HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 14 84 PC MinutesAugust 14, 1984
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on Tuesday, August 14, 1984, 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room #7, Second Floor,
County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman, Mr. Richard
Cogan, Vice Chairman, Mr. Harry F. Wilkerson, Mr. James R. Skove and
Mrs. Norma Diehl. Also present were Ms. Pat Cooke, ex-officio,
Ms. Joan Davenport, Planner, Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff, Chief of Community
Development, Mr. Ronald.S. Keeler, Chief of Planning, Mr. Maynard Elrod,
County Engineer. Absent from the meeting were Mr. Tim Michel,
Mr. Richard Gould.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mr. Bowerman called the
meeting to order.
SP-84-41 George Bowles, III: Request for commercial recreation complex.
DEFER TO SEPTEMBER 11, 1984.
Mr. Boweman noted that the applicant is requesting that this item
be deferred to September 11, 1984.
Mr. Wilkerson moved to accept the applicant's request for deferral
until September 11, 1984.
Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-84-47 Elmer Snow: Request to locate a mobile home on 7.25 acres
zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property is located at the end of State
maintenance on Rt. 827 (Beagle Gap Road), tax map 54, parcel 30. White
Hall Magisterial District.
Ms. Davenport presented the staff report.
Ms. Davenport stated that the applicant moved the mobile home onto the
property, after filing for the special use permit, with the understanding
that it could not be occupied until the special use permit was reviewed
by the Board of Supervisors.
Mrs. Diehl noted that there are twelve (12) letters of opposition
to this mobile home.
Ms. Davenport explained that there is a petition signed by ten (10)
homeowners and a picture showing the location of the mobile home
(picture was taken by an adjacent owner).
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment concerning this
petition.
ME
August 14, 1982
Page 2
Mr. Snow stated that after the complaints were filed against this
petition, he went to the individualsconcerned and discussed this
request, noting where the mobile home would be located. He presented
to the Commission a letter where all but three of the people opposing
the petition withdrew.their opposition.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked for clarification on the location of the mobile
home.
Ms. Davenport pointed out that the applicant wishes to locate the
mobile home in a wooded area (mostly hardwoods) and is approximately
100.' from any property line.
Mrs. Diehl expressed her concern that as many of the hardwood trees
remain as possible.
Ms. Davenport stated that condition #2 addresses this, noting that
the Commission could clarify their intent for the Zoning Administrator.
(CONDITION #2: Location and/or screening to the reasonable satisfaction
of the Zoning Administrator so as to minimize visibility from adjoining
landowners.)
Mr. Cogan noted that the lease, dated August 1, 1984, states "....said
lease to be for a term of seven years, from August 1, 1984 to August
1, 1991 unless terminated as provided.for hereinbelow, and said
lease to be subject to the following terms..... Mr. Cogan asked if
the Commission could condition this petition for a period of seven years.
Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant if it was his intention to remove
the mobile horse in seven years or to replace it with a permanent
dwelling.
Mr. Snow stated that he wants someone living on his property for
protection, noting the shooting, hunters, etc. He stated that he
did not know if the mobile home would be removed in seven years.
Mr. Cogan stated.that issues raised in the initial petition will be
addressed by the appropriate County agency, noting that the Commission
can enforce the conditions of Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl suggested the following be added to condition #2 (previously
outlined):
• and to preserve existing natural vegetation.
Mr. Keeler suggested adding the following conditions:
• The Planning Commission's intent is that the mobile home be
located centrally within the property.as represented by the
applicant and only those trees necessary for location of mobile
home be removed.
P' I V
August 14, 1984
Page 3
• This special permit and all authority granted hereunder shall
expire seven years from date of approval by the Board of
Supervisors (or August 23, 1991).
Mr. Skove moved for approval.of this special use permit subject to
the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the zoning Ordinance.
2. Location and/or screening to the reasonable satisfaction of
the Zoning Administrator so as to minimize visibility from
adjoining landowners.
