Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 17 1997 PC Minutes6-17-97 JUNE 17, 1997 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 17, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice, Vice Chairman; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; Ms. Babs Huckle;and Mr. Bruce Dotson. Other officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Susan Thomas, Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent. Commissioners Finley and Nitchmann. A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of the June 3rd meeting were unanimously approved as amended. CONSENT AGENDA Moormans River A/F District Addition - The addition to the Moorman's River Agricultural/Forestal District is described as a request to add four parcels described as Tax Map 28, Parcels 12, 30, 30A and 30B, totaling 242.38 acres located on the east side of Route 671 (Ballard's Mill Road), White Hall Magisterial District. One parcel is located at the intersection of Route 665 (Millington Road) and three parcels are located near the intersection of Route 609 (Wesley Chapel Road). The property is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission must take action to refer the request to the Advisory Committee. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the Moormans River A/F District Addition be referred to the Advisory Committee. The motion passed unanimously. Keswick A/F District Addition - The addition to Keswick Agricultural/Forestal District is described as a request to add four parcels described as Tax Map 64, Parcels 10 and 11, and Tax Map 81, Parcels 15B and 15A6, totaling 190.872 acres, Rivanna Magisterial District. Two parcels are located on the west side of Route 22 (Louisa Road). Two parcels are located at the end of State Route 648 (Clark's Tract Road). The property is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission must take action to refer the request to the Advisory Committee. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that the Keswick A/F District addition be referred to the Advisory Committee. The motion passed unanimously. SP 97-13 - 360 Communications of Charlottesville, Eure Communications, Inc. - Petition to construct a telecommunications tower with an overall height of 200 feet and associated support facilities on a portion of 10.3 acres. [10.2.2(6)] Property, described as Tax Map 46, Parcel 15, is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is located on the west side of Route 29, Seminole Trail, near the entrance to Forest Lakes South (Ashwood Blvd) and is in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This is the site of existing (6 6-17-97 2 AM Radio towers. This site is not located within a designated development area. Site Development Plan 97-042 is being processed concurrently. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Based on the fact that no negative factors were identified by staff and the location of the proposed tower within an existing tower farm, staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Staffs report explained that a modification of Section 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance is requested to allow a reduction in the minimum setback from the property line. Staff recommended approval of this modification. (See the staff report filed along with these minutes for an explanation of this modification.) Mr. Fritz answered Commission quesitons about tower failure. He said there has never been a tower failure in Albemarle County. Tower failures, in all locations, are extremely rare. Towers are engineered in such a way that if they ever should collapse they will break at predetermined points and collapse upon themselves, in a known and predictable way, within the lease area. The applicant was represented by Heidi Parker, Danielle Anderson (Project Engineer), and Larry Bickings (Site Acquisition). Information provided and questions to Commission questions included the following: --This need for this tower is created by customer demand in the Rio Road area. The existing tower serving this area is "maxed out." It is currently operating at 110%. This tower will give 40% relief. --The structure will be a 180-foot tall, grey, lattice, self-support tower. It will be unlit, and will have no guy wires. The FAA has already approved this as an "unlit site." This tower will be shorter than any of the existing towers. There will also be an equipment shed within a fenced, security area. --The tower is located 29 feet from one of the property lines. It cannot be moved closer to the other towers because of frequency interference and because of interference with the grounding map. For those reasons, the possible locations for the tower on the site were very limited. --This tower is designed to allow other providers to co -locate on it. --This request meets the requirements of the Ordinance and the County's desire to locate towers within existing tower farms. --PCS technology (entirely separate from cellular technology) could use this tower without concerns about frequency interference. --FAA and FCC approvals are required for a tower, in addition to County approval. FAA approval has been received. Once all approvals have been obtained, construction could begin within a week, i.e. "materials will be ready and prepared for construction." --Several properties were considered for location of the tower (within the 1/2 mile range). The tower farm was determined to be the best location. Ms. Anderson answered a number of questions. She explained in some detail why the tower could not be attached to the existing radio tower and why it could not be moved to a different location on the site. She also described in some detail how the 6.