HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 08 85 PC MinutesOctober 8, 1985
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing
on Tuesday, October 8, 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: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. David
Benish, Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Mr. Frederick
Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-
Officio.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after
establishing that a quorum was present.
The minutes of the September 24, 1985 meeting were approved
as written.
Silver Thatch Inn Guest Rooms - Request for a total of 8 guest -
rooms; 4 on the second floor of Silver Thatch Inn and four in an
addition. No site plan required.
Ms. Patterson stated this was being presented for the Commission's
information and no action was required. She reported that the
Zoning Department has determined that adequate parking already
exists to accommodate the guest rooms. The Highway Department
has reviewed the entrances and determined they will be adequate
once some minor work is done to obtain adequate sight distance.
A turn lane will be required for this use. According to
Section 32.3.1(e) of the Zoning Ordinance, no site plan is
required.
Willow Lake Property Line Revision - Explanation of screening
agreement with Piedmont Virginia Community College, due to
boundary line revision.
Ms. Patterson explained this was being presented for the
Commission's information and no action was required. She
stated it has been determined the Piedmont Virginia Community
College property extends nine feet into the Willow Lake
Development. Bermming and landscaping were to have served
as a buffer on the boundary adjacent to PVCC. However, due to
the location of the correct property line, it is not physically
feasible to do this entirely on the Willow Lake Property.
She reported that developers of Willow Lake have reached an
agreement with PVCC whereby an 8-10 feet high fence will be
placed on the property line with 2-3 feet high shrubs in front of
the fence on the Willow Lake side and 10-14 feet high trees
on the opposite side of the fence on the PVCC property.
She confirmed that staff is satisfied with the resolution of
the problem.
L88
October 8, 1985
Page 2
Joint City/County Resolution Regarding Rt. 29N - Mr. Bowerman
explained the resolution had been composed by Mr. Tucker
(County) and Mr. Huja (City). He was under the impression
the City had already passed the resolution. Mr. Ray Haas
(University) has requested that the joint resolution be
reworded as follows:
From: At a joint meeting of the Charlottesville and
Albemarle County Planning Commissions held on
September 10, 1985, the two Commissions resolved
to request the University of Virginia to consider
the following suggestions as they relate to improving
the transportation dilemma on U.S. 29 North:
To: At a joint meeting of the Charlottesville and
Albemarle County Planning Commissions held on
September 10, 1985, the two Commissions resolved
to request that the University of Virginia meet
with the City and County Planning Commissions to
discuss the following items:
Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the resolution was adequate as
it was proposed, and the language did not make that much
difference.
Mr. Skove indicated he agreed, but stated he did not have
really strong feelings about it.
Mr. Bowerman stated he was concerned because the change
had been requested after a copy of the joint resolution
was received. He added that he did72�e a change in substance
though there may be a change in appearance.
Ms. Diehl suggested that the words and meet to discuss these
issues could be added at the end of the paragraph (instead
of the wording suggested by the University). She also stated
she did not understand the rationale behind the change.
Mr. Bowerman stated "it seemed softer." He asked staff who
had discussed this with Mr. Haas. Mr. Keeler replied he
understood Mr. Haas had called Mr. Tucker with the suggested
change.
Referring to the last paragraph of the resolution,
The next joing meeting of the two Commissions has been
scheduled for February 4, 1986, and representatives of the
University are invited to attend this meeting at 4 p.m.
in City Hall.
Mr. Bowerman stated that had not actually been discussed. He
recalled it had been considered that the University would be
sent a resolution (as composed by Mr. Tucker and Mr. Huja) and
invited to participate in the next meeting.
799
October 8, 1985
Page 3
Mr. Skove stated it seems to say the same thing, either way,
and if the University preferred the second wording, he
"had no problem" if it would "soothe their feelings a bit."
Mr. Michel stated he did not feel strongly about the matter.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he did feel strongly about it since he
resented the fact that the University comes in at the last
minute, after the City and County have agreed on this, and
expects it to be changed to suit them.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that although a number of issues had
been discussed at the meeting, the only one that had received
any press was the suggestion that student driving should be
limited, and the University is responding sensitively to that.