3. The Planning Commission's intent is that the mobile home be
located centrally within the property as represented by the
applicant and only those trees necessary for location of mobile
home be removed.
4. This special permit and all authority granted hereunder shall
expire seven years from date of approval by the Board of
Supervisors (or August 23, 1991).
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Keeler explained that this special use permit is for a mobile
home to be located on the property for a period of seven years,
anything beyond this will require an additional special use permit
approved or an amendment of this approval and would have to go through
the normal review process.
Mr. Skove asked if it was unusual that a mobile home be located on
the property before the issuance of a special use permit.
Mr. Keeler explained that this is not unusual, explaining that
basically the mobile home is just parked on the property. He also
noted that the mobile home can not be occupied until the special use
permit is issued and if the special use permit is not granted the
mobile home would have to be removed.
Transportation Systems Management Report: Presentation of transportation
report for review and comment. TSM report analyses major intersections
in Urban Area and recommends cost-effective improvements ranging
from signalization to turning restrictions.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the Transportation Systems Management Report
is one of the Metropolitan Planning Organization's projects that
was completed last year. She noted that staff is not asking that
August 14, 1984
Page 4
the Commission take action
Commission is involved with
area, staff would like any
may have.
At this time but given the fact that the
site plans and other projects in this
comments and suggestions the Commission
Ms: Imhoff noted that the Transportation Systems Management process
is relatively new and is supposed to compliment major transportation
planning such as six lane or a major highway by focusing more on
service oriented action. She noted that one of the aims of this
process is to involve local governments in the transportation
planning process and to try to manage a transportation system at the
local level instead of State or Federal levels. Some of the actions
that would be considered in the transportation system management are:
• the improvement of vehicular flow such as signalizing intersections,
• traffic channelization;
• turning restrictions on various roadways;
• transit stop relocations;
• pedestrian traffic separation from vehicuuar traffic and actions
that would include reducing peak period travel by work rescheduling
or truck restructuring.
Ms. Imhoff stated that a checklist was developed, for this area,
summarizing all of these various actions and a survey of all the major
intersections in the urban area was tanen. SLie noted that if
there are any intersections that the Confission melt should be
addressed staff would review these and include them in the report.
Ms. Imhoff noted that after reviewing the intersections it was
decided.that the following areas need to be addressed:
• need to improve street identification signs in the entire urban
area, including reviewing the size signs, color, and placement
of signs.
• developing open end truss systems at some intersections (open
end structures which incorporate all the lines, signals, signs
in one structure).
Ms. Imhoff noted that a report titled "Route 29 North: An Urban
Design Study" is available if any members of the Commision would
care to review this.
Ms. Imhoff noted that another area which may need some aid is the
improvement of road shoulders which would both help in getting
vehicles off roadways when there is a breakdown of vehicles and also
aid bicycle pedestrian traffic.
Ms. Imhoff noted that as the study progresses.staff will be considering the
development of access roads and parallel service roads to major roadways; intent
of these roads would be to cut ftm on traffic backups due to turn restrictions
and signalization. The development of cost effective and inexpensive improvements
which will facilitate heavy traffic and aid in creating safe pedestrian vehicular
environment, will also be addressed.
> afa
August 14, 1984
Page 5
Mr. Bowerman expressed his concern regarding sight distance at the Greenbrier/29
intersection and asked if there were any plans to improve this.
Ms. Imhoff explained that this report is based strictly on staff 's initial
survey and does not take into account any plans that the Highway Department
has at this time. She noted that one of the problems in this particular area
is the grade separation between the north and south bound lanes.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that this report does not address a crossover at
Carrsbrook/29.
Mr. Bowerman questioned if a crossover at the Hilton/29 location had been
addressed.
Mr. Echols stated that.a. crossover at this location is proposed but noted
that this would require lowering the southbound lane of 29.
Mr. Bowerman expressed his concern about the increasing traffic on Rio Road
especially at the Squire Hill, Old Brook Road and Northfields intersections.
He suggested that staff could work with the Highway Department to address terns
such as widening of the road, signalization, etc. at this intersection.