� 6-17-97 3 tower is designed to collapse. (Ms. Huckle was skeptical that the tower would fall as described, given the fact that a tower has never actually failed so there has been no test of the collapse design.) Ms. Anderson said it is much easier to upgrade or modify a lattice tower and it is also easier to accommodate other users on a lattice structure. After hearing Ms. Anderson's comments, Mr. Loewenstein asked: "Would it be fair to say that as technology changes, the use of a lattice tower might be preferable..." Ms. Anderson responded affirmatively. Ms. Huckle asked why the applicant is "reluctant" to light the tower. Ms. Anderson said the FAA has determined there is no requirement to light the tower. There are already five existing towers --all taller --which are on the site, and all are lighted. Ms. Huckle was concerned about the fact that the tower is close to the airport. Ms. Anderson offered to submit the FAA documentation. (Ms. Parker added that lighting is not normally required for a tower which is under 200 feet. The FAA takes into consideration the distance from an airport when determining whether a tower needs to be lit.) Public comment was invited. Ms. Virginia Golden, representing her parents, George and Marie Golden, adjoining property owners, addressed the Commission. She expressed opposition to this additional tower. She said the existing towers have ruined the view from her parents' property. She also expressed concerns about possible health hazards which the towers might cause. She estimated her parents' home to be approximately 200-300 feet from the proposed tower. (NOTE: Later in the meeting, Mr. Fritz estimated the distance to be 800-1,000 feet.) She said there are houses in Templeton Acres which are closer to the tower than is her parent's home. Ms. Karen Dane asked for an explanation of the term "maxed out." She asked if all other options had been considered. (Ms. Anderson said there is no existing technology which will correct the problem without an additional tower. She gave a technical explanation of what is currently happening with "dropped calls." Ms. Parker added: "Everything that can be done, internally, has been done.) Ms. Dane was concerned about "the viewshed proliferation of the towers." Ms. Parker addressed Ms. Golden's comments about potential health hazards. She said the site must meet FCC regulations. The FCC has determined that it meets those regulations. "Under the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, Congress said as long as a site meets FCC regulations, a site cannot be denied based on health concerns with regards to radio emissions. That is heavily regulated by the FCC." There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Fritz answered Mr. Dotson's questions about the location of the Golden home and Templeton Acres. He estimated the nearest residential structure to be approximately 800-1,000 feet from this proposed tower. 6� 6-17-97 4 Mr. Dotson said the increasing use of cellular phones results in the "unfortunate situation" of a large number of applications for cellular towers. He did not anticipate this was likely to slow down. Having read the recently completed tower report, he said all towers have downsides in terms of impact to neighbors and visual deterrents. This tower, however, has the least number of deterrents, i.e. it conforms to the County's preference to co -locate towers, it can be re -used in the future and it is less tall than the other towers on the site. He concluded: "It seems, as best we can, staffs proposed conditions have addressed the issues I could identify." MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP 97-13 for 360 Communications of Charlottesville be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following conditions: 1. Overall height shall not exceed 200 feet. 2. Compliance with Section 5.1.12 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. There shall be no lighting of the tower unless required by a federal agency. All tower lighting shall be shielded so as to minimize visibility from the ground. 4. Staff approval of additional antennae installation. No administrative approval shall constitute or imply support for or approval of, the location of additional towers, antennae, etc., even if they may be part of the same network or system as any antennae administratively approved under this section. 5. The tower must be designed and adequate separation provided to property lines such that in the event of structural failure, the tower and components will remain within the lease area. 6. The tower shall be disassembled and removed from the site within 90 days of the discontinuance of the use of the tower for wireless telecommunications. [NOTE: The wording of this condition is slightly different than was presented in the staff report. It was changed to make it clear that the tower could be used for wireless telecommunications other than just cellular.] Discussion: Ms. Washington said she had seconded the motion because she supports the location with already existing towers. Mr. Tice said he agreed with Mr. Dotson's comments. He asked, however, that with future tower requests the following additional information be provided: --Topographic maps (USGS are acceptable if no others are available); --Aerial photographs; --A statement explaining alternatives considered, including process efficiency alternatives; --Additional information regarding visibility from residences in the area. Mr. Dotson suggested staff might want to visit Templeton Acres and some of the other nearby sites prior to the Board hearing. Mr. Loewenstein said he agreed with Commissioners Dotson and Tice. He added another important issue is "whether a proposed tower is consistent with the goal of 67 6-17-97 5 creating a convenient, attractive and harmonious community, as stated in the Plan. He said while there is no question that wireless telecommunications do provide N40"` convenience, at the same time we have to acknowledge there are unattractive features with these towers and we must balance the location of them and their design in such a way as to minimize the unattractive features they would present and to see that the improvement in telecommunications outweighs the unattractive visual quality of the tower itself. I think, in this case, the applicant has made every effort to pursue that goal, and though I don't think it is a perfect solution, I am unable to discover, in my own mind, any solution that would be better. So I am prepared to support this." Ms. Huckle said she would "grudgingly" support the request. She said the area has, apparently, already been degraded by the existing tower farm. She concluded: "But I certainly hope before we have any more of these we have a better set of criteria because it is not fair that some people's property would be less pleasant to live on or less profitable to sell by having something like this in the neighborhood." The motion for approval passed unanimously. Mr. Kamptner clarified, for the benefit of the Board's review, that the Commission had found the special permit to cause no substantial detriment to adjacent property because the closest existing residence is 800-1,000 feet away, and the tower will be located in an existing tower farm. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that a modification to Section 4.10.3.1, to allow a reduction in setback, be approved. The motion passed 4:1 with Ms. Huckle casting the dissenting vote. Ms. Huckle said her negative vote was based on the fact that "nobody has provided any definite proof that this collapsing (within itself) will actually happen." SP 97-17 CFW Wireless. CV 117, Boyd Tavem and SP 97-18 CFW Wireless, CV 110, Covesville and SP 97-19 CFW Wireless, CV 120, Britts Mountain and SP 97-20 CFW Wireless, CV 113. Toms Mountain and SP 97-21 CFW Wireless, CV 102, Joshua Run and SP 97-22 CFW Wireless, CV 108, Piney Mountain The applicant was requesting deferral to July 8,1997. Public comment was invited on any or all of the applications. None was offered. The public hearings were closed. 7 C) 6-17-97 6 Mr. Tice said he may not be present at the July 8th meeting. He asked if a later date was possible. Also, Mr. Fritz said the Board will be holding a work session on the Telecommunications Policy on July 2nd. A July 8 Commission hearing will not allow staff to consider the Board's comments in the staff reports for these applications. There was discussion about the deferral date. Staff checked on the time status of the application. It was determined the items would be deferred to July 15th. MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that SP 97-17, SP 97-18, SP 97- 19, SP 97-20, SP 97-21 and SP 97-22, all for CFW Wireless, be deferred to July 15, 1997. The motion passed unanimously. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Review =ACSA Water Line to Key West/Cedar Hill Subdivisions (456 Review) Mr. Benish presented a brief staff report. He explained the Key West water system had been contaminated and the Board of Supervisors has taken action to add Key West and Cedar Hill to the jurisdictional area for water service. Mr. Dotson asked how many other areas, outside the designated growth area, have been included in the jurisdictional area and had water or sewer extended. Mr. Benish said there are numerous locations, particularly west of town, where jurisdictional area has been extended beyond development boundaries. He said the Comp Plan establishes a clear policy which says for jurisdictional areas to be approved outside of designated development areas, the area must be adjacent to an existing line or there must be a clear health or safety issue involved. He said this particular extension does not set a precedent, particularly in consideration of the pollution concerns. Mr. Loewenstein asked what capacity the line will have. Mr. Paul Shupe, Director of Engineering for the ACSA, said this will be sized to provide the minimum fire protection for the community itself. It will be a 12-inch line along the route. Capacity for services, if there are requests along the line, will be incidental to the size. If there are requests farther out, other considerations will have to be made at a later date. In response to Mr. Dotson's questions, Mr. Shupe said it is less expensive to extend water service than it is to extend sewer service. Public comment was invited. None was offered and the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Benish said staff had received no comments from residents of the two neighborhoods. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that the Extension of the ACSA Water Line to the Key West/Cedar Hill Subdivisions be found to be substantially in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The motion passed unanimously. 6-17-97 7 Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan 456 Reviews - Administrative Review Process Mr. Benish presented the staff report. The report explained the Planning Commission, several years ago, delegated staff administrative "456" review of certain gas, water and sewer line extensions under certain conditions. However, the County Attorney recently advised staff that there is no authority for the Commission or Board to delegate the statutory requirement of a 456 review to staff. Gas, water and sewer line extensions meeting the requirement of Section 15.1-456.A. for such review must be reviewed by the Commission and their findings must be communicated to the Board of Supervisors. However, the County Attorney also advised that "normal extension" of distribution and collection systems are "excepted" from the requirement of 456 review under Section 15.1-456.C. These normal extensions have typically been the type for which staff has conducted administrative 456 review under the conditions established by the Commission. Provided that such extensions are within approved jurisdictional areas and an administrative process is in place so that extensions are not made improperly, these extensions need not be subject to 456 review. As regards gas, water and sewer utilities, only gas and water transmission lines and sewer interceptors, as well as pump stations and other facilities not strictly devoted to distribution or collection, must go through 456 review. Mr. Benish explained that probably 9 out of 10 of these items reviewed by the Commission did not require Commission review. But staffs "cautious determination of what might require a 456 review" caused the requests to be presented to the Commission. Mr. Dotson stated: "What will come to us will be the transmission type facility, rather than the distribution facility." Mr. Benish replied affirmatively, and added: "Or any sort of public use where there is a change in use but the public use wasn't the purpose for that use." Staff was recommending "that the administrative review process for 456 review be discontinued and only those utility improvements required to be reviewed under the Virginia Code be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan." Public comment was invited. None was offered. No action was required of the Commission. No Commission objections were raised to staffs recommendation. Mr. Loewenstein concluded: "You have the consensus of the Commissioners present here tonight that that process should be discontinued." WORK SESSION Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment Section - Biodiversity 6-17-97 E:3 Mr. Benish introduced the topic and called attention to a "background paper" the Commission had previously received which gives an overview of biodiversity and suggested a framework for incorporating biodiversity into the Comp Plan. The report explained this topic is being presented due to interest expressed by citizens and Citizens for Albemarle for consideration for inclusion of a biodiversity element in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tom Olivier, representing Citizens for Albemarle, made a presentation on the topic to the Commission. He was assisted by Mr. DeForest (Mike) Mellon. Mr. Mellon, current Chair of the Biodiversity Committee of Citizens for Albemarle, explained that CFA is presenting this multi -level proposal, the long term goal of which is to encourage the County to conserve areas of forest and other landscapes and natural habitats. "This will ensure that the services and benefits inherent in this natural heritage are preserved and protected from future commercial and residential development." He said CFA is urging the County to take this action because healthy landscapes provide free services that are essential to our well-being. "These services include the following: production and regulation of crucial gases, especially oxygen, carbon dioxide and ozone; climate regulation; storage and retention of water; formation and retention of soil; recycling of nutrients; recovery of mobile nutrients; removal from water of heavy metals and numerous other toxic compounds; regulation of climatic disturbances through the damping of severe environmental fluctuations (e.g. flood control); and refuges as habitats for resident and transient populations of plants and animal that are essential for other aspects of the eco-system or for local agriculture. This list comprises only a few of the 17 eco-systems functions and services listed in a recent extensive study published in the scientific weekly Nature...." He concluded: "As an economic venture, to assure the integrity of Albemarle's essential productive landscapes, we urge that this protection be incorporated into the renewed Comprehensive Plan that will guide the decisions of