HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 09 1995 PC MinutesIn
5-9-95
MAY 9, 1995
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 9,
1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Vice
Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials
present were: Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr.
Mark Trank, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Nitchmann.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of April 25, 1995 were unanimously approved as submitted.
SP-95-09 Darton Greist III - Petition to permit a stream crossing in the floodplain
[30.3.5.2.1(2)] on approximately 36.3 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property,
described as Tax Map 133, Parcel 31, is located on the east side of Route 722
approximately 1.25 miles south of Route 723 in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This
site is not located in a designated growth area (Rural Area 4).
The applicant requested deferral to May 16, 1995.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-95-09 be deferred to
May 16, 1995.
The motion passed unanimously.
SP-95-08 Faison - Charlottesville Limited Partnership - Petition to establish a
Commercial Recreation Establishment [25.2.2(1)] on approximately 12.6 acres zoned
PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay
District. Property, described as Tax Map 61 M, Section 12, parcel 1 C, is the location of
Shoppers World. This site is located in the Rio Magisterial District and is recommended
for Community Service in Neighborhood 1.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions.
Ms. Vaughan asked if the two-way travelway would use the same space as the one-
way travelway now uses, or will it be necessary to take some space from the parking
area. Mr. Fritz explained that space presently designated as a loading zone will be
used to accommodate the two-way travelway. He said no additional paving, curbs or
changes to parking layout will be necessary. Mr. Vaughan asked if there will still be a
blind -spot, caused by one parking space, for cars turning left, approaching Staples.
5-9-95 2
`V W
Mr. Fritz was unsure as to the exact location referred to by Ms. Vaughan. He said that
there are no changes proposed to the parking layout. Mr. Fritz explained, however, that
any concerns noted by the applicant, staff or the Commission, can be addressed at the
time of any future revisions.
Ms. Imhoff asked if there had been any conversations with the applicant on the issue of
buffers and clearly marked pedestrian walkways so that children could safely traverse
the parking area. Mr. Fritz said staff had not addressed that issue in particular, but had
discussed, generally, the improvement of the parking areas, both functionally and
aesthetically.
Mr. Fritz confirmed that ARB approval is not required for this proposal because the
changes will be to the interior of the structure. However, the ARB will be involved in
any signage issues.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Doug Lowe. He offered to answer Commission
questions. Mr. Dotson asked if he was satisfied that the two-way traffic pattern would
be a safe one. He said he felt, as does the new owner of the shopping center, that two-
way traffic will work better for the entire parking lot. Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Lowe if he
thought it might create a safer situation if the row of parking spaces closest to the
building were eliminated. Mr. Lowe said he though it was probably better to leave them
as they are. Mr. Dotson asked if there were railings which would separate the sidewalk
from the parking lot. Mr. Lowe explained that there is a large porch area where children
can wait.
Ms. Vaughan asked if there were any plans to make the facility available for after -
school programs. Mr. Lowe said he hopes to make a variety of community "ties."
Mr. Lowe presented photographs showing some of the inside play activities which will
be provided.
Ms. Vaughan asked about the anticipated hours of operation. Mr. Lowe said the hours
have not yet been decided, but he estimated they would be 9 or 10 a.m. to 9 p.m.
Mr. Bill Barnett, representing the Faison Limited Partnership, addressed the
Commission. He said he is very aware of the parking lot problems. He said that proper
signage, better striping and moving employee parking to the back should improve the
traffic flow. In answer to Ms. Huckle's earlier question about repaving, he said there are
plans to re -pave the parking lot.
Mr. Dotson asked if there were any plans to eliminate the access to Berkmar Drive. He
wondered if that was a required access and if there might be a possibility of eliminating
that connection. Mr. Barnett was not in favor of eliminating the Berkmar access. (Ms.
5-9-95
Huckle found this to be a very convenient access to the shopping center, one which
allowed access to the shopping center for a lot of people west of Rt. 29, without the
necessity of having to get out onto Rt. 29.) Mr. Keeler pointed out that there are some
other properties which also have the right to use the Berkmar Drive access.