Mrs. Diehl noted her concern regarding the lack of pedestrain pathways (used
by pedestrians and bicyclist) in the Fry Spring's area.
Mr. Skove stated that he does not support the idea of pedestrians being allowed
to stop traffic on Rt. 29.
Ms. Imhoff noted that the City of Charlottesville at this time, as part of the
MPO, is doing A "Pedestrian Circulation Study."
Mr. Skove asked if the County had a bicycle plan.
Ms. Imhoff noted that the County did have a bicycle plan, but pointed out that
this was never adopted.
Mrs. Diehl expressed her concern regarding the pedestrian activated crossings on
Rt. 29.
Mrs. Cooke noted that she has had citizen input regarding the bus stops along
Hydraulic Road (residents of Arbor Crest.have to cross Hydraulic Road in order
to catch the bus). She asked if it were possible to have a pedestrian activated
crossing at this location.
Ms. Imhoff noted that this is addressed in this report, pointing out that this
was one area considered for pedestrian activated crossing.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the concerns of the Commission would be incorporated
into this report.
af-3
August 14, 1984
Page 6
Review for Compliance with Comprehensive Plan: Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority
proposed expansion of treatment capacity of South Rivanna Water Treatment Plant
from, 4 MGD to 8 NOD. Tax Map 45, parcel 68B, Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Request from Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority that the Planning Ctarmission.authorize
in accordance with 4.10.3.1 of the Zoning Ordinance the location of a forty-five (45)
foot high lime storage silo at twenty-three.(23) feet from the southern property
boundary. Tax Map 45, parcel 68B. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler explained that projects of Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority are allowed
as uses by right, but noted that the Code of Virginia requires the Planning Crm-ission
to review these projects for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Mr. Keeler presented the staff reports.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. George Williams, representing Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority, stated that he
would answer any questions the Commission may have.
With no com<ent fram the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Keeler stated that a property owner in this area has indicated that there is
some dispute between this particular property owner and the City as to property
lines, access, etc. He noted that this is beyond the review of the Commission, but
pointed out that the property owner has asked that the Commission, in their review
of grading plans for this property, direct the County Engineer to take appropriate
measures to.avoid further erosion of his property ( pointed out on the map the
location of the property in question).
Mrs. Diehl asked how solid waste would be treated.
Mr. Williams stated that several alternatives for treatment of waste water generated
as water treatment plants have been designed. He stated that studies show that
solids generated at this location must be handled on site. He noted the following
alternatives:
• Construction of a centrifuge on site. He noted that water would be physically
separated from the solids and trucked to the landfill. He pointed out that this
is an expensive operation.
e The policy presently being considered by State Water Control Board and
Environmental Protection Agency is one of a control discharge, whereby solid
waste generated on site is controlled and discharged in accordance with the
flow of the stream.
• Construction of clarifiers
Mr. Williams explained that the construction that is being proposed at this time
will be compatible to either of the above -noted alternatives.
0
a9�
August 14, 1984
Page 7
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the silo would be for storage of lime
Mrs. Diehl expressed concern regarding the proximity of the silo to adjacent
properties.
Mr. Keeler explained that this proposal would not be reviewed by the Board of
Supervisors unless they determine the decision of the Cmn2ission is not correct
or desire to review this decision.
Mr. Williams explained that the silo is loaded via bulk truck (the lime is actually
pumped into the silo).
Mrs. Diehl asked if the silo could be located elsewhere on the site.
Mr. Williams explained that the silo is located adjacent to the fluoride
storage tank. He noted that it is possible that this could be located elsewhere
on the site but noted that future expansion should be taken into consideration.
Mr. Bowerman noted that additional information has been requested, ie. additional
cost, different style of silo (wider/shorter) alternate location.
Mr. Williams stated that this information could be presented to the Commmlission
within the next two weeks.
Mrs. Diehl moved that the Ccmmmission find the request for the expansion of the
South Rivanna Water Treatment Plan in compliance, with the Albemarle County
Ccuprehensