Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 02 85 PC MinutesOR July 2, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 2, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were: Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney (entered the meeting at 8:20 p.m.). The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. SP-85-43 Clifton McClure, Trustee - Request in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the con- struction of dam and lake to be located jointly on lots 6, 7, and 8 of the Virginia Farms Subdivision. Property, described as Tax Map 81, parcel 11A, is located on the southwest side of Rt. 648 east of Keswick and south of Rt. 22. Total acreage of the site is 284.73, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. She stated that condition No. 4--Issuance of an erosion control permit --should be deleted since the County Engineer has stated that the pond will serve the same purpose as an erosion control measure, i.e. to control sedimentation. She added that this is exempt from the state statutes since it is a soil conservation dam. She stated that the following condition should be added: • County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement concerning pond. It was determined that condition No. 2--No increase in the flood height that would affect other properties shall be allowed --contemplates an increased height of the water but such increase will not be allowed to affect any properties adversely. A representative of the applicant was present, but offered no further comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined that it was the County Engineer's intent that the increased height of the water would not affect properties outside the subdivision in any way. It was ascertained condition No. 2 should be changed to read as follows: 1i 4 July 2, 1985 Page 2 • No increase in the flood height that would adversely affect other properties outside the subdivision. Mr. Michel moved that SP-85-43 for Clifton McClure be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Determination of floodway and floodway fringe (not determined at this time); 2. No increase in the flood height that would adversely affect other properties outside the subdivision; 3. County Engineer approval of plans and computations for dam and outfall structures; 4. Approval of appropriate local, State and Federal agencies; 5. Amend Virginia Farms Plat to include dam and lake site; 6. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement concerning pond. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board on August 7, 1985. SP-85-39 Joseph M. Terry, Sr., Et Al - Request in accordance with Section 12.2.2(10) and 5.6 of the Zoning Ordinance to locate a single wide mobile home on property described as Tax Map 48, parcel 9. Property, is located on the east side of Route 784, ±1 mile north of its intersection with Route 600. Total acreage of site is 1.1727 acres, zoned VR, Village Residential. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Joseph Terry, Sr. addressed the Commission. He stated he felt condition (c.) should be deleted (Applicant receives Health Department approval.) since he has already received tentative approval from the Health Department. Ms. Joseph confirmed that a letter has been received from the Health Department and confirmed that condition (c.) could be deleted. (Later in the meeting it was determined that this condition should remain.) The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Franz Schubert, a neighboring property owner addressed the Commission. He stated he had sent a letter of opposition to the Planning Department. Since the Commissioners had not received a copy of said letter, the Chairman asked Ms. Joseph to read the letter. Ms. Joseph read the following letter dated June 10, 1985, addressed to Mr. Michael E. Tompkins, Zoning Administrator: NOW 1/ q July 2, 1985 Page 3 Dear Mr. Tompkins: This letter is in response to your letter of May 23, 1985 concerning an application for a special use permit for Tax Map 48, Parcel 9. I purchased Tax Map 48, Parcel 11B about 17 years ago as an invest- ment or for a possible retirement location. Health problems and other 'factors caused us to list the property for sale with a local Realtor just prior to learning of the special use permit application. I am confident that I would not have purchased the property had a mobile home been situ- ated on this small adjoining lot and in our judgement such a structure would severly reduce the value of my property and would adversely affect the surrounding area. Parcel 9 is on a sharp curve of State Route 784 increasing the visi- bility of this incompatible use of the road frontage lots in this area. The lot being just over an acre might pose well and septic field problems. My Parcel 11B has very limited road frontage and the logical entry and driveway to the bulk of our land would be extremely close to the proposed mobile home site which appears to be only 15 or 20 feet from our property line. In our opinion, the location of a mobile home on this small visible site would adversely affect the value and attractiveness of my land, the surrounding area and that of the Stony Point community. We urge you to deny this special use permit and we hope the applicant can find a location more suitable and in harmony with the area. Thank you for your attention to these items. The letter was signed by Mr. and Mrs. Schubert. Ms. Armentrout, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission. She stated she was opposed to the proposal since she felt it would devalue her property. She stated she, too, had sent a letter of opposition to the Planning Department. Mr. Bryant Carpenter, who has a business office near the proposed location, addressed the Commission and expressed his opposition to the proposal. The applicant, Mr. Terry, once again addressed the Commission. He stated the well and septic field concerns have already been addressed and indicated he felt these should be of no concern to Mr. Schubert. He stated that the separation from the Schubert line would be approximately 50 - 60 feet rather than 20 feet as indicated by Mr. Schubert.. He added that there would also be natural vegetation between his property and Mr. Schubert's. He stated the setback would be approx- imately 200 feet from the Armentrout property. He pointed out that Mr. Carpenter is not a property owner, but a tenant. He stated fences or white pines would be used as effective screening. Regarding Mr. Schubert's concern that the mobile home would detract from the attractiveness of the surrounding property, Mr. Terry presented photographs of surrounding property (all within 4 mil- of tr4c site). He stated there are at least 9 mobile hone: ­� loczl <­c1 on the property which adjoins Mr. Schubert's pror(�rty �o the north. Mr. Terry confirmed that the mobile l!,;me will be occupied by his son and his family. July 2, 1985 Page 4 Mr. Leckie Stone addressed the Commission. He explained he was an attorney employed by the County to collect delinquent real estate taxes. He offered the following comments: --The property was purchased by the Terry's at a delinquent tax sale. --The property long predates the zoning ordinance, and would be grandfathered. --He sold the property to Mr. Terry and his son, on behalf of the County, in order to collect taxes. --He was interested in knowing the County's position regarding such sales. --No guarantee of any kind regarding the use of the property had been made to the Terrys. --Several similar sales will be coming up in the future, none of which meet the 2-acre requirement. --He pointed out that a denial of this use for such properties may, in fact, be an indication there is no use for said properties. --All neighboring landowners were given the opportunity to bid on the property when it was sold. Mr. Stone emphasized he was not representing the county and requesting approval of the application. He stated if the acreage of these parcels was going to present problems, he needed to be aware of that fact in order to take the matter up with the proper County authorities. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated he was concerned about the information presented by Mr. Stone and felt that said information might place the Commission in a conflict -of -interests situation. The majority of the Commissioners disagreed with Mr. Bowerman. Mr. Cogan stated there are no warranties attached to these properties, and buyers take the property as is. Mr. Skove stated the question is not whether a residence can be placed on the property, but whether a mobile home can be placed on the property. Mr. Bowerman stated he was concerned that the Commission's action could determine whether or not such parcels have any value. Mr. Wilkerson stated each parcel should be dealt with on its own merit. Mr. Gould stated he was not at all concerned about the issue as viewed by Mr. Bowerman. Mr. Skove and Ms. Diehl indicated the question of the acreage was irrelevant. 44,01 /7/ July 2, 1985 Page 5 Mr. Skove pointed out that a single-family home could be placed on the lot and Commission approval would not be needed. Mr. Cogan asked Ms. Joseph to explain staff's position. Ms. Joseph explained that staff felt the shape of the lot would make it difficult to site a more conventional dwelling on the lot. She further stated it was felt it might be easier to maintain the setback requirements with a more "elongated" dwelling. Ms. Joseph confirmed that screening is usually left to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. Regarding the letters of opposition, Ms. Joseph stated they had been received before the packets were mailed to the Commissioners, but she had not been aware they should have been included in the packets. Ms. Joseph stated she felt screening would require either fencing or a lot of evergreens since the site will be visable during the winter months. In response to Mr. Skove's question, Ms. Joseph stated she did not think there were any other mobile homes within sight of the proposed location. Regarding condition (c)--Applicant receives Health Department approval --Ms. Diehl stated she felt this condition should remain since the letter received from the Health Department had not actually given final approval. Mr. Gould moved that SP-85-39 for Joseph M. Terry, Sr., et al, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: (a) Applicant must adhere to Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. (b) Location and screening of the mobile home are to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. (c) Applicant receives Health Department approval. (d) Driveway configuration must adhere to that as shown on plat. Mr. Gouldconfirmed that his motion included that condition (c) should remain. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was approved (5:2) with Mr. Wilkerson, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Diehl, Mr. Gould and Mr. Skove voting in favor and Mr. Cogan and Mr. Michel voting against. The matter was to be heard by the Board on July 17, 1985. /' �2 July 2, 1985 Page 6 ZMA-85-15 George A. Bowles - Request to amend the Four Seasons PUD to expand the existing recreational building by 25,500 square feet to include recreational facilities such as racquetball courts, locker rooms, children's activity room, fitness/weight room, gymnasium. Property, described as Tax Map 61X(1), parcels 4 and 4A, and Tax Map 61X(2), parcels 4B, 4C, and 4D, is located on the northeast side of Four Seasons Drive property formerly in use as the clubhouse. Total acreage of site is 11.81 acres. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Bowles addressed the Commission. In response to Mr. Gould's question regarding the phasing of the construction in relation to the activities to be offered, Mr. Bowles stated the first phase would include six squash and racquetball courts, and the lower section of the existing building would house office space and the children's activity area, and additional locker room space. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Gregory A. Johnson, President of the Four Seasons Townhouse Association, addressed the Commission. Mr. Johnson was accompanied by Mr. Robert A. Zak, President of the Four Seasons Patio House Association. Mr. Johnson read the following statement to the Commission: Ladies and Gentlemeni ZMA-B5-15 is a request to modify and expand the existing recreational facilities in the Four Seasons Subdivision as detailed in Attachment A. This request is of the utmost concern to the residents of Four Seasons. We believe that the proper maintenance and operation of recreational and related facilities on the site in Four Seasons designated in the Planned Unit Development is essential to the wellbeing of our community. As you will recall from our visit with you in 19B4, while we regretted that the receivership status of the property limited the maintenance and operation of the facilities to less than their full potential and intent, and while we have yet to find any financial means by which we could maintain and operate the facilities ourselves, we still cannot accept any use of the property other than the intended purpose designated in the Planned Unit Development. As the designated representatives of the members of our Associations, and in consultation with the residents of Four Seasons, we are here tonight to support and endorse the request of Mr. George A. Bowie; and his associates (Applicant) that the Four Seasons E-Abdivision Planned Unit Development be amended to permit the construction of additional recreational, health aintenance, and related social facilities and operation r lie renovated and expanded facilities as a private club sv ted by its membership, subject to the conditions li ! in Attachment B. We are two convinced that the Applicant request is a reasonable proposal in light of financi ealities and complies with and fulfills the intent of the S fined Unit Development. / - A July 2, 1985 Page 7 *1ile✓' While some of the Conditions we propose may seem to restrict the Applicant's ability to renovate, expand, and operate the facilites, we believe the conditions are reasonable and necessary to protect the interests of the residents in Four Seasons. As noted above, we are in favor of the request, and pledge that we will give the Applicant our full cooperation, including easements necessary to accomplish the proposed renovations and additions. We therefore request that the Planning Commission recommend to the Board of Supervisors that ZMA-85-15 be approved subject to the conditions listed in Attachment B. Respectfully submitted, AA t Grego A. Johnson, President Four Seasons Townhouse Association, Inc. 70 Woodlake Drive - Y4 & 4, Z:: Z 34, Robert A. Zak, President Four Seasons Patio House Association, Inc. 7 Lakeview Drive C O N D I T I O N S 1. THAT THE PROPOSAL furnished by Mr. Bowles in support of his petition (designated as Attachment A of this statement) shall be accepted as a statement of intent in general and not as a statement of performance in particular, except in regards to "membership" and "designs" Ia. "Membership" shall be available on more than one level or type, at least to residents of the Berkeley and Four Seasons Subdivisions, and at least in respect to the use of the swimming pool and tennis courts, and with the fees for the use of these facilites by these residents to be set at a reasonable rate. lb. "Design, both in existing facilities being renovated and in additional facilities to be constructed, shall be such, both in architectural form and in materials, as to reasonably harmonize with that of Four Seasons residences, but excluding the Four Seasons Condominiums. 2. ACCESS to the property for the purpose of renovation, construction, and maintenance shall require the consent of the designated Association in the following instances: 2a. No materials or equipment may be stored, or construction performed, in or upon the portion of the property lying east and south of the creek shown on the map herein appended as Attachment C and marked with an "X" without the written permission of the Four Seasons Townhouse Association, Inc., as in reality this portion of the property is the front lawns r and common areas of the townhouses in Block M, 127-133 Woodlake Drive, and is maintained as such by the Association. July 2, 1985 Page 8 2b. No materials or equipment may be stored, or construction performed, within twenty (20) feet of the surveyed lot line of record of any residence in the Patio House Section without the written permission of the Four Seasons Patio House Association, Inc., or of any residence in the Townhouse Section without the written permission of the Four Seasons Townhouse Association, Inc. 3. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS by Four Seasons residents to, upon, and across the property to and from any of the points marked "A," "B," "C," or 'D" on Attachment C, or reasonable alternative points, shall not be restricted or terminated without Just cause, and then only if written notice is sent to both the Four Seasons Townhouse Association, Inc. and the Four Seasons Patio House Association, Inc. thirty (30) days in advance, with the exception that advance notice will not be required in the case of a bona fide situation in which the personal safety of pedestrians may be in jeopardy. 4. APPLICABILITY of the foregoing conditions shall be to Mr. George A. Bowles and his associates, their successors and assigns, and to their employees, agents, contractors and subcontractors as appropriate. Mr. Dave Davidson, one of the owners of the access road, addressed the Commission. He was concerned about the length of time that the applicant plans to use the access road, and whether or not said use would be permanent. He was also concerned about the hours of operation for the facility. He indicated he was opposed to the long hours that have been proposed and asked that they be modified so as to reduce noise levels at an earlier hour. He pointed out that the facility will be very close to residences. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Regarding the use of the access road, (through Woodlake Drive and the common driveway areas off that road), Mr. Bowles stated the road would not be used without first obtaining permission of the Homeowners Associations, who will have the power to limit the applicant's use of the road. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler if he had had time to review the statement read by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Keeler said he had seen a preliminary copy of the statement. He stated he had spoken with Mr. Payne about the matter and Mr. Payne feels that since this is a PUD it would be possible to incorporate this document as zoning conditions. However, he cautioned that the Zoning Administrator is responsible for enforcing zoning conditions and he questioned whether the Zoning Administrator would want to get involved in some of the issues involved, i.e. setting of fees, etc. He stated he would have no hesitation including those conditions that relate to the physical develop- ment of the property, and are easily enforceable by the Zoning Administrator. However, he felt the foo issue and some of the other Issues, should be dealt with thre Ugh are agreement between the applicant and the Homeowners Associations. /�5 July 2, 1985 Page 9 Mr. Keeler added that these matters may be incorporated in homeowners' agreements. They are recorded and thereafter enforced by the association members. The County would not intervene. Mr. Bowerman suggested that deferrment might be in order to give the staff, the County Attorney, the Zoning Administrator, and Mr. Bowles a chance to go over the document to see which items would be made a part of the rezoning and which should be made part of an agreement between the applicant and the Homeowners Associations. Mr. Bowles indicated that he has been conferring with the homeowners on these issues. He felt it would be possible for the issues to be worked out satisfactorily. Mr. Michel indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Bowerman. It was the understanding of the Commission that it was the desire of the Homeowners Association that their conditions be made a part of the rezoning. Mr. Michel indicated he felt this was awkward for the Commission since they should not be put in the position of negotiating an agreement between two different parties. Mr. Cogan stated he felt the Commission should not get involved with any of the conditions since the majority of the conditions are not connected in any way with the function