Ms. Imhoff said she would be giving to staff some photographs of parking areas in other
shopping centers. She hoped the applicant would consider doing more than just
signage and re -striping. She said she had been reluctant to support this request, not
because of the use, but because of problems with the parking and on -site traffic flow.
She suggested that some planting medians and "slightly raised pedestrian walkways,"
particularly in areas where children will be walking, would help. She said it would be
nice to see some trees and plantings in the parking area. Otherwise, she said there
would just be people driving across the painted lines.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Imhoff repeated her concern about problems with the parking lot, but she hoped the
shopping center would approach this problem aggressively.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-95-08 for Faison - Charlottesville Limited
Partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. No alcohol sales.
2. A two-way travel area shall be designated in the area shown on attachment C.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Ms. Huckle expressed the hope that this shopping center will be enhanced by the new
owner.
ZMA-95-05 Woodbriar Associates - Petition to request relief of Item #12 of ZMA 91-
13 Woodbriar Associates in order to allow relief of phasing requirement and clarification
of phase completion. Zoned PRD, Planned Residential Development. Property,
described as Tax Map 32G Parcel 1 and Tax Map 32G section 3 parcels A and 83, is
located on the west side of Route 29 North approximately one mile north of the North
Fork River. This property is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is
recommended for medium density residential (5-10 dwelling units per acre) in the
Village of Piney Mountain.
in
M
5-9-95 4
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staffs recommendation was as follows: "Staff has
reviewed this request for compliance with the previous agreements and recommends
denial of the request to eliminate restrictions on the number of phases under
development at any one time. Staff recommends approval of modifications of
agreement 12 to provide clarification."
Mr. Blue attempted to clarify the request. He asked how the Commission could follow
staffs recommendation, i.e. "If we approve ZMA-95-05, we can only approve half of it.
But what you are recommending is not what the applicant requested."
Mr. Trank responded to Mr. Blue: You are dealing with a development condition,
rather than a proffer. So you have the discretion to either take what is the basis for the
petition and approve or deny it, and go beyond it, if you wish. And if you want to
address, in looking at that particular condition, what staff has identified as a clarification
of what 'completion' means, as the Zoning Administrator has identified in order to
prevent future problems, you have the discretion to do so, and it would be consistent
with what has happened here...."
Mr. Blue asked: "I understand, but my question is, are we still going to call it ZMA 95-
05, because ZMA-95-05 is a request to change the requirement for phasing? If we
want to deny that, then do we have to introduce something else, with a different
notation for it, to allow what staff is recommending in clarification?"
Mr. Dotson noted: "It is useful to clarify that this is a condition, not a proffer." Staff
responded affirmatively.
Ms. Huckle asked for a clarification of page 2 of Attachment C (Zoning Administrator's
memo to Mr. Fritz dated 4-6-95). Mr. Fritz explained that the items listed as 1 - 7 are
items which the Zoning Administrator asked that staff look into. All but one of the 7
items are matters which did not need to be reviewed by the Commission. They were
the Zoning Administrator's recommendations for items which would help this project
move forward in an efficient manner. He said these items were not part of this rezoning
request. Ms. Huckle said it appeared that there were many items which "had not been
done in a timely fashion," and she wondered if there was a way to ensure that these
items do get done. Mr. Fritz felt the current limitation on phasing addresses this
concern, "by virtue of being able to have only two phases under development at a
single time. In order for the applicant to move on to another phase, under the current
language and the proposed language, one of the two phases that is currently under
development would need to be completed before he would be able to move on."
Mr. Dotson asked if conditions like #12 are unusual, i.e. "is it unusual to limit
development to two simultaneous phases before moving on to others?" Mr. Fritz said
1%ftw that conditions related to order or pattern of development have been attached to other
In
5-9-95
developments. He could not recall specific projects. Mr. Dotson said: "My guess is
that it is unusual and I'm hoping the applicant can tell us why."