the County Planners for the foreseeable future." Mr. Olivier summarized some the major points of the CFA proposal for protection of biological diversity in Albemarle County. ( These points are listed in the report prepared by CFA and distributed to the Commission.) They included the recommendation for the creation of a Biological Resources Advisory Committee which would, among other things, (1) oversee a preliminary inventory of biological sources, to be used for four purposes --preliminary ranking of lands of high biodiversity value, preliminary identification of areas that should be avoided for conversion to more intensive uses, development of criteria for acceptance of parcels in long-term protection programs with financial incentives, and provide a starting point for a more complete and refined inventory of Albemarle's biological resources; (2) Identify the areas containing significant resources; (3) Develop criteria for the identification of parcels of land suitable for long-term protection to foster biodiversity; and (4) Develop recommendations for hiring a conservation biologist as a permanent member of the County Planning Department staff. %3 6-17-97 �91 The following persons read statements supporting CFA's proposal: --John Hermsmier (Environmental Education Center) - (Attachment A to these minutes.) --Amber Hill (Piedmont Chapter of the Sierra Club) --Peter Hallock (Piedmont Environmental Council) - (Attachment B to these minutes.) Commission comments and directions to staff were as follows: --Ms. Huckle asked who CFA proposed would conduct the inventory studies. She was interested in determining CFA's "commitment" to this proposal. She said it is much easier to give a speech than it is to perform a survey. (Mr. Olivier did not think it would be difficult to find knowledgeable volunteers. Mr. Tice agreed.) --Mr. Dotson asked if this type of project has been undertaken by other localities. Mr. Tice said some other counties have done similar studies, but not as comprehensively as proposed here. --Mr. Dotson asked if this topic is addressed in the State Code or has there been any initiative to include it if it is not presently included. Staff could not answer this question. --Mr. Loewenstein said if a community decides to perform a biological inventory which relies heavily on volunteer groups, a good "survey instrument" must be in place so that the data gathered will be meaningful. Mr. Olivier said he is aware of potential problems. However, there are national projects taking place which have set standards for the collection of data. Mr. Loewenstein said it would be helpful to see what work of this type is being done in other communities in Virginia and nationally. (Mr. Tice said some interesting work on habitat conservation is presently being done in Texas and California.) Mr. Hermsmier indicated it may be that "imperfect data" which might be collected by volunteers is preferable to today's reality of "converting biological resources to other uses without a clue as to what's there." --Mr. Tice wondered why the Shenandoah National Park Related Land Study was not mentioned in CFA's proposal. Mr. Olivier said the proposal had centered more on on -going projects rather than on completed projects. He acknowledged there is experience from that study which could be applied here. --Mr. Loewenstein said how to proceed with a biological inventory presents a considerable challenge, but "the greatest challenge for us will be to balance that information with incorporation of that knowledge into land use decisions... and incorporating this into the Comprehensive Plan is an extremely significant first step. Beyond that, we, or some Commission and some Board, will need to grapple with that issue of how those data are going to be factored into land use decisions of all kinds. ...I think that is going to be a whole separate area of discussion and challenge." For that reason, he said he would like to know: (1) How this process is proceeding in other communities? (2) How is information which is being gathered being used in land use planning? --Mr. Dotson asked: "Would looking at the County through this new lens of biodiversity simply give us another rationale for continuing to do a good job with all of the goals that we have in the rural area --the open space, etc --or would this add a new dimension? So is it more weight in support of what we are already doing, or would we �Lf 6-17-97 10 find that we are not doing some things that this would reveal by looking through this lens? Maybe we could find out by looking at the experience of some other areas. That's an important question in terms of assessing the value added of doing this." --Referring to Mr. Olivier and Mr. Hermsmier's comments about "natural systems," Mr. Dotson said he finds it somewhat curious that we are talking about doing this to the County, which is not a natural system. "Why aren't we talking about the watershed, the region, and shouldn't we be talking about the City too? ... I understand that we can only act as a County, but should we be encouraging this on a different basis as a study or an inventory?" --Adding to Mr. Dotson's comments, Mr. Tice said he thinks it is critical to include in a biodiversity section of the Comp Plan some discussion-- "because the natural systems don't stop at the County's