It was determined the Commission concurred with the substance
of the four items listed in the resolution.
Though it was not determined for certain, it was generally
felt the City had already adopted the resolution.
Mr. Michel stated if the City has adopted it as it is written,
he did not think it should be changed.
It was the consensus of the Commission that they would agree
1*00 to whatever could be worked out between Mr. Tucker and Mr.
Huja, provided the substance is not changed, and the
City and County resolution is the same. It was determined
Mr. Horne was authorized to sign, for the Chairman, whatever
version was finalized.
M
Wendell Wood Final Plat - Located on the west side of Route 29
and north of Hilton Heights Road, adjacent to Hilton Hotel
site. Proposal to divide a 4.04 acre parcel averaging 36,949
square feet. Tax Map 45, parcel C, 68D4. Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. He stated staff was recommending
denial of the plan because it did not comply with the Subdivision
Ordinance in the following respects: (1) Public road access
is inadequate; (2) Access has not been provided to all
proposed lots of the subdivision; and (3) Sewer easements have
not been shown on final plat. He explained that staff has
not had sufficient time to review the plat and though the
information had been requested from the applicant, it had
not been supplied by the applicant at the time of revision.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
MT-01
October 8, 1985 Page 4
Mr. Wendell Wood addressed the Commission and offered the following
comments:
--It is not known at this time where the entrance on 29
will be.
--The Ordinance regulations are familiar to the applicant
and will be complied with (i.e. the entrance will be
at least 500 feet from the intersection).
--Sewer easements are not known at this time because the
locations of buildings have not been determined.
--Applicant is attempting to subdivide the land so that
these issues can be determined.
--The condition imposed by the Commission limiting the
parcel to one access means that cross easements will be
necessary.
--It is stated on the plat that the property is limited to
one easement and that cross easements will be provided
for each purchaser.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Skove moved that the Wendell Wood Final Plat be denied for
the following reasons: (1) Public road access is inadequate;
(2) Access has not been provided to all proposed lots of the
subdivision; and (3) Sewer easements have not been shown on
final plat. The project can be approved when the following
changes have been made: (1) Show specific location of access
onto U.S. Route 29; (2) Provide means of access to all lots on
final plat (delineate access easements); and (3) Show location
of sewer easements on final plat.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Cogan indicated he understood Mr. Wood's position and
asked if some of the concerns could be addressed with conditions
on the plat and taken care of at site review.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne when easements are generally noted
on a plat.
Mr. Payne replied that they are required to be shown on the
plat by the Subdivision Ordinance, i.e. access easements and
utility easements.
Ms. Diehl stated that approving this "in this fashion" would
be opposed to the terms of the ordinance.
Mr. Cogan stated that if the Subdivision Ordinance requires
that the easements must be shown, "that speaks for itself."
19
M
October 8, 1985 Page 5
Mr. Payne suggested that a way to handle this situation
would be for the site plan to be approved first and then
tailor the subdivision plat to fit the site plan, not
vice versa.
Mr. Cogan interpreted this as meaning that the easements
must be shown, and if it is found later that they do not
fit the site plan, then a request can be made to relocate
the easement.
The Chairman called for a vote on the previously -stated
motion for denial.
The motion for denial of the Wendell Wood Final Plat was
passed unanimously.
The applicant then asked why the Commission could not have
deferred the item, so that he would not have to go through
a whole new filing process.
The Chairman stated that was not possible since the applicant
had had all the facts before him and had had the opportunity
to address the issues before this meeting. He added that
the Commission is not going to continue to defer items which
are incomplete when they come before the Commission.
Hvdraulic Professional Buildinq Partnership Site Plan
Proposal to locate 11,016 square foot two story building, con-
taining 6 dental offices on 1.83 acre parcel. The property is
located east side of Hydraulic Road, +600 feet south
of Whitewood Road on the Halipin Office site. Tax Map 61, parcel
27A. Zoned CO, Commercial Office. Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She stated the plan had
been revised to reflect the sight easement requested by the
Highway Department. She also pointed out that the applicant
is requesting a waiver of Section 21.7.3 to allow grading
and clearing in the buffer zone.
In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Ms. Patterson stated
that 2-4 parking spaces might be lost if the grading in the
buffer zone was not allowed. She confirmed that the
applicant is proposing more spaces than would be required,
i.e. 58 are proposed and only 50 are required. She explained
that two significant trees would be lost if grading in
the buffer zone is allowed and staff is recommending that
these be replaced with similar trees.
2 9;?
October 8, 1985 Page 6
Mr. Cogan asked where the lost trees would be replanted.
Ms. Patterson explained that the trees would be lost due to
grading, but once the site has stablized they can be replanted
in the same place.
(Mr. Bowerman left the meeting at this point, due to a possible
conflict of interests.)
Mr. Cogan, acting as Chairman in Mr. Bowerman's absence, invited
applicant comment.
Mr. Barry Light, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He stated the applicant has no objections to
the recommended conditions of approval and that the
necessary revisions have been made.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Cogan asked for comments from Mr. Michel regarding the
landscape issue.
Mr. Michel responded that was pleased with the way staff
had handled the matter, particularly since this is the
first experience with the new Landscape Ordinance. He
stated he was happy with staff's solution.
Mr. Gould aske4M Commission should read the exception
for this waiver, since the staff report stated that it would
not improve site design.
Mr. Cogan quoted from the staff report: "Except, the Commission
may waive this requirement in a particular case where it has
been demonstrated that grading or clearing is necessary...."
Mr. Gould stated, "But it is not necessary." Mr. Cogan agreed.
Mr. Michel stated that the new Landscape Ordinance is going to
be site specific and staff will have to react since every
situation is going to be a little different. He indicated he
was concerned about getting into a position where the Commission
is reviewing minor variances every meeting when the staff is
fully prepared to address the issues themselves.
Mr. Cogan stated he understood Mr. Michel's position, but he
also understood Mr. Gould's concern.
Mr. Payne stated the term "necessary" did not have to be viewed as
a strict necessity, and, in this case, the Commission can determine
whether or not the grading is necessary.
Mr. Gould stated he felt staff had done a fine job in trying
to work out the matter, but he hated to see a waiver on the
first application.
.1-9-5
October 8, 1985
Page 7
Ms. Diehl asked if the applicant could explain the reason for
the extra parking spaces.
Mr. Light explained that each client (6) had requested 10
parking spaces and they had tried to come as close to that
as possible. He added that he felt the replantings that are
proposed will be an improvement over what currently exists.
Though a detailed landscape plan is not required at this time,
Ms. Patterson stated she felt the proposed plantings in the
area in question (the buffer zone) will be an improvement.
Mr. Cogan stated if staff feels this would be an improvement,
then that may be justification.
Mr. Payne stated that was exactly the type of determination the
Commission should make.
Both Mr. Skove and Mr. Wilkerson indicated they felt it would
be an improved site design and were willing to permit the
waiver.
Ms. Diehl stated she was in a quandry since she agreed with
staff, but at the same time, reading the language in the
Ordinance, she did not feel that it was necessary.
Mr. Payne pointed that it does not have to be both, it can
be either one.
Ms. Diehl stated she could not justify it as an improved
site plan if only 50 parking spaces are required.
Mr. Gould stated he still felt it did not satisfy the Ordinance
in either respect.
Mr. Skove asked if the conditions, as written, would allow
for the site plan to be approved with the additional
parking spaces. Ms. Patterson responded, "Yes."
Mr. Skove moved that the Hydraulic Professional Building Part-
nership Site Plan be approved subject to the following
conditions and with the waiver of Section 21.7.3 to allow
grading and clearing in the buffer zone:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the
following conditions have been met:
a. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
b. Issuance of a runoff control permit;
C. County Engineer approval of retaining wall design;
d. County Engineer approval of grading and
drainage plans and computations;
191/
October 8, 1985
Page 8
e. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of sight easement and drainage plans;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
final water and sewer plans;
g. Planning staff approval of landscape plan, to
include replanting significant trees lost due to
grading in buffer zone.
2. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until
the following conditions have been met:
a. Fire officer final approval;
b. County Attorney approval of revision of private
road maintenance agreement, if deemed necessary.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was approved (4:2) with
Messrs Wilkerson, Cogan, Michel and Skove voting in favor, and
Mr. Gould and Ms. Diehl opposed.
(Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting.)
Greene Gardens Site Plan - Drainage Revision Request for relief
from County Egnineer's requirement for drainage improvements to
stream.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Ms. Patterson stated
she was not aware of any changes in circumstance.
The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne stated he was concerned about the procedural posture
of this request because he views it as nothing other than a
request for the Commission to reconsider its previous action.
He explained this is different than a request for an
amendment to a site plan. He recalled that the County
Engineer had given a recommendation for a way to deal with
the drainage problem, the applicant had expressed no objection
to this recommendation, and then the Commission approved the
plan subject to the condition that the drainage be approved
by the County Engineer. He stated that historically, if a
specific recommendation is made by an approving body, the
Commission has evidenced its intent to endorse that recom-
mendation by simply attaching a condition "Approval of (that)
body." He stated that, in his judgment, when there is a
specific recommendation and there is no limitation on the condition
as to the approval of that item by the person who made that
recommendation, that is an endorsement of that recommendation.
That being the case, he stated he did not see any change in
Mr. Elrod's position, as of this meeting, from the way it was
when originally approved. Therefore, since the applicant
was aware of this set of facts and did not choose to challenge
Mr. Elrod's recommendation at the time of original approval,
the Commission had approved it and is now being asked to
reconsider that action. He stated this as nothing more than
2 9S"
October 8, 1985
Page 9
a Motion to Reconsider, and under Commission rules, that
cannot be done without suspending the rules. He explained
that the rules provided that a Motion to Reconsider can
only be made at the same meeting or an adjournment of
that meeting.
Mr. Bowerman stated that, in that case, the only appeal
would be to the Board of Supervisors made within 10 days
of the Commission's review of the proposal.
Mr. Payne responded, "That's right. It would have been."
I.e., when the original plan was approved, if the applicant
was dissatisfied, he could have asked for a reconsideration
at that meeting, or could have appealed the decision to the
Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Payne stated, "It doesn't seem to me that it is really
properly before you," except for possible mediation or
advice.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would invite comments from
both the County Engineer and the applicant. He stated he
felt applicants should have some way to appeal to the
Commission if an honest disagreement with staff should
arise. However, he stated he did not want to make a
policy whereby the Commission would adjudicate every disagree-
ment between staff and the applicant over conditions that
had already been addressed. He emphasized that he wanted
to keep those two issues separate. He stated the current
request seems to be simply that the applicant does not want
to comply with what was recommended, which is different
from a disagreement with staff over how to deal with a
certain item engineering -wise.
The Chairman invited comments from Mr. Elrod, the County
Engineer.
Mr. Elrod made the following comments:
--There has been no change in circumstances since the
original approval.
--The channel is definitely eroding, contrary to the
applicant's statement that it is not. Visual evidence
of erosion exists, e.g. exposed tree roots, downstream
complaints.
--This project is contributing to the erosion problem
since it discharges into this section of stream.
--The detention basin is not solving the erosion problem.
--The Commission should act as a mediator in this
case since the design of the channel had not been
done by the applicant's engineers at the time of
the original approval and the applicant may have been
unaware of the cost involved.
z 9(
October 8, 1985
Page 10
--It has been suggested to the applicant that they
follow the design of the channel that has been done
by Floor Fashions and continue on with it.
(The applicant felt this would be too costly.)
--However, the Floor Fashions design is experimental
and the County Engineer is not adverse to considering
an alternative design which might be less expensive
to the applicant.
--Upstream property (which drains towards Greene Gardens)
is approximately 20o developed.
--It is important that each section of stream be improved
to at least a minimum standard to take care of the
drainage,
--If this is not done, there will be a lot of problems
later on as the upstream development takes place.