Mr. Keeler explained that the condition proposed for amendment (#12) is to clarify what
"simultaneous development" means, so there won't be any dispute as to interpretation.
Mr. Keeler recalled a situation with another development (Windrift) where there were
people living in the first phase for five years, but the road was not in the state system.
The County felt if it did not have specific conditions limiting phasing, the only thing that
could be done would be for the County to "take the bonds." Mr. Dotson concluded from
Mr. Keeler's explanation: "So it may have been an unusual circumstance that led to an
unusual condition."
Ms. Imhoff felt Mr. Dotson was overstating the unusualness of this condition. She said
in all major rezonings there has been some phasing plan that says one section must be
completed before starting another one. She did not think it was unusual to have a
"timeline" for major rezonings.
The applicant, Mr. Wendall Wood, addressed the Commission. He explained why he
thought condition No. 12 had been attached to this project, i.e. the fact that when
originally approved in 1982, it was the largest subdivision in the County. He said the
condition had not been a problem and explained that work has been going on in just
two phases since 1982. Now, both those phases are being finished, simultaneously.
He said staff had originally had no problem with this present request, but different
interpretations, caused by changes in staff, have resulted in this matter being before the
Commission. He said Mr. Fritz had told him, "just two weeks ago," it was all right to
proceed with the infrastructure. He explained: "That's what all this is about. We're only
here asking to be allowed to build our roads, our water and our sewer in the next
phase, while we are finishing up in another." He said questions had then arisen as to
the interpretation of the meaning of "complete." "What we are here asking for is we
need to be building our water lines, our sewer lines and our roads in our next section as
we are wrapping up these two." He explained that the last two lots in the original two
phases are currently under construction, but he cannot begin the next phase because
staff will not review the plan. He said he is currently "out of a product to sell." He
stressed that this development has met its original intent to provide affordable housing
for the community. He noted that the homeowners in this subdivision do not pay a
homeowner's association fee. He compared the cost of housing in Briarwood to other
subdivisions: Briarwood Townhouses = $50/sq. ft.; Forest Lakes Townhouses = $73 -
$90/sq. ft.; Mill Creek = $93 - $107/sq. ft.; Highlands = $60 - $67 sq. ft; River Run =
$77/sq. ft; Village Square = $77/sq. ft.; Redfields = $87/sq. ft. (All these developments,
with the exception of Briarwood, also have homeowner's fees.) He questioned how he
could continue to provide affordable housing if he cannot continue the construction in
"an orderly flow." He stressed that he was only asking to build the infrastructure. He
said he did not think it was the County's intent to "shut down" the project, but that is
5-9-95 6
basically what has happened. He said he had no objections to the phasing
requirements though he asked that he not be required to build section 1 B (townhouses)
next because there is currently no market for townhouses.
Mr. Wood offered to answer Commission questions.
Ms. Huckle asked him to comment on the Zoning Administrator's letter (dated March 1,
1995) listing all the items which are incomplete. She questioned why those have not
been completed. Mr. Wood said most of the items listed have been completed, and the
only large item is the roads. Ms. Huckle asked about bonds which are in default and
why the recreation areas have not been completed. Mr. Wood responded: "There are
no bonds in default." On the recreation issue, he said a fence (which had not been
required with the original approval, but had been added later) has been installed. He
said he requested that the playground bond be released two years ago, but it has not
been released.
Ms. Imhoff asked: "Before you did the 1992 amendments, did the phases have to come
before the Planning Commission?" (Someone responded "no" to this question. It was
not clear who answered the question.) Ms. Imhoff pointed out that this project had
been seen by the Board and the Commission in 1992. She wondered if something had
changed or "did someone just not interpret the two part phasing because it is clearly a
%part of the conditions. Mr. Wood responded: "And we didn't expect it to be a problem.
"" Being in two phases doesn't bother us. If we had known it was going to be a problem
we would have drawn our phase line differently." He felt the phasing condition was
intended to ensure an orderly sequence of development. He pointed out that the
streets are cul-de-sacs, so it will not disturb current neighborhoods "to open another
section."
Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Wood if he would object to a condition which would say "you can't
start building houses in a new phase until the infrastructure is completed in the previous
phase?" Mr. Wood responded: "That certainly goes a long way to solve it, but we
would like it to be that we couldn't sell the house." Mr. Wood said that by the time this
item is heard by the Board the problem will have resolved itself, because "we'll be out of
Phase 7 anyway." He changed this saying: "We won't be out of Phase 7, but the roads
will be accepted." He said Mr. Dotson's suggestion, however, "would certainly be a big
improvement."
Mr. Dotson asked if building new roads would take funds away from completing other
roads. Mr. Wood replied: "It takes more funding. It doesn't take away.... It is
additional capital. The worse thing now is not being able to move forward and spend
the capital that would produce revenue. We are at a (standstill) now." Mr. Dotson said:
"So the question I asked you would require that we define 'simultaneous development."'
Mr. Wood responded: "That's correct."
09
M
5-9-95 7
Mr. Blue said he though the applicant had made a compelling argument. However, it
was not in agreement with the conclusion he would have drawn from the staff report.
Mr. Blue asked when the applicant had discovered that a zoning map amendment
would be necessary to continue with the process. Mr. Wood said it had been
December, 1994. At that time the Zoning Administrator, like Mr. Fritz recently, had felt
that it was O.K. to proceed with the infrastructure. Later, however, Ms. Hipski had
made a different interpretation.
Mr. Keeler questioned the accuracy of Mr. Wood's statement. Mr. Keeler explained that
all departments have been involved in this request from the beginning. He recalled a
meeting at which the applicant had mentioned phasing, "having the ability to skip over
townhouses, not being locked in to a selling a certain product at any particular point in
time, and that doesn't clearly appear here." Mr. Keeler said "tonight" was the first time
he had heard the idea of constructing infrastructure in the next phase, and not
necessarily houses. He said: "We did clarify early on that completion didn't necessarily
mean building all the products, but completing all the infrastructure, and what this
condition (No. 12) is to do is better define that. Another new idea I have heard tonight
is the idea of jumping over a phase to be able to do single-family, if the demand is for
that product, instead of townhouses. Unless that is clearly stated in the conditions,
think it will remain a matter of interpretation and confusion."
Ms. Vaughan wondered if "jumping over a phase" could cause problems for residents
already living in the subdivision. Mr. Keeler said that "the aggregate of the
improvements will always be met."
Referring to the unfinished items listed in the Zoning Administrator's letter, Mr. Blue
addressed the applicant: "I believe you said this is where you would be at this stage no
matter what. In other words, you're just getting here, so in terms of percentage of
construction, you had planned to be at this stage at this point. What is bothering you is
that you haven't been able to start the infrastructure for the next section." Mr. Wood
responded: "Exactly." Mr. Blue asked the applicant what would encourage him to finish
those items for which the County holds a bond, if he is willing to let the bond "sit there."
Mr. Wood indicated the expense of maintaining a bond is incentive to complete the
items. Mr. Blue said: "So your point is, if it isn't complete now, you are going to
complete it very soon because you want the bond to be released." Mr. Wood
responded affirmatively.
Ms. Huckle recalled that the completion of Rt. 606 was supposed to have been done in
1992. But at the time the Zoning Administrator's letter was written (3-95), that work still
had not been completed. Mr. Wood responded: "That's not true. The work was done.
... The road was built three years ago. But now it is being turned over to the State and
the State required that 4 loads of gravel be put on the road. That was done in the last
"*W three weeks. There was also a sight distance problem which involved cutting a bank
5-9-95 8
rrr
back which was on GE property. (Mr. Wood did not say whether the sight distance
issue had been resolved.)
Ms. Vaughan asked if the work on Rt. 606 had actually been done three years ago and
the applicant had requested that it be accepted at that time. Had it taken VDOT 3 years
to respond? Mr. Wood explained he had not asked that the road be accepted because
he did not want to tie Austin Drive into Rt. 606 while construction was still taking place.
He said the last inch of blacktop is scheduled to be put on Austin Drive on Monday (5-
15-95).
Ms. Vaughan asked staff to explain the statement in the Zoning Administrator's letter of
March 1, 1995 which says: "Presently the bond must be increased and is in default."
(This statement referred to Rt. 606.)
Mr. Jack Kelsey, Assistant County Engineer, responded to this question. He explained
that either the bond had not been adequate in the beginning, or too much has been
released, to the point where the amount which remains is insufficient to cover the
amount of work which remains. The applicant has not responded to requests to
increase the amount of the bond. Mr. Blue asked if the fact that the some of the bond
has been released was the fault of the County or the developer. Mr. Kelsey said it had
"fallen through the cracks." He confirmed it was the County's responsibility, at the time
�"'` the bond was set, to have made sure that it was adequate. Mr. Wood asked Mr. Kelsey
if the bond is sufficient now. Mr. Kelsey did not know the answer to Mr. Wood's
question.
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Kelsey if he knew how many of the items listed in the March 1,
1995 letter have since been completed. Mr. Kelsey said the 45-day punch list
inspection has been done by the County and VDOT for Finch and Oriole Courts. The
items are very close to being completed. Wren Court, Austin Court, Briarwood Drive
and Rt. 606 were lumped together in another 45-day punch list. Work is progressing on
those roads. Some redesign items are being resolved between the developer, the
County and VDOT.
Ms. Huckle asked: "If all these things were completed, then there would be no holdup
for the applicant and he would not have needed to come here, right?" Mr. Kelsey
responded: "As soon as these items are completed, yes." He was uncertain as to the
date the 45-day inspection had been made. He said the "clock is ticking" and the
applicant is doing the work. Mr. Blue noted that the time would certainly be up by June
14, 1995, the date this request is scheduled for the Board.
Mr. Keeler explained the new 45-day punch list process. This is a joint inspection
process by the County and VDOT. If the applicant completes all the items on the list
within 45-days, the County and VDOT cannot then go out and generate another list.
5-9-95
09
0
Mr. Dotson asked if the amount of work remaining to be done on this project is
"unusual." He asked: "Is this typical, but perhaps unfamiliar to us?" Mr. Kelsey
responded: "I think it is pretty typical for a subdivision."
Mr. Blue asked: "It is somewhat confusing to me that if this is a usual amount to be left
to the end of a project, on a 45-day punch list, and Mr. Wood stated he wasn't planning
to finish until now, why was this Zoning Map Amendment originated in the first place?"
Ms. Huckle pointed out that the applicant's request is to "amend the limit on the number
of phases under development. He doesn't not want to be limited to two phases under
development at one time."
Mr. Blue said: "I understand that --for the future. But for this particular project, if it had
going forth without it...." (sentence not completed)
Ms. Huckle said: "That was my original question. Why didn't he go ahead and do it?"
Ms. Vaughan asked: "If condition No. 12 were not in place, and the number of things
which have not been done were in this same status, would there be any red flags going
up?" Mr. Kelsey responded: "The only red flags would be at the time the bonds are up
for renewal." (Mr. Kelsey's response was inaudible on the tape.)
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Steve Bliss, a Briarwood resident for 11 years, disagreed with some of Mr. Wood's
comments. He said the development has been a "construction zone" for the entire time
he has lived there. He supported the limitation of no more than 2 phases under
development simultaneously. He also said that the playground areas are not
maintained properly and the newest playground can only be accessed by crossing two
private yards. Mr. Blue asked the speaker if he was able to get from Rt. 29 to his home
without having to pass through construction. Mr. Bliss said the "main roads in the old
sections are fine, but as you pull in it is difficult to get in safely because of the cars
parked along the road."
Mr. Roger Rittenaur, a resident of Briarwood, asked why planning had not been done to
prevent the need for this request. He also asked why a rezoning was needed; why not
just a request for a variation.
Ms. Atwater, a resident of Briarwood, described the importance of easy access to the
nature trails and to the woods. She said she had been assured there would always be
public access to the trails, the woods and the ridge. She concluded: "I'm not at ease
with what is happening here and I wanted my voice to be heard."
Om
MOMOR
10
Mr. Clinton Royer, a designer of the subdivision, addressed the Commission. He
stressed that the incomplete items are just "housecleaning" items. He expressed his
frustration with the process taking so long (from December to now).
Mr. Bruce Allen, a resident of Briarwood, commended Mr. Wood for keeping the roads
cleared during the winter. He disagreed, however, with Mr. Wood's description of the
playgrounds, which he felt were not maintained as well as they should be. He
supported Mr. Wood's request to build the infrastructure. He suggested that
development take place beginning at Rt. 29, rather than going through existing
neighborhoods. Mr. Wood was allowed to respond to this comment. He said it could
not be done with the phasing as currently approved. [Mr. Keeler pointed out that
condition #14 says that "Briarwood Drive must be built or bonded for its entire length
from Austin Drive to Route 29 prior to any final plat approval for Phase 1A and then the
road shall be completed prior to any approval for Phase 1 B." He said phases 1A and
1 B are, chronologically, the next two phases. He explained: "At that time what you
would have would be the road out to Rt. 29 and, while there is no requirement that Mr.
Wood confine his construction to that road, there would be undeveloped property along
that. So it would seem to be a logical way for him to bring his construction traffic in and
not have to travel back through the developed areas."]
Mr. Wood was allowed to speak again. Referring to the 45-day inspection process he
said: "One of the additional hardships that puts on us to try to finish --that 45-day
inspection cannot take place between October 15 and March 5. So if you fall into that
gap when you finish, you cannot request a final inspection during that period."
Addressing a public comment about the disrepair of playground equipment, he said the
bond had been released within the last 30 days and that could not have taken place if
the playgrounds had been in disrepair."
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Dotson asked if Mr. Keeler felt there were some items which should be studied
further before the Commission takes action.
Mr. Keeler said he has always viewed bonds as a courtesy to the developer rather than
requiring building to take place "up front." He said: "This is a case where the developer
wants to build the infrastructure up front, perhaps before he records a plat. If its not
built when the plat is recorded, then it is bonded --that just adds to the bonding burden."
He said the conditions recommended in the staff report are translations of
recommendations from the Zoning Administrator and the County Engineer. Whatever
changes occurred had nothing to do with a change in staff. We're just presenting this to
you from staffs point of view. "It doesn't seem logical, particularly with a moderate -cost
housing project, not to allow a developer to build infrastructure."
cm
5-9-95 11
Ms. Huckle reminded the Commission that the applicant's request is to amend the limit
on the number of phases under development at one time. She assumed this meant the
limitation would be removed. She felt the applicant's problems were of his own making
because he has not completed all the small items which he says are remaining. She
said if he were to do that then he would automatically go on to the next phase and there
would be no need for the Commission to be involved in the process. She concluded:
"But under the circumstances of past performance, I don't see how I could support
taking away the limit on the phases under construction at one time."
Ms. Imhoff said she shared some of Ms. Huckle's concerns. She said she was
concerned about removing the phasing controls. She felt there had been a good
reason for those controls. She said, however, that now it appears there may be a
"middle ground" where some infrastructure construction might be approvable. She
concluded: "I'm looking for that middle ground, to get some phasing going, but I don't
want to take all the phasing controls off, and I'm not at all sure I could support switching
around the phases which the applicant has suggested." She said she was inclined to
deny the request, as currently fashioned, with the idea that perhaps the applicant could
come up with a middle ground request for just infrastructure extension prior to the
Board hearing.
