicated her understanding had been the same as
Mr. Cogan's.
Mr. Payne quoted from what he thought was the staff report:
"The planning staff has determined that the changes you have
made in the initial plan are significant enough to require
Planning Commission review." He stated the Planning Commission
only makes one kind of review under this Ordinance.
It was determined this comment was taken, not from a staff
report, but from comments given the applicant after site
review. The Commission had not been given a copy of these
comments.
Ms. Diehl stated it was her feeling that Mr. Keeler and Mr.
Payne were at "odds" about this issue. Mr. Michel agreed.
Mr. Payne stated there may have been some ambiguity in the
discussion, but pointed out that staff must deal with these
people everyday.
Regarding the applicant's comment that if staff would not
approve the plan, they could appeal again to the Commission,
Mr. Payne stated that is not provided for in the Ordinance.
He emphasized the Ordinance establishes the Commission as
the approving body and appeals from Commission decisions
go to the Board of Supervisors. He stated if staff
determines that they cannot exercise their authority for
administrative approval, then the request is moved out of
the administrative approval process back into the regular
approval process.
Mr. Cogan pointed out that the majority of those present had
interpreted staff's position as he had.
Mr. Payne indicated that this was understandable and stated
he had been counselling staff for a long time that if they
feel strongly about an issue, they should make their feelings
clear. He stated staff is often reluctant to do this because
they must deal with these people on a daily basis.
May 7, 1985
Page 16
The Commission indicated that, in the future, they hoped staff
would make their position in such matters clearer, and that they
would voice their oppostion more strongly.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:50 p.m.
Ma . (141WA
ames R. Donnelly Secretary
DS
FFA