--If improvements are not done by the individual developers
as the stream passes through their property, then it
is going to be very costly to the County at some future
time.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Rick Walden addressed the Commission. He stated he felt
the people downstream feel the erosion problems are being
caused by the changes to the stream (i.e. so-called improvements).
He agreed that a developer should be responsible for taking
care of problems which his development creates, but should
not be required to solve problems which he has not created.
Mr. Mark Osborne, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He made the following comments:
--The purpose of the request is to reduce site development
costs.
--Rip-rap is very expensive and the suggested improvements
would total approximately $46,500.
--It is legitimate to require a rip -rap channel at the
location where the applicant's development impacts the
stream.
--The applicant is stopping his "land disturbing activity"
80 feet away from the Woodbrook side of the property
and should not be responsible for improvements to that
section.
--Stipping off the vegetation to put in a channel may
create more problems than it will solve.
Mr. Osborne presented some photographs of the area in question.
Mr. Osborne and Mr. Walden together presented a diagram and
photographs showing where different situations occur with the
site plan.
Mr. Osborne continued and stated the applicant feels the
problems on his site are the result of upstream users and
consequently should be handled as other similar detention
basin projects elsewhere in the urban area have been handled.
He posed the following questions:
--If Greene Gardens were to channel both the streams
2 97'
October 8, 1985
Page 11
and extend the channel down from Floor Fashions, what
„r responsibilities would Greene Gardens have to the
property owner just downstream from the confluence,
since their improvements would end right at his
property line?
--If only a building addition were being shown on this
site plan, with no grading, would the applicant be
required to channelize both these streams because of
future development that is going to occur upstream?
--To what extent is it reasonable to require the
channelizing, and to what extent would the applicant
be able to revise the site plan, pull the grading
limits back, and do other things to try to reduce the
overall site development costs?
Mr. Rick Carter, attorney for the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He indicated he would like for the Commission to
consider that all the engineering calculations, etc. had not
been done when the original conditions of approval were
approved, and now that the County Engineer's requirements are
known, the applicant does not agree with them. He stated
the applicant feels that "reasonableness" must be read into
the Soil Erosion Ordinance. He emphasized that the applicant
feels that his development is not effecting the stream.
Mr. Elrod pointed out the area that was involved on the
map. He explained why it was his contention that the
applicant's development was effecting the stream, i.e.
because all of the drainage from the site discharges at
one point, approximately 10-15 feet inside the applicant's
property line.
Mr. Cogan asked what type of improvements the County Engineer
was recommending. Mr. Elrod explained that he is requiring
a rip -rap channel and this is necessary because the applicant
is filling out into the stream area. He further explained
that the filling meant that the stream section is being
made narrower, thereby increasing the velocity which will
increase erosion.
Mr. Walden stated that if he can come up with a system
whereby all the drainage would be directed into the detention
pond, he would like to be relieved of the necessity of
channelizing the "pond" on the Albemarle Square side.
The Chairman closed the meeting to further applicant comment
and placed the matter before the Commission.
Mr. Keeler stated this was the first time some other type
of drainage system had been suggested but this was a matter
that could be worked out between the applicant and the County
Engineer.
M'71
October 8, 1985
Page 12
In reference to Mr. Carter's statement that the County Engineer's
requirements had not been known at the time of the original
approval (and therefore the applicant could not have objected
at that time), Mr. Cogan asked what the proper procedure would
then be if those requirements were still not known to the applicant
during the 10-day appeal period following the approval.
Mr. Payne indicated he did not feel that was an issue in this
case (though it might be in others). He explained that the
very same recommendation which was before the Commission at
the time of the original approval is what is now before the
Commission, i.e. channelizing the stream. He stated that
exactly how that is to be accomplished is a matter for Mr. Elrod
to work out with the engineer. He said "that is not the issue."
He explained he understood the issue to be that "Mr. Elrod
said then the stream should be channelized and Mr. Elrod is
saying now the stream should be channelized." Mr. Payne
confirmed that no time was lost since this has always been
known to the applicant. He emphasized that this is to be
distinguished from a situation where "you haven't determined
how you are going to solve stormwater detention and the County
Engineer says it can be done, we can work that out, but there
is no specific determination of how it is going to be done,
then it turns out there are four or five ways to do it" and
it must be resolved which method will be used.
