Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 10 85 PC MinutesDecember 10, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, December 10, 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; Mr. Richard Gould; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Planner; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney, entered the meeting late. The chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the November 26, 1985 meeting were approved as written. Prewitt Semmes Final Plat - Proposal to combine a portion of 2 parcels to create an additional lot of 13.645 acres. 18.3 and 35 acres of residue remain from original parcels. Access will be provided from Rt. 231 by a 30 foot right-of-way. Applicant is requesting a waiver of Section 18.36(f) of the Subdivision Ordinance so residue is not restricted to 30 foot right-of-way. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is located just north of Cismont on Route 231. Tax Map 65, parcels 10 and 41. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. He stated that staff recommends approval of the waiver request since a new road would result in significant degradation to the environment and aesthetic quality of the property and would also limit the property's potential usefulness for farming activities. Mr. Benish also reviewed the division rights, explaining that 7 rights are being used and there has been a reduction of 5 possible lots. Mr. Benish explained the road situation using the map. The Chairman invited applicant. Mr. Semmes was present but offered no additional comment. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Gordon Wheeler addressed the Commission. He stated he had been working with Mr. Semmes and it was the applicant's desire to limit the number of development rights. He explained the reason for retaining the 2 development rights was so that both a home and guest cottage can be built. He explained it is the applicant's intent to further "deed restrict" the 55 acres that remain to no further development for 25 years. . Z; December 10, 1985 Page 2 Mr. Michel indicated he was familiar with the home and that it was very beautiful. He added that he felt a connecting drive 60 feet away would be an imposition that is not warranted and stated he was in favor of granting the waiver. Mr. Michel moved that the Prewitt Semmes Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Waiver of section 18-36(f) of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. University Firestone Site Plan - Proposal to locate a two-story building of 5,460 square feet with 8 service bays, served by 21 parking spaces on 20,224 square feet. Property is located on the east side of Rt. 631 (Rio Road West) between Hardee's and Phillips Building Supply, adjacent to the north of Fisher's Auto Parts, Tax Map 61, parcel 120N. Zoned C-1, Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Bennish gave the staff report. Mr. Benish explained the current traffic conflicts that exist and stated staff feels the addition of another entrance in the area would add to the existing confusion. He also explained that in order to obtain the necessary parking, the applicant had to obtain a perpetual parking easement from Fisher Auto Parts; said easement has been approved by the County. Ms. Diehl asked if staff was willing to approve the entrance as an ingress only. Mr. Benish responded, "If it is redesigned as a one-way entrance only." Mr. Benish confirmed that staff envisions that the south entrance will be used to exit onto Rt. 29 for southbound traffic. He added that by moving the turning actions further back on the access road, another confusing situation will be eliminated. It was determined that a turn lane had been required for the Phillips Building Supply addition, but there was some question as to whether or not it had ever been built. It was also determined there is an "apron" on Rio Road at the Hardee's site.and a turn lane off Rio Road for southbound traffic entering Rt. 29. It was agreed this is a very congested area. Mr. Benish stated the Highway Department has plans for a concrete median strip at this location at some future time which would eliminate the left turns. Mr. Benish stated the only improvements that can be made is the prevention of cars from parking along the curb (e.g., tractor trailers who wish to use Hardee's but cannot park in the regular lot). He stated he is investigating the possibility of having this area designated as a Fire Lane. 53 December 10, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Benish stated the applicant also has an agreement with Phillips which will allow them to build the foundation on the property line. In response to Mr. Skove's request for clarification, Mr. Benish explained that staff is concerned about east/west traffic on Rio Road turning into Hardee's or turning onto the access road to go to Bojangles or Firestone. This causes traffic to back up in the driving area. Staff is concerned that if traffic trys to exit from this site there is the possibility of two cars facing each other with other cars waiting, and what will determine which car moves first, etc. It was determined that staff is recommending that one entrance be eliminated (the northern entrance). Mr. Benish stated this would have no effect on the Hardee's traffic patterns, but staff is concerned about traffic from the northern entrance crossing the travel lane and joining the Hardee's traffic. Staff feels making the northern entrance one-way would prevent traffic from exiting at this point. Mr. Cogan asked how this would be enforced. Mr. Benish indicated this would be a matter of how the entrance is designed, i.e. the entrance would be narrow so as to make it difficult for cars to maneuver an exit. He added, however, that by making the entrance one-way, he "was not sure whether or not they would be able to use these two sites" and there might not be room to squeeze in the parking requirements. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Clyde Jenkins, representing University Firestone, addressed the Commission. He offered the following comments: --The applicant sees no practical reason for a decel lane since this type of business draws only 20-24 vehicles per day. --The original plat was approved in 1980, without any of these conditions; however, the business had not been built because of the high interest rates at that time. Mr. John Greene addressed the Commission. He pointed out that when the property had been divided land was dedicated for widening of Rio Road; however, adjacent properties have not dedicated the land. He stated the applicant would be willing to participate in a widening of Rio Road at such time as the rest of the land is available for a meaningful turn lane. Currently, however, there is very little frontage to provide room for a car to safely get out of the driveway even if the full frontage of the property is paved. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. December 10, 1985 Page 4 Mr. Michel asked if the applicant could live with the northern entrance being one-way. The applicant responded he did not feel this would be a problem since he felt 900 of traffic would be exiting to the south. Mr. Benish explained that the Highway Department has recommended a full turn lane, but they were not sure there was a dedicated right-of-way. Thus, they want a turn lane either to the extent allowed by the existing right-of-way or a full turn lane if enough right-of-way exists. Mr. Bowerman recalled that at the time the original parcel had been subdivided there had been concern about access and it was felt that all four parcels would have to work together. For that reason, the parcels had been limited to two accesses. He said that the problems attributable to this "corner" (the 4 lots) must be taken as a whole. He stated this is the last proposal to be reviewed of the four lots and to the extent this development can contribute to good traffic flow, it should do so. He also stated he was not convinced that the northern entrance should not be closed altogether. Mr. Cogan stated he could see no need for two entrances and allowing only entrance would not be detrimental to the applicant. He too felt that the overall plan must be considered, and that a turn lane should be required. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the safest entrance to the site would be to use the same one that is used by the auto parts store (i.e. off Rt. 29). Mr. Jenkins asked the Commission to keep in mind that "accessability is everything." He said his business would have to use the same entrance as Hardee's and Bojangles (the northern entrance) since he felt that would make 50% difference in his business. Mr. Bowerman explained that the Commission was not considering closing the applicant's entrance off Rio Road, but rather closing one of the entrances to this site off Rio Road. The applicant indicated he had misunderstood. However, it was determined the applicant was in favor of keeping the north entrance and closing the south entrance because the "early" entrance was wide enough to allow easy access to the lot and would not impede Hardee's or Bojangles' traffic. He stated this would allow his customers to get out of the flow of traffic sooner and thus reduce problems. Ms. Diehl indicated she agreed with the applicant. 5-6_ December 10, 1985 Page 5 Mr. Benish stated that the way the condition is written, it allows staff to work with the applicant to find the best solution and though one entrance would be preferable, it would be possible to work with two if it can be determined that this would not be unsafe. Mr. Skove moved that the University Firestone Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: (1) A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: (a) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation's approval of turn lane on Rio Road; (b) County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and computations; (c) Virginia Department of Highways andTransportation's approval of grading and drainage plans and compu- tations for piping system next to the turning lane; (d) Issuance of a soil erosion permit; (e) Staff approval of revised site plan showing either the elimination of the northern entrance or its redesign to a one-way entrance only; and also showing a full width right turn lane on Rio Road; (f) Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans. (2) A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition has been met: (a) County Engineer approval of $3,520 payment to the county in lieu of provision of stormwater detention facilities. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Regarding the earlier discussion about the decel lane that had been required for the addition to Phillips Supply, Mr. Cogan stated the addition has been installed and staff might wish to have the Zoning Administrator look into the matter. Staff indicated they would check into the matter. Mr. Bowerman clarified for the applicant that the proposal was approved with a requirement for a decel lane on the frontage of the applicant's property only. CPA-85-6 Scottsville School - Request to amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan 1982-2002, Map 15: Village of Scottsville Lane Use plan, with respect to the use of the Old Scootsville School Building. The proposal is to amend the land use from institutional to medium density residential in order to coincide (Note: Mr. Payne entered the meeting at this point.) December 10, 1985 Page 6 with a similar rezoning request from R-10 residential density (R-10: ten dwelling units per acre). The property is located on Route 1301 in the Village of Scottsville and consists of about 3.8 acres. The main building is presently not used, however, the gym is used by the Parks and Recreation program. Tax Map 130A(2), parcels 76 and 76A. Scottsville Magisterial District. Ms. Imhoff gave the staff report. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Ms. Imhoff confirmed that the town of Scottsville is "incorporated," i.e. it has its own government and separate "core." Mr. Payne explained that it is not separate from the County to the extent that a city is, but it has certain functions that are not governed by the county's functions --planning is one of these functions. This particular site is in Scottsville Village and is not within the corporate limits of the town of Scottsville, thus it is subject to the Commission's review. In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question about repeated flooding of the building, Ms. Imhoff explained this issue will have to be worked out with HUD and the building cannot be occupied until the levee (scheduled for completion in 1987) is finished. She added that construction may have to be postponed until the levee is finished. Mr. Wilkerson indicated he did not think a levee would be sufficient to hold back flooding in case of another Camille -type storm. Ms. Imhoff responded that all staff can worry about is whether or not the building meets standards for flood protection and insurance standards. Mr. Cogan asked why this CPA is being considered at this time if it will be necessary to wait until the levee is finished before construction can begin. Ms. Imhoff responded that it will take at least one year to work out matters with HUD and this is a very complicated project which uses a lot of different funds. She added that any buyers interested in participating in the program need some sort of insurance to participate since a lot of resources are being tied up. Mr. Wilkerson asked if it was discovered that the levee was not satisfactory, would we then re -zone again. Ms. Imhoff admitted that this was possible. She added however that the levee is being designed to contain a 100-year storm and that is all any flood protection measure can be required to do. Ms. Imhoff confirmed that this proposal had come about because the County owns the school building. Mr. Bowerman added that the Board has had some interest shown by people in the private sector. Ms. Imhoff added that the Board had begun to look at all the vacant buildings that the County owns (McIntire, Whitehall, Scottsville). During that same period the County was lucky enough to see Moderate Rehab and was told that it could be used for readaptive re -use. 57 December 10, 1985 Page 7 Ms. Imhoff confirmed that the private sector would be doing the project since the County is prohibited from using this money for any type of construction or readaptive use. She confirmed, however, that this would not preclude the County from getting a grant later on. She confirmed it was conceivable that Section 8 could be used with County equity. She stated the Section 8 money must be committed by early 1987, that is,a signed contract must be in hand. It was determined the Boa d ad held a meeting on November 7, 1985 at the Scottsville7fiR ad presented this idea to members of the public. Several members of the public had spoken, both for and against the proposal. As a result of that meeting the Board had adopted a resolution of intent to amend the Compre- hensive Plan. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. William Perkins, an attorney with McGuire, Woods and Battle, addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: --There is a great deal of opposition to the proposal, including the Mayor and all members of City Council. (Mr. Perkins presented a petition signed by those persons.) --He questioned the "hurry -up" nature of this proposal. --He felt the procedure that has been followed has not been correct. E.g., the mailing that had gone out had been by "straight" mail rather than by certified mail as (he felt) the statute requires. --He quoted the following from the Albemarle Code, Section 2.21, Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan: "If the Board of Supervisors desires an amendment, it may direct the County Planning Commission to prepare an amendment and submit it to public hearing within 60 days after formal written request by the Board of Supervisors." Mr. Bowerman explained that the procedure that has been followed has been correct: i.e. The Board adopts a resolution of intent to amend the Comprehensive Plan, staff goes to work on that amendment, a public hearing is then scheduled before the Commission which makes a recommendation on the proposed amendment back to the Board. He stated that this, indeed, is that public hearing and it is within 60 days of the time that the Board made the resolution of intent. Mr. Perkins stated he felt that was the procedure for amendments to the Zoning Ordinance but felt Section 2.21 of the Albemarle Code applied in this case and quoted the following: "After adoption of a Comprehensive Plan all amendments to it shall be recommended and approved and adopted respectfully as required by Section 15.1.431 of the Code of Virginia." He explained that that that Code section is the one which provides for certified mailing. He continued quoting as follows: "If the Board of Supervisors desires an amendment, it may December 10, 1985 Page 8 direct the County Planning Commission to prepare an amendment In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Payne confirmed this is the what is before the Commission. Responding to the issue of the mailings, Mr. Horne explained that the Code states that mailings that involve 25 parcels or less can be sent by regular mail if the representative of the County government who is sending the mailings signs an affidavit saying that they were sent. He stated that is the standard procedure in the current State Code, and that is the way this mailing was handled. Mr. Payne confirmed this was correct and stated the statute was amended in 1982. Mr. Bowerman again stated the procedure that had been followed and indicated it was his understanding that the correct procedure had been followed. Mr. Perkins disagreed with Mr. Bowerman's interpretation of the Code requirement. Mr. Bowerman stated it would be assumed, for purposes of this review, that the matter was rightfully before the Commission. Mr. Perkins stated that his clients protested the proceedings on the basis of the facts as he had presented them. Mr. Bowerman stated his protest was so noted and suggested that if Mr. Perkins wished to pursue the matter, he should take whatever actions he feels are called for. He asked that Mr. Perkins focus his comments on how the Town of Scottsville, his clients, and other interested parties from the area, feel about this issue, and why they are opposed. Mr. Perkins asked if the Commission was also going to proceed with the rezoning at this time because, "procedurally I do not know where I am." Mr. Bowerman explained that the Commission does not have the final say in these decisions but merely makes recommendations to the Board. He explained if the Commission should choose to recommend approval of the Comp Plan Amendment, they will also review the rezoning and will pass the recommendations on to the Board who will then make the final decisions. However, if the Commission decides not to recommend the amendment to the Comp Plan, then it will not even hear the rezoning proposal since it will be a moot issue. Mr. Perkins indicated he understood. December 10, 1985 Page 9 Mr. Perkins stated he wanted to make sure that he was "not waiving any rights before (his) people presented their position." Mr. Bowerman stated that in his six years on the Commission there has never been an issue that was improperly before the Commission. Mr. Perkins responded, "I take my exception to your consid- eration because I believe that that may be incorrect." Mr. Perkins then introduced Mr. Grove to the Commission who presented the petition which Mr. Perkins had mentioned earlier. Mr. Jessie Grove addressed the Commission. He explained that his house was 1 block from the school. He explained there had only been 4 people had been present at the meeting with the Board in November because no one had been notified of such a meeting. Mr. Grove read a statement of opposition to the rezoning which bore the signatures of all six city councilmen, the mayor, all adjacent property owners, and many people from the lower section of town. He read the following: Opposition to Rezoning We the undersigned residents of the town of Scottsville oppose the proposal to amend the old Scottsville School Land Use Plan from institutional to medium density and to rezone the old Scottsville School property from VR to R-10. He gave the following reasons for opposition: --The old school property is adjacent to the primary residential section of the town and is right in the "heart" of town. --Will change the character and appearance of the historic section of the town, thus diminishing the value of the homes from both a monetary and historic standpoint. --Will diminish the town's appeal to prospective new residents and tourists. --Addition of a large group of residents of this class (HUD supported) will be a burden to the town and cause security problems. (Scottsville has only one policeman.) --Will cause an inbalance of age groups. --Scottsville was declared a "Historic District" in 1976 and this rezoning would not serve to preserve the historic nature of the area. Mr. Skove asked Mr. Grove if the town had any preferred use in mind for this building. ON December 10, 1985 Page 10 Mr. Grove indicated his preference would be for a research -type industry or a clean, hi -tech industry, but certainly not multi- family housing. Mr. Perkins again addressed the Commission and stated that he had just reviewed the file with Ms. Imhoff and the file did not contain an affidavit as had been referred to by Mr. Horne earlier in the meeting. He again protested the proceedings on the grounds that an affidavit did not exist. He continued and stated he felt the County Attorney should rule on the matter since the Ordinance specifically states that "shall" is a mandatory word and shall be construed as mandatory. The section of the Code to which he referred was 15.1.431: "Whenever the notice is required hereby, required here or sent by an agency, department or division of the local government body, such notice shall be sent by first class mail, provided, however, a representative of such agency, department or division shall make affidavit that such mailings have been made and file such affidavit with the papers in the case." Mr. Payne offered no comment. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne to explain Mr. Perkins' right of appeal, "outside this room." Mr. Payne stated Mr. Perkins' had several options. He added that he did not feel this was a question of appeal because "you are formulating a proposed amendment on which the Board, if it chooses to amend the plan, would act, either accepting what (the Commission) does, amends it, denies it, or whatever. If Mr. Perkins thinks there is some procedural flaw in this proceeding, he can use that to attack it if the Board chooses to adopt it. I have never heard of this happening, but I suppose, if he wants to, he could go and apply for an injunction to enjoin the Commission from hearing the matter." He added that Mr. Horne has stated that there is an affidavit in his office and he was not going to question Mr. Horne's word. Mr. Bowerman �oncedagain that the Commission felt the matter was properly before them and if Mr. Perkins chooses to challenge this at a later date, that is his option. He stressed that this issue would not be discussed again at this meeting. Mr. Perkins asked that Mr. Horne check his office "this evening" to see if the affidavit was there. Mr. Horne stated he would check "tomorrow morning" but did not respond to Mr. Perkins request that he check "this evening." Ms. Maxwell, who lives across from the school, addressed the Commission and expressed her opposition to the proposal. She stated Scottsville has enough low-cost housing, and indeed that had been a requirement in qualifying for the levee. She presented a drawing which showed the school and various flood levels, and also adjoining properties. Her reasons December 10, 1985 Page 11 for opposition were the same as those presented by Mr. Grove. She felt this type of housing was not appropriate for Scottsville. The Commission indicated they would like for the objections to be more clearly pinpointed. Ms. Maxwell stated the main objection is because the proposal is for a HUD project. She said she could not imagine this type of housing occurring in any other similar neighborhood in the county. The Chairman responded that "it is happening everywhere," i.e. this type of Section 8 money used to improve properties for the benefit of low-income people. Ms. Maxwell indicated she understood this but felt this type of project is usually limited to certain areas. She stated that she was not opposed to this type of development in some other part of southern Albemarle and that she felt the project (i.e. low-income housing for the elderly) was a good idea, but it was not appropriate in the center of Scottsville. Mr. Robert Walls, a member of the Scottsville Town Council, addressed the Commission. Mr. Walls discussed the historical nature of the town and the fact that many homes are listed on the National Historic Registry. The Chairman ascertained that Mr. Wall's objection was based on the historic nature of the area and the feeling that this type of project has "no place in Scottsville." Mr. Perkins once again addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: --Scottsville is a unique community where practically all the public buildings are historic landmarks. --The matter has come along rather "speedily" and has not been given enough consideration. --The Comprehensive Plan calls for consideration being given to using the school for public and/or recreational purposes in the development of the Village. He asked that that consideration remain until an action is taken that is not totally objectionable to the ordinances of the County of Albemarle and the Statutes of Virginia. --He quoted the following from the Flood Plain section of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 30.3.4.4, page 184: "No land shall be rezoned or used for public habitation that is in the floodplain." He continued: "Prohibited uses in the floodplain are structures designed or intended for human habitation including mobile homes regardless of proposed usage." --Amending the plan as proposed would be in absolute contradiction of the Flood Plain Ordinance. --Many more residents would have been present at this meeting had it not been for a conflicting meeting December 10, 1985 Page 12 with the Rescue Squad. --This is not the time to make this change and it there ever is a time it will be after the levee is in place and the Corps of Engineers has declared that this area is no longer in the floodplain. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined this matter was to be heard by the Board On December 11, 1985. Mr. Cogan indicated his feelircr. on this issue were very similar to what they had been on the Southern Regional Park proposal. The other members of the Commission agreed. Mr. Cogan explained that he felt the amendment was premature and that it should not be rushed through simply because HUD will not consider it until it is appropriately zoned. He felt the use would be inappropriate for the following reasons: --Over saturation of low-income elderly which would be disproportionate to the other population. --If a need does exist, a more appropriate location can be found. --Agrees that such a use should not be placed in the floodplain. --From a construction and expense standpoint, he doubted that HUD would approve the project. --A more intensive study should be completed before this amendment is entertained. --To make this change at this time would be very irregular if not inappropriate. Ms. Diehl indicated she agreed with Mr. Cogan. She added that she would find it difficult to approve a comprehensive plan amendment which was in opposition to the governing body of the town which was effected. Mr. Wilkerson indicated he too agreed with Mr. Cogan and moved that CPA-85-6 for the Scottsville School be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Gould seconded the motion. Mr. Skove stated he could not support the motion for denial for the following reasons: --The floodplain question is not an issue since if the levee is not built, HUD would not fund the project anyway. --This is an appropriate use for the building. --Such projects must be located where water and sewer exist. --This concept is similar to what was done at the Meadows. A lot of opposition had existed at first, but had died down after the project was begun. He stated he could support changing the Comprehensive Plan. &/1:1 December 10, 1985 Page 13 Mr. Michel stated he was "caught in the middle" though he was going to support the motion for denial at this time. He added that he was not prepared to say that he felt the use was inappropriate but he was concerned about the floodplain issue and the strong opposition from the town. He felt further study was indicated. The previously -stated motion for denial of CPA-85-6 passed (6:1) with Mr. Skove casting the dissenting vote. ZMA-85-30 Scottsville School - Request to rezone about 3.8 acres from VR, Village Residential to R-10, Residential (ten dwellings per acre). Property described as Tax Map 130A(2), parcels 76 and 76A is located on Route 1301 and is known as the Old Scottsville School. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Cogan moved that ZMA-85-30 for Scottsville School be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Mr. Horne informed the Chairman that if the Commission intended to take action on the ZMA, it was necessary to first open the public hearing. Mr. Payne confirmed this was correct. It was determined that the Commission understood staff's recommendation was for denial unless the Comp Plan is amended, i.e. if the Plan is not amended it is not appropriate to rezone this property. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Perkins stated he did not feel further comment was necessary except to say that he and his clients oppose the rezoning procedurally and philosophically. The Chairman asked if staff felt any portion of the staff report should be presented in light of the Commission's action on the Comp Plan amendment. Mr. Horne responded, "No, sir." Mr. Cogan again moved that ZMA-85-30 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial, subject to denial of CPA-85-6. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed (6:1) with Mr. Skove casting the dissenting vote. December 10, 1985 Page 14 OLD BUSINESS Road around the Thomas Jefferson Hotel - Mr. Cogan stated he had spoken with Mr. McClure about the screening issue connected with this road and the two adjoining property owners. Mr. McClure is the legal representative of the property owner and he indicated there would be no problem with working out adequate screening. Mr. Cogan suggested that whoever is handling the landscaping requirements should contact Mr. McClure and a representative of Ms. Brown to work out the plans. NEW BUSINESS Christmas Party - Ms. Imhoff reminded the Commission of Ms. Scala's party scheduled for Monday, December 16. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:38 p.m. -S M-