Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 01 85 PC MinutesOctober 1, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a on Tuesday, October 1, 1985, Meeting Room 7 Public hearing Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. County Office were: Mr. David Bowerman g Those members present were: Mr. Da d , Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development; Ms, Ms. Joan Davenport, Senior Planner; Mr. FredericksonPayne,aDeputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Absent: Mr. Harry Wilkerson. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the September 17, 1985 meeting were approved as written. The Chairman then introduced the new Director of Planning and Community Development, Mr. John Horne. Citizen Presentation - Rivanna River Expresswa - Mr. B. Stephens presented a proposal for an Eastern BypassRobert route which he felt would relieve traffic problems on Rt. 29 North, Rio Road, Park Street and the Rt. 250 bypass. His suggested route followed the Rivanna River with a cloverleaf at Free Bridge, tying into Rt. 20 and I64. He suggested that the bypass would begin just south of the Rivanna River on Rt. 29N. Mr. Stephens explained there are two major drawbacks to his suggestion: (1) It comes very close to Key West Subdivision; and (2) It would be a "tight squeeze" at the water treatment plant. Though it was determined there were Key West residents present at the meeting, the Chairman explained this was not a public hearing since this idea is only a suggestion at this time. Mr. Bowerman suggested that Mr. Stephens present his proposal to the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Ms. Diehl moved that the matter be passed on to the Technical Committee of the MPO. Mr. Gould seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. WORK SESSION Consideration of Sidewalk,Policy - Revision Subdivision Ordinance amendment relating to requirements. Deferred from September 241 Ms. Davenport gave the staff report. of proposed Zoning and sidewalk construction 1985. I'll Page 2 October 1, 1985 Ms. Davenport read the following letter from the Clerk of Ms. Neher, which reflects the Board's actions to date: the Board,St. (The letter was addressed to M r. The Board of Supervisors, at its meeting on September 11, 1985, requested that you contact the Attorney General's office to get clarification of the Highway Department Permit Requirement Policy and Sidewalk Policy. In addition, the Board wants you and staff to make a recommendation and report on setting up a seperate fund to which a developer, at the time of approval, would make a one-time contribution to maintain the cost of bonds and maintenance obligations for sidewalks. Mr. Lindstrom requested assessment from staff on how to set uthespecial sidewalk issue in the districts that might help future. Also, staff is requested to outline the to steps necessary ngettathe waiver Highway the policy with see if the County can regard to the present situation. (Signed: Ms. Neher) Ms. Cooke stated the Board is very reluctant to get into an expensive sidewalk construction policy, not only for itself, but also any policy olic that might impose undue hardship on future Boards in relation to implementation of such a policy. of ermined that at one time a policy had been Bowerman det implemented which allowed frovided theyomeownerr Hswereolocateds outside responsible for sidewalksp the Highway Department's public right-of-way. However, the Highway Department had then refused to accept the 5 or 6 feet piece of sidewalk that would necessarily fall within the right-of-way as it connected to the streets. In an effort to get around that problem, this perpetual maintenance bond had been proposed in an effort to take care of those short sections of sidewalk which would be within the right-of-way. Ms. Davenport stated that simultaneously with thate as s thtoe Attorney General's opinion requiring local g put up bonds for work within the right-of-way. Until that time a resolution from the Board was all that was necessary for a project within the right-of-way. Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. CoSkfoot °connections sectionse if he felt thoaruod be as concerned about these sidewalk, as opposed to miles of sidewalks. Ms. Cooke recalled that this tissue had beanpdiscussed and it had been determined that October 1, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Skove asked how other jurisdictions handle this issue, such as Fairfax County. Ms. Davenport stated that this policy had been designed by the Highway Department as a reaction to Fairfax County's sidewalks. She further explained that the current Highway Department policy is based on two two issues: (1) There must be a walk -to -school policy; and (2) Shopping Centers. Ms. Imhoff explained that the purpose behind this present examination of the Ordinance is that the current requirements on sidewalks are unenforceable. She stated this proposal is not a policy for construction of sidewalks by the County, but rather, as new development takes place, the policy would help decide where sidewalks should be required. She stated that staff is in favor of appealing the Highway Department's sidewalk policy, but first felt it was necessary to examine the current County policy. Ms. Davenport explained this would be a stricter policy than what is in effect at present, i.e. the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance require sidewalks in R-2 or greater. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne to comment on the idea of Homeowners' Associations being responsible for maintenance of sidewalks outside the public right-of-way. Mr. Payne stated that to view these as real public improvements is probably unlawful. He explained that it is unlawful to require assessments of abutting property owners for sidewalks except in very limited circumstances. It is also unlawful to require maintenance in kind by abutting property owners. Therefore, to the extent the sidewalks are really intended to be public improvements, open to the public and available to the public use, it is of questionable legality. He stated it is also of questionable utility, i.e. if these are really intended to serve the general public, there needs to be a mechanism so that whatever appropriate body is administering the program has to be able to say that this facility needs maintenance of a given sort, this is how it is going to be done, and when. He explained the problem is that this is fundamentally antithetical to the concept of maintenance by a private homeowners' association. He stated that once these maintenance agreements are in force, it is up to those individuals to enforce the agreements, and if they don't want to use them, they don't have to. However, in this case, that is not true because "sidewalk X is designed, by hypothesis, to carry members of the general public between point A and point B. Therefore , again by hypothesis, it is the county's responsibility to see that that sidewalk is available for use by an individual over that period." But how can that be done. It is of questionable legality to say that the County can order the homeowners' association to make the improvements, and if the County does not have this authority, there is no means of insuring that it will be done. He stated this was not a practical 7R October 1, 1985 Page 4 approach to the problem. Ms. Imhoff pointed that this policy does not address who is going to maintain the sidewalks. She said the point of this is that it be used as a basis for appealing to the Highway Department that they should, in our locality, use our locally adopted ordinance policy. She stated the policy is not written with the view that the Homeowners' Association will maintain those sidewalks in the right-of-way. Mr. Bowerman stated that this had to be put in the ordinance before it can be waived. Ms. Imhoff affirmed this. Mr. Payne stated the "short form" answer is that there isn't a satisfactory way of doing this other than having the Highway Department do it. Mr. Michel stated he thought this was an effort to encourage the Highway Department in that direction. Mr. Payne emphasized that the perpetual maintenance idea is out of the question. He explained that no private entity is going to be able to provide any sort of perpetual maintenance provision in any meaningful way and it is unconstitutional for the County to do it. Regarding Ms. Davenport's statement earlier that the Attorney General had given an opinion that changed the Highway Department's position, Mr. Payne stated "That's no change." He explained that the Attorney General's opinion was that if the County guarantees to the Highway Department that something will be maintained in perpetuity, and purports to make a binding promise, that promise is unconstitutional, and it is unconstitutional from the beginning. On the other hand, if the County enters into a bond and has any liability based on that bond, that is equally unconstitutional, and there is no escape from it, with the possible exception of having a bond referendum. Mr. Payne stated there were many obstructions in this issue unless it is possible to work directly with the Highway Department. He added he knew of no other problem with so many "closed exits." Mr. Bowerman indicated he was unsure as to what course to follow. He stated there must surely be other localities faced with this same dilemma and there must be a way to address the problem through the state legislature. He felt the only alternative to this was local funding and it seems the Board is not willing to go that route at this time. Mr. Payne pointed out that local funding is very limited in its sources. He stated that if there is not a statute which authorizes a county to do something, then the county can't do it. He explained there are circumstances in which the County is authorized to spend money to maintain this type of facility. Unfortunately, except in very limited circum- stances, most of these are tied in with the Highway Department, i.e, the County can supplement highway funds A ,Y,d October 1, 1985 Page 5 for highway maintenance. He stated it is clear that the pattern that was established in the late 20's is being maintained, i.e. fundamentally that roadways are to be maintained by the Highway Department. Thus, there are two problems: (1) Can you spend money at all? Only under very limited circumstances. (2) If you do spend money, how do you administer it? By and large, it is administered by the Highway Department. Mr. Cogan stated he felt the only possible solution, which would probably be unacceptable to the Board of Supervisors, would be the establishment of a Public Works Department. This would mean the Highway Department rule would have to be altered to allow counties to use this supplemental funding for such a department. In response, Mr. Payne stated the ultimate answer is that the County would withdraw from the secondary system, which would be an extremely radical step. He said he knew of only two counties who currently maintain their own roads, those being Arlington and Henrico. Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Cooke if the Board had discussed banning with other county governments to approach this issue on the basis of a state-wide attack on the problem. Ms. Cooke said she could not recall this having been discussed. Ms. Imhoff stated the first thing to do would be to appeal to the Highway Commission who set the policy. She explained staff has deferred taking this step until it was determined exactly what type of policy was desired. She said if it is felt the ordinances are acceptable as they are, then staff will go forward with the appeal. However, staff feels that the current policy is not being enforced and the requirements for where sidewalks will be required are fairly "wide." Mr. Bowerman asked if the Ordinance must be changed before an appeal can be made. Ms. Imhoff replied, "Certainly not." Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the Board would be very hesitant to adopt a new policy that they could not support simply to make it possible to go to the Highway Department with an appeal. Ms. Imhoff stated staff had felt they might be able to make a stronger case to the Highway Department if they were able to say what type of policy was wanted. She added that another option was that the County could ask the Highway Department to waive the "walk -to -school" policy requirement, and to allow a more liberal interpretation of "commercial establishment". She stated those two changes would make some of the sidewalks allowable. -275' October 1, 1985 Page 6 To emphasize how elusive this policy is, Mr. Payne pointed out that the term "commercial establishment" has one meaning in the sidewalk discussion and has an entirely different meaning in relation to an entrance. Mr. Payne also stated he would not recommend adopting this proposal as it is. Mr. Michel agreed and stated he would be very interested in seeing the Board address the issue with a lobbying group. He also asked Ms. Imhoff if it were possible for the County to have a walk -to - school policy. Ms. Imhoff replied, "No." She explained the Education Department has said they could never support such a policy given the current conditions of roadways. Mr. Bowerman asked if anyone agreed with the policy, as presented by staff, with the exception of the last paragraph relating to perpetual maintenance. Ms. Diehl stated it seemed to be a much more conservative policy than the current one and, in many ways, seemed to be a "fall back" position. She was in favor of all the other alternatives being pursued first. Mr. Bowerman stated a sure thing that can be done at this time is for the Board to "go after" the Highway Department's policy. That can be done without changing anything. Ms. Imhoff stated that perhaps staff had been working under a misconception. They had felt that not only was there a problem with Highway Department policy, but also the County's current policy was not being used. Mr. Bowerman stated he was under the impression the current policy was enforceable and was being implemented. It was pointed out, however, that it had been waived many times and was not consistent. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Payne who has the liability responsibility for sidewalks, i.e. who can be sued incase of an accident, the homeowner, the County, or the Highway Department. Mr. Payne determined that Mr. Cogan was referring to a sidewalk along a public road. He stated the County is immune from liability; the Highway Department is not immune under some circumstances, though at one time they were immune. Mr. Payne added that he did not feel this was a substantial issue. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the Commission should await some action from the Board which would indicate in what manner the issue should be approached. October 1, 1985 Page 7 Mr. Bowerman stated the Board has essentially taken no action on the issue and the Commission is faced with decisions that cannot be made at this time. Ms. Imhoff interpreted that the course to follow is to begin the appeal of the Highway Department's policy. It was determined staff is awaiting receipt of the proper documents to initiate such an appeal. Mr. Payne stated the appeal could be started without documents from the Highway Commission. He suggested if this is the desire of the Commission, that a motion should be made advising the Board accordingly. Ms. Diehl moved to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they appeal the decision of the Highway Department regarding maintenance of sidewalks, and that they authorize the County Attorney to proceed with the appeal. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Charlottesville Retail Center Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 7,500 square foot retail sales building on a 0.74 acre site served by 48 parking spaces. Located on the west side of Rt. 29N at its intersection with Berkmar Drive. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Tax Map 61U, parcels 01-15 and 01-16. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Pattersrn gave the staff report. She pointed out that the plan has been revised to downsize the building by 500 square feet. However, staff still has concerns about circulation which has not been improved with the revision. She stated staff had informed the applicant of circulation concerns and had requested two revisions, but, to date, no revisions had b ea submitted. She added that staff has met with the applicanNecels that a solution can be worked out. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Dale Ladner addressed the Commission. He offered the following comments: --If this circulation pattern cannot be approved, the applicant will be forced to "drop the issue." --He has come up with a better circulation pattern. --In an attempt to address staff's concerns, he had contracted with adjoining property owners (David and Joe Woods) to purchase that property, subject to having access on Rt. 29. --He is prepared to make a planned unit on all four lots, making a more uniform use of the property. --He presented an alternative plan which offered better traffic flow (ard was based on acquiring the adjoining property). --The extra land will take care of parking requirements. 77-7 October 1, 1985 Page 8 Ms. Patterson added that the Engineering, Planning and Highway Department staffs have all provisionally reviewed this plan. She stated the planning staff could recommend favorably for one entrance on Rt. 29 to serve all three lots, but they are not ready to approve the proposed location of the building because of circulation concerns. She said that even though this will not meet the requirement that an entrance must be located at least 500 feet from a crossover (at Shopper's World), it is felt that this will result in better development of these three lots which are all zoned Highway Commercial. It was determined the two lots which have been joined currently do have access into'Shopper's World, but not into the service road. It was determined the service road is a private road, though it is uncertain who owns the road. The Chairman invited comment from Jeff Echols, representing the Highway Department. Mr. Echols stated the Highway Department will always recommend eliminating as many accesses as possible onto Rt. 29, though it recognizes this is not feasible in all cases. He said it is a "trade-off", i.e. new plan may improve circulation but it will add an entrance on Rt. 29. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Echols explained that a truck leaving this site and wishing to go north, would have to go to the light at Shopper's World and make a U-turn, or possibly go through the Shopper's World lot to line up with the light coming out of Shopper's World, or go left on Berkmar Drive and up to Rio Road. He also explained the requirement that an entrance be 500 feet from a crossover was a County ordinance. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Michel asked for clarification of what was being reviewed. Mr. Bowerman explained the site plan being reviewed (as shown in the drawing posted on the board) was revised from the original to downsize the building by 500 square feet. However, the applicant has suggested that he can change the site plan further and is looking for some guidance from the Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated the Commission could not give the applicant any indication of the approvability of a potential site plan that is not currently being reviewed. He said if the applicant wants another plan to be considered, he should request deferral, submit the other plan, and take his chances. -I It' October 1, 1985 Page 9 M The applicant indicated he understood, but was hesitant to spend the extra money that would be required to develop an alternate plan without some indication as to what was approvable. He said his main concern was would the access onto Rt. 29 be allowed. He felt the design of the plan had nothing to do with that decision. Mr. Bowerman disagreed. He stated the entire site plan must be reviewed and staff comments must be considered. Mr. Payne stated it was not proper for the Commission to answer that question, i.e. whether or not the access onto Rt. 29 would be allowed. Mr. Cogan stated the reduction in size (down 500 square feet) was not the answer to the problem, and he thus felt no differently about this plan than he had the first plan, which he had opposed. It was determined it was appropriate to defer action on this plan to allow the applicant time to submit another plan. Mr. Skove moved that the Charlottesville Retail Center Site Plan be indefinitely deferred. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion. Mr. Payne pointed out that if the applicant revises his plan as he has indicated, it will have to be a new application since it involves new property. The above -stated motion for indefinite deferral was approved unanimously. SP-85-67 Margaret & Goodwin Walker - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(10) of the Zoning Ordinance to locate a single wide mobile home on a vacant 3.557 acre parcel zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as TM 116, parcel 10 (part of) is located on the east side of Rt. 618, +1.5 miles northeast of intersection with Rt. 620. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Mr. Bowerman asked if the mobile home was located on the residue, 3.557 acres. Mr. Keeler replied affirmatively. He added that the mobile home on the adjacent lot, which was approved administratively, is located on Lot A. He explained further that the proposed location for this mobile home is 100 feet from Rt. 618 and 75 feet from the sideline. Mr. Keeler confirmed that the lot is mostly wooded, though he was unsure of the predominant type of trees. 174 October 1, 1985 Page 10 Mr. Gould asked if Mr. Vernon's property adjoins the applicant's. (Mr. Vernon had written a letter of opposition.) Mr. Keeler stated the Vernon land may possibly touch the applicant's land "at the corner." The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Bob Bradshowe, attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He offered the following comments: --The foliage along the roadfront would be maintained as a screen. He confirmed the trees are mostly deciduous. --The Highway Department has approved the proposed driveway. --The applicant has applied for a perc test. --The mobile home will be well screened. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Jack Camblos, representing Mr. Birckhead, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission. He indicated Mr. Birckhead was opposed to the application since he felt it would cause devaluation of his property. Ms. Wilma Moody, secretary for Mr. William Vernon, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission. She stated Mr. Vernon was opposed to the application because he feels it will create a potential fire hazard for his timberland. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined the applicant planned to clear approximately 1/2 acre on the front lot and from the main road to the house on the second lot. Mr. Vernon also stated his property no longer adjoins the Vernon property since he has sold some of his land recently. Mr. Keeler further clarified that Mr. Walker is apparently planning to clear the right-of-way which runs along his northern boundary. It was determined the proposed access to the property is different than that area which is being cleared along the right- of-way. Mr. Cogan asked the applicant if moving the mobile home toward the center of the lot would present any hardship. Mr. Walker replied that it would not. Mr. Cogan stated that since the trees are mostly deciduous they will offer little screening during the winter and locating the mobile home back farther from the road will make it less visible from the Birckhead property. Mr. Walker stated he could place the unit almost anyplace, provided it would not interfere with his well and septic field locations. MUM October 1, 1985 Page 11 It was determined the mobile home should be placed approximately 200 feet south of the Birckhead line and 175 feet east of St. Rt. 618. Mr. Cogan moved that SP-85-67 for Margaret and Goodwin Walker be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Maintenance of a buffer to reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator along Rt. 618 to screen mobile home from the public road. 3. Site of the mobile home to be located approximately 200 feet south of the Birckhead line and 175 feet east of St. Rt. 618. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board on October 2, 1985. The meeting recessed at 9:00; reconvened at 9:15. SP-85-71 C.T. Properties - Request in accordance with Section 27.2.2(5) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a warehouse and moving business on a vacant 3.0 acre site. Property, described as TM 32, parcel 19-Al is located on the east side of Rt. 606, approximately 1 mile north of Airport Road (Rt. 649). Zoned LI, Light In- dustrial. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. David Cook who offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined that Section 414 (Performance Standards) of the Ordinance would apply to this use and would control the types of materials that could be stored in the warehouse. Mr. Payne stated that unless the Commission had a specific concern, this required conformance with Section 414 should be adequate. Mr. Skove moved that SP-85-71 for C.T. Properties be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. M19 October 1, 1985 Page 12 Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The matter was to be heard by the Board on October 16, 1985. ZMA-85-24 Steve McLean - Request to rezone a vacant 1.57 acre parcel from CO, Commercial Office, to Cl, Commercial to allow a restaurant operation. Property, described as TM 60, parcel 49 is located on the south side of Old Ivy Road immediately adjacent to and on the west side of Rt. 29/250 Bypass. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. (Mr. Michel excused himself from the meeting due to a conflict of interests.) Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He added that the applicant proposes to proffer restricting the development of the property to a restaurant alone until Rt. 601 is improved. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Mark Osborne, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He made the following comments: --The proposed plan is for a 3,600 square foot restaurant and 6,000 square foot office space. --The intended restaurant will be of the "sit-down" variety. This is an important distinction in determining the dill traffic generation. --The reason for the rezoning is because the 3,600 square feet of restaurant is 372% of the total space to be developed on the parcel rather than 20% which is allowed by the CO use. --The proposed use would generate 164 vehicle trips per day/ 1,000 square feet for the restaurant and 12.3/1,000 square feet for the offices. By -right use for a 32 story building (13,500 square feet), with 20% in restaurant use, would generate 577 vehicle trips per day. --Two buildings are more desirable since it is more manageable to phase the operation and spend money in a piecemeal fashion. --Developing only the 3,600 foot restaurant would generate approximately 592 vehicle trips per day which seems very close to the by -right use. --The 6,000 feet of office space would not be added until Ivy Road is upgraded. --He indicated the applicant preferred that the application be deferred, if not approvable at this time, rather than denied, to allow time to address the concerns of the Commission. --The applicant proposes to connect to sanitary sewer at a point which will require an easement across the Madison Park properties. There is an alternate by -right connection r that could be made, but would be more expensive. -131; October 1, 1985 Page 13 The Chairman invited public comment. There being none, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Skove stated the main issue seems to be traffic generation. Mr. Cogan indicated he had a problem with setting aside the Comprehensive Plan, primarily because everything in the area is CO. Both Mr. Cogan and Mr. Skove indicated they would be very reluctant to change the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Diehl agreed and indicated that she was extremely concerned about the roads, since this is a very dangerous and confusing area. She added that increasing the night traffic in the area would definitely create a hazard. Mr. Gould agreed that he saw no reason to change the Comprehensive Plan. It was pointed out the applicant had requested deferral. Mr. Gould moved that ZMA-85-24 for Steve McLean be indefinitely deferred. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. Mr. Keeler pointed out to Mr. Osborne (whose presentation had dealt primarily with traffic generation) that the proposed site plan anticipates fill in the flood plain which would require a special use permit. He added that as the plan currently exists, it is not developable. He emphasized this would require a different type of analysis. Mr. Cogan questioned the motion for deferral since nothing is going to change that will make the application approvable. Ms. Diehl agreed. The above -stated motion for deferral was defeated (3:2)with Messrs. Skove and Gould voting in favor and Ms. Diehl and Messrs. Bowerman and Cogan voting against. The Chairman called for an alternative motion. Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-85-24 for Steve McLean be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board on October 16, 1985. aA3 October 1, 1985 Page 14 Land Use Regulations Committee Draft Report (LURC) —Discussion The Commission discussed a proposal for the establishment of a Development Information Office as set forth in Mr. Agnor's memo of September 27, 1985 to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the enactment of such a proposal would require some substantial amendments to the Site Plan Ordinance. Mr. Skove stated that LURC's interpretation of the "concept" plan idea was that a developer would present a general concept plan to the Commission (without having done all the engineering and technical items). The Commission would act on this plan and then staff would work out the final engineering and technical data. He stated this would be very advantagous from the developer's point of view. Mr. Bowerman determined that the Commission would be making their recommendation (for approval or denial) at the preliminary stage. Mr. Payne stated he felt LURC is recommending that the Commission review something that would be more schematic than a preliminary subdivision plat, but it would be a site plan. The Commission would view it from the point of the principles involved, but the staff would work out the technical details. Mr. Skove stated that the Commission now requires a finished engineering drawing, and before developers spend that much money, they would like some indication that the plan is approvable. Mr. Keeler stated it was his understanding that the LURC Committee was recommending a development plan to be reviewed by the Commission, and then followed by a construction plan. He stated the development plan would have everything except the engineering details. He said he did not think LURC was recommending any substantial change in procedure since there would still be a Site Review Committee to review the development plan and make their recommendations known to the Commission. He added, however, that without engineering details on the plans, the Commission should not expect too many comments from the County Engineer. Accordingly, Ms. Diehl questioned what would be accomplished by a development plan if there is not enough detail for the County Engineer to comment. Mr. Keeler stated he envisions the process as being similar to the current procedure where the Commission reviews the preliminary plat and the staff approves the final plat. E October 1, 1985 Page 15 He felt the process would still allow the Commission to review the construction plan if it was found there were problems with the development plan (e.g. public opposition). However, he felt this was intended to be the exception, rather than the rule. In answer to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Keeler stated the Commission would see the development plan after site review. Ms. Diehl stated she was concerned about the possibility of being asked to make a decision on a development plan without sufficient information. She indicated she was fearful of "voting in the dark." Mr. Skove stated if that were the case, the Commission need only request to see the final construction plan. He added that if staff feels a final construction plan is greatly different from the development plan approved by the Commission, they can make the decision to bring it back to the Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated the staff would have to be very aware of policy questions, e.g. entrances on Rt. 29N, and make sure, at the conceptual stage, that the applicant has provided sufficient information so that the various offices can make recommendations. Pertaining to the site plan review, it was the consensus of the Commission that staff be directed to review the recommendations of the LURC Report and present some recommendations for implementation to the Commission. Mr. Keeler also brought up the question of "Where does the approval stop?" If staff has approval of the final construction plan, does the approval stop there, or does the developer have the right of appeal to the Commission? Mr. Bowerman stated he thought there had to be some appeal process. Mr. Payne stated that to be consistent, the appeal process should be based on the Commission approving the conceptual plan and then the staff approves the plan implementing this concept. He explained that the only issue on appeal is whether the staff's approval correctly implements the concept approved by the Commission. Mr. Keeler stated the basis of the entire idea is that the details that would come on a construction plan are technical items which the Commission ought not to be reviewing. It was determined if there differences of opinion between an applicant and staff or the Engineering Department, the Commission would be asked to rule, which is the same process that currently exists. ,4 October 1, 1985 Though Mr. Skove stated he supposed there had to be some sort of appeal, Mr. Payne stated there does not have to be an appeal. He explained the Commission can make the staff the approving body and any appeal would go from staff to court. Page 16 Mr. Skove stated that giving staff final approval will allow them to say "no" to anything that is not complete. He felt that staff would be coming to the Commission for an opinion and not for a final approval, therefore staff would be able to say to a developer who has an incomplete plan that it is denied. Mr. Skove emphasized that LURC wanted staff to have some mechanism for stopping unapprovable plans. The rest of the Commission agreed with this concept. It was determined that more time was needed for staff to address the issue in order to make some recommendations for implementation to the Commission. To be included in this study is the effect this will have on staff time input. Mr. Payne indicated he felt this was the only committee report that has ever really been of substantial magnitude in terms of being helpful. He felt the report was excellent. The Commission agreed. Mr. Skove stated the committee had not dealt with one issue, i.e. how the Commission views its own role in the process. He said it was generally felt the Planning Commission seems to be "stretched thin." Mr. Bowerman stated the Commission has been unable to do more planning and policy making, as it would like to do, because of the inability to streamline the procedure. Mr. Skove stated he felt the new procedure would save the Commission a great deal of time. Mr. Bowerman added that if the Commission can steer away from deferring items an immense amount of time will be saved. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the Commission will be spending more time on special projects and community development items as those issues become more and more important in the future. Referring to ZMA-85-24 which had been heard earlier in the meeting, Mr. Payne stated the Commission had been "exactly right" in denying the application since it would have been a waste of time to defer it, even though it was unusual for the Commission not to honor an applicant's request for deferral. 28& October 1, 1985 Page 17 Ms. Diehl stated one aspect of the report she particularly liked was that it did implement a way to maintain public input. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. DS Qo-,,Je" 7—P John Horne, Secretary zV