Ms. Huckle had understood staff to say this is the county's one chance to get these
loose ends tied up on the present construction.
Mr. Blue said he still was not clear as to why this request had been proposed, whether
it was staffs or the applicant's suggestion.
Mr. Dotson said he also supported the middle ground approach. He said that could
happen prior to Commission action, with the item being deferred for a couple of weeks,
or it could be addressed by the applicant prior to the Board hearing. He felt there was
time for either strategy.
Mr. Blue thought Mr. Dotson had described a reasonable approach.
Mr. Huckle said the applicant might be able to complete all the items before the Board
date.
Mr. Blue said: "With condition #12 in place, there is no way, unless we change that,
that he could work out an agreement and start the infrastructure in the next phase
without some action from us. So even if we recommended approval and it went to the
Board, he is not going to be able to do anything on infrastructure even if they work it
out. So it seems (a deferral) would be better."
'S..W Mr. Blue clarified that he was not suggesting that #12 be deleted.
09
5-9-95 12
Mr. Jenkins said: "I'm in agreement here that I don't see how we can approve what is
requested. Yet when you listen to Mr. Wood's desire to begin putting in water and
sewer in the next phase and if what the county is currently doing doesn't allow that, that
needs to somehow be covered. I don't know if we can resolve that tonight. That's why
we have staff who are knowledgeable about these things and they have made a
recommendation. While I am sympathetic to having some vehicle in place that allows
him to continue to put in the infrastructure, I don't see how we can take off the phasing."
Mr. Dotson suggested the possible alternative wording for condition #12 be considered:
"Housing shall be under construction in no more than 2 phases simultaneously." He
said that would tie it to the housing and not the infrastructure. He said he offered that
as a type of middle ground approach, but he was not offering it as a motion.
Ms. Huckle expressed support for a deferral.
Mr. Blue noted that a deferral would not cause the applicant any further delay because
it could not be done any sooner in any case.
Referring to Mr. Dotson's suggested wording, Ms. Imhoff said: "I could see it being
troublesome to have construction development over your entire project. I think it needs
to be a little more tightly tied to phases, even with infrastructure. It could result in too
much land disturbance and too much going on in the community."
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that SP-95-05 for Woodbriar Associates be deferred to
May 30, 1995. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion.
Mr. Blue said this was with the understanding that staff would be looking at this to see if
there is any way a developer can be allowed to do what is necessary in terms of
infrastructure.
Ms. Huckle said she could not support an approach which would remove the phasing
limitation. She indicated she was not as concerned about the order of phasing.
Ms. Imhoff complimented staff on the staff report. She felt a lot of the confusion was
caused by a lack of clarity on the developer's part as to exactly what was being
requested.
The motion for deferral to May 30, 1995 passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
M
5-9-95 13
Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Kelsey if he had any further information on the airport drainage
situation, particularly whether or not the surface drainage from the runway was draining
into Chris Green Lake. (This issue had been raised at a previous Commission meeting
by a member of the public.) Mr. Kelsey said all the detention ponds can handle the
runoff. Mr. Blue recalled that the Airport Authority was also looking into this situation.
Mr. Kelsey said he would look into the situation further.
Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that the May 16th meeting would be held in the
auditorium.
Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that the UREF rezoning, tentatively scheduled for
the May 23rd meeting, might either be delayed or might be scheduled first as a work
session. Delays are due to questions about some of the assumptions made by the
Fiscal Impact Model. He questioned whether a comprehensive staff report would be
ready in time to hold a public hearing on May 23rd. Ms. Imhoff said she did not want to
have a meeting until the Commission has had at least a week to read the report. Mr.
Dotson said he would be interested in seeing the Transportation Study.
1%W Ms. Huckle asked that staff begin thinking about a possible lighting ordinance.
iR
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
. WayneJCilimberg,
R-
[NOTE: Comments made by staff, the applicants, and the public were often inaudible
on this tape due to defects in microphones at certain positions.]