That being the case, Mr. Cogan stated he felt this issue "does
not really belong here tonight." He felt the applicant would
have to work it out with Mr. Elrod.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he agreed with Mr. Cogan. He stated
there is a well -established policy to rely on the County Engineer
to make this type of determination, particularly when those
requirements have been determined in advance. He explained
the ordinances require improvements where a development
is redirecting water from the site into an existing stream
and it is of no consequence whether the water going through
that stream is originating on site or upstream. He emphasized
those are clearly established policies of the county which
are included in the ordinances. He stated he was in favor of
"leaving this as it sits."
Mr. Michel agreed; however, in reference to the issue of whether
or not the applicant was aware of the requirements at the time
of approval, he stated he thought it was important that the
applicant have a "redress angle".
Mr. Payne stated it was not inappropriate for an applicant to
ask to amend a site plan, and if the applicant has in mind to
change the grading, etc., such an amendment may be appropriate,
but that is not the same question.
99
October 8, 1985
Page 13
The applicant stated that currently there is no appeal process
to contest the County Engineer's requirements.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the applicant had just heard
the appeal process explained, i.e. (1) "You exercised that
right here tonight even though we disagree with you; and
(2) "The County Attorney has just suggested that you can make
an application for an amended site plan which then goes through
the review and comes before us."
It was the consensus of the Commission that the matter should
be left alone, i.e. the original conditions of approval remain.
It was determined no motion was required.
In regard to the possibility of an amended site plan, Mr. Keeler
stated he would not bring any site plans before the Commission
until the applicant has met the requirement to hook to public
sewer. He explained that, in his opinion, they are in violation
of an earlier site plan until that requirement has been
satisfied. He stated they have been notified by the Health
Department on several occasions.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Keeler requested that administrative approval of site
plans for condominiums and townhouses be made a standard
policy. He stated that sometimes that request "falls through
the cracks" at the meetings and does not get acted on.
It was the consensus of the Commission that this request
be approved.
Mr. Payne made the following comments relating to the Greene
Gardens issue:
--The Commission could have avoided hearing this matter
simply by being more rigorous when applying their
rules.
--The matter probably should not have been on the agenda.
--Before discussing it at all, it should have been determined
if this was a "motion to reconsider" and, if so, it
is not proper to discuss it until it has been determined
that the Commission is going to suspend its rules.
If the rules are not to be suspended, the matter
should not be taken up.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that it is very difficult to limit
discussion on an item if there are members of the public present.
He suggested that on matters similar to this one where a
question of policy is involved, it should first be brought up
at a meeting prior to scheduling it for a public review. This
would give the Commission the opportunity to discuss it
and make a decision as to whether or not it should be heard.
Soo
October 8, 1985 Page 14
Mr. Horne explained that in the future applicants will be advised
to make their wishes known in writing to the Director of Planning
who will then present the letter to the Commission for a
determination as to whether or not they wish to address the issue.
Mr. Payne felt this was a good idea. He stated that this type
of issue will come up more frequently if the LURC recommendations
are adopted. He explained that the Commission's procedures
are there for a reason, one of which is to expedite the handling
of these issues and if the Commission will focus on the procedural
issue first, it may never even reach the substantive issue.
He indicated that if nothing has changed in an issue, there is
no reason for the Commission to have to deal with it again.
Mr. Bowerman added that the Commission is continually faced
with questions of cost and that is not a Commission function.
Referring to the Landscape Ordinance, Mr. Michel stated he hoped
the Commission would not be seeing acceptable staff solutions
coming in with variances because the Commission has been trying
to avoid this. He suggested it might be possible to rework
the wording somewhat to reflect this and asked Mr. Horne to
look into the matter.
Mr. Horne stated he understood that the Commission would like
to see the Landscape Ordinance "work on its own." He stated
the policy would be monitored closely to see if it is working
or if some changes might be in order.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
DS
9
Jd/