of the Commission. He felt the issue could be adequately worked out between the property owners and the applicant. He stated he would be in favor of the amendment, but he would be opposed to the Commission transposing the homeowners' conditions into the conditions of approval. Mr. Cogan also commented that he felt the hours of operation for indoor usage were acceptable (6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.), but outdoor activities should be confined to 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 P.M. Mr. Keeler confirmed that a site plan will be presented. Mr. Skove indicated he felt this was a good use for the clubhouse, but stated he did not feel the Commission should get involved with some of the issues presented by the homeowners. Mr. Keeler indicated he felt the issue of hours of operation could be handled by adding a condition (4.). Mr. Bowerman pointed out that since this facility will be so close to a residential community, the 10:00 p.m. restriction might be too late. He added that it might be advisable to wait to see how the facility will be sited before determing hours of operation. July 2, 1985 Page 10 Mr. Bowerman suggested that if the hours were incorporated at this time, it would be possible to modify them at the time of site plan review, if necessary. Mr. Keeler indicated he did not know what stormwater detention requirements would be at this point. Mr. Wilkerson stated he was in favor of seeing a signed agreement between the applicant and the Homeowners Associations before taking action on the amendment. Mr. Cogan indicated he agreed with Mr. Wilkerson. Mr. Payne entered the meeting at 8:30. Mr. Cogan moved that ZMA-85-15 for George A. Bowles be deferred until July 9, in order to give the applicant and the adjacent property owners time to reach an agreement on their concerns. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. It was determined the hours of operation would be set at the time of the site plan, and would take into consideration the siting of the facility and the proximity to residences. The applicant indicated he felt an agreement could be reached by July 9. SP-85-41 Kurt A. Henschen - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(36) and 10.2.2.(37) and 10.2.2(22) to allow the operation of a country store, gifts/crafts/antiques, and a public garage on 5.55 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 8, parcel 31 and 32 (part of) is located on the north side of State Route 810, 0.2 mile west of its intersection with Route 664 at Nortonsville. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He explained that SP-82-57 had been approved subject to six conditions which were not perfected and subsequently expired. This current request is identical to that which was approved under SP-82-57. He stated staff can determine no change of circumstances and recommends approval subject to the original conditions attached to SP-82-57. He added, however, that the Highway Department is recommending modification to the entrance and relocation of the garage door. He stated that he could not recall any modifications in access being required at the time of original approval. He added that he did agree that the garage door should not be used since it is directly adjacent to the public road and backing out would be very dangerous. Mr. Keeler noted that the applicant had not been made aware of this comment prior to the meeting. It was determined that condition (2.f) should be added as follows: �a � July 2, 1985 Page 11 • Modification of the garage doors to the reasonable satisfaction of the Chief of Planning. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Henschen addressed the Commission. He stated the concern about the garage door was a surprise and he was not sure the door could be moved because of structural problems. He stated he knew of no other way to get into the building. Mr. Keeler suggested that if the door closest to the road is closed, it will be possible to back out in a curve fashion. He felt it was not possible to back out of the door closest to the road without actually backing into the road. Mr. Henschen disagreed with Mr. Keeler. Mr. Keeler read from the Highway Department's comments made at the time of the original special use permit: "It appears this special use permit request is continued as uses which have been in existence for some time. Due to the topography and location of existing buildings, improvement of the entrance proper is not possible. If, however, new buildings are located, the entire site should be reworked to construct a standard commercial entrance." He pointed out that the Highway Department's comments were different in 1982. The applicant presented a drawing to the Commission. He agreed that this is not a satisfactory situation but pointed out the building has been existence for a long time. He stated he felt he could accept blocking off the garage door. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Gould moved that SP-85-41 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. All uses shall be limited to the existing floor area of the buildings in which such uses are to be located. The gift/craft/antique shop shall be located in the dwelling which is physically connected to the store. The country store shall be located in the store building and the garage shall be located in the garage building; 2. The public garage use, in addition to other conditions contained herein, shall be subject to the following: a. The public garage use shall be limited to repairing and equipping of vehicles. Body work and/or spray painting of vehicles shall be permitted only as non -conforming use and shall be unaffected by the issuance of this permit. no sale or rental of vehicles shall be permitted; .419 July 2, 1985 Page 12 b. All work shall be conducted within the garage building; C. No outside storage of parts including junk parts or junk cars. Refuse awaiting disposal shall be stored in appropriate containers; d. Not more than six (6) vehicles, awaiting repair, shall be parked on the property outdoors at any time; e. Hours of peration shall be limited from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. and no operation of the garage on Sunday. f. Modification of the garage doors to the reasonable satisfaction of the Chief of Planning. 3. Reinstallation of gas pumps shall require Fire Official approval and may require site plan approval; 4. Fire and Building Official approval and Health Department approval of all uses; 5. No auctions and no permanent outdoor display of merchandise; 6. Should sale of gasoline not occur, the Fire Official may require removal of, filling or other safety measures for the underground storage tanks. Mr. Skove seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The matter was to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on August 7, 1985. SP-85-35 Howell J. Cotten - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2.20 reference 5.15 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the use of four existing cabins for weekend outing lodging/camping on limited basis. Property, described as Tax Map 48, parcel 15 is located on the west side of Rt. 20N, approximately 1,000 feet north of Stony Point intersection. Acreage of site is 40.84 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Ms. Diehl asked for a clarification as to the Health Department's concern regarding the water. Mr. Keeler explained that the water was satisfactory, but that it did not meet current standards requiring 20 feet minimum grouting. FRI Im July 2, 1985 Page 13 Regarding the two weekends proposed for usage, Mr. Keeler stated this had been the applicant's proposal. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Cotten addressed the Commission. He stated that inaccurate information had been supplied about the well in question and that it is grouted to 50 feet. He had a letter from the well - driller which confirmed that the well was drilled properly - He apologized that this information had not been corrected in the paper work. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined condition (1.) should have the following added at the end: ..., or verification by Health Department that the well to be used meets current standards. Mr. Michel moved that SP-85-35 for Howell J. Cotten be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Due to inadequate construction of the well, annual Health Department review to insure potability of water, or verification by Health Department that the well to be used meets current standards. 2. Fire and Building Official approvals of cabins for sleeping purposes including limitation of occupancy; 3. Camping limited to two weekends per year; provided that the Zoning Administrator may permit a reasonable increase in the number and/or duration of such events upon a finding that such increase would not be ob- trusive to the area; 4. Compliance with 5.1.5 of the Zoning Ordinance: a. Provisions for outdoor cooking, campfires, cooking pits, etc., shall be subject to Albemarle County fire official approval whether or not site develop- ment plan is required; b. All such uses shall conform to the requirements of the Virginia Department of Health Bureau of Tourist Establishment Sanitation and other ap- plicable requirements. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board on August 7, 1985. i ;?A July 2, 1985 Page 14 SP-85-34 - Grover M. Forloines - It was determined this application had been withdrawn at the request of the applicant and no action was necessary by the Commission. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Michel asked if there were any way the Commission could avoid reviewing dam issues (as in the McClure petition). He felt this was an area that could be handled by staff. Mr. Payne stated that the Ordinance requires Commission review of these items and to change this would require an amendment to the Ordinance. Mr. Michel indicated he would be in favor of such an amendment, but no other Commissioners were in agreement. It was determined it might be possible to make modifications which would allow some of these issues to be handled by staff. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Michel to meet with staff to discuss the matter. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. DS 9 in i4/