borders --of the impacts that we, as Albemarle County residents have on the biological resources, not only in this County but outside of the County." --Mr. Tice raised the question of where is the best place to insert this topic in the Comp Plan. He suggested "this issue needs to be addressed not only in the Natural Environment section, but also in the Economic section of the Comp Plan." He explained: "We do have the ethical arguments and the aesthetic or emotional arguments for protecting biodiversity, but at least equally important are the economic aspects --the goods and services that the eco-system provides to us." He said we all get two paychecks --the traditional one you can take to the bank, and the other one is the economic value of the services that are provided by the eco-systems in terms of water and air quality, etc. "For that to continue, or to improve, those functions need to be kept productive and relatively stable and sustainable. Biodiversity is key to productivity, stability and sustainability." He feared putting this topic only in the Natural Environment section without any discussion in the Economic section, "it sort of plays into the argument of the economy vs. the environment." He said this is very much an economic issue and is as critical to the economic health of this area as roads, schools, industry, etc. He asked staff to explore some way to link the two sections. Mr. Dotson felt the topic should also be included the beginning statements of the Plan. Mr. Olivier concluded: "We believe it is time to bring Conservation Planning in as a dimension of the Planning process." He also stressed that this proposal is just one way to approach this issue. The CFA is not "wedded" to this proposal and is open to counter proposals and better proposals. Mr. Tice thought it was interesting that the CFA proposal says now is the time to bring this idea into planning, when actually, Thomas Jefferson's notes on Virginia were, in large part, a biological inventory of the Commonwealth. Also, James Madison, in an address to the Agricultural Society of Albemarle in 1818, specifically commented on the risk to the economy from the extinction of species, and not just the extinction of commercially valuable species, but also he posed the question of what effect the loss of species would have on the oxygen and the atmosphere and indirectly on the economy of the rural areas. In 1862, a Mr. Seaman published a brochure of Albemarle County trying to promote economic development, and that brochure included an inventory of biological resources of the County. He said this shows that 6-17-97 11 even 150 - 200 years ago some County residents recognized this issue as critical to the development and planning of the County. Mr. Benish asked for Commission guidance on whether to proceed with CFA's proposal for inclusion of this topic in the Comp Plan. Mr. Loewenstein responded: "What I am hearing from Commissioners here tonight is that this is an important component to pursue, which is a very basic statement but one which allows you to go further." Mr. Benish talked about how this proposal might fit into the staffs Work Program. Ms. Huckle pointed out that some of the sections of the Comp Plan are "nice thoughts" (such as the Open Space Plan), but really offer no "concrete protection." (She mentioned a recent application where the Commission had no control over tree cutting in the County's designated Open Space. ) She asked "if any thought is being given to more regulations which will apply to some of these areas." Mr. Benish said implementation measures can include regulatory measures. For example, the County is currently considering the Mountain Top Protection measures as a recommendation of the Open Space Plan. The Open Space Plan itself is a tool which staff uses in reviewing the impacts of proposals. Mr. Dotson expressed concern about adding something else to the staffs work program. Mr. Benish said a biological inventory has been a recommendation of the Open Space Plan for several years. He said he feels the point has been reached at which planning for this project can begin. Mr. Dotson suggested staff look more carefully at the work program and be prepared to answer this question when this item is discussed in another work session. (Mr. Benish said staff hopes to have a draft of the Natural Environment Section by the end of the summer and, if so directed by the Commission, a Biodiversity Section would be a part of that section. Mr. Benish said it is his understanding, based on the Commission's comments, that the Commission feels that a Biodiversity Section should be a part of the Natural Environment Section, and potentially other sections, of the Comp Plan.) Mr. Dotson wondered if the Board should also have input into the question of whether or not to include a Biodiversity Section in the Plan at this time. He wondered if this same proposal should be made to the Board. Ms. Huckle asked if there was any Commission consensus as to when and how the proposed inventory should be done. Mr. Loewenstein said that discussion should be postponed until staff has provided some of the additional information which the Commission has requested. It was agreed another work session would be scheduled. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. DB V. Wayl Cilimberg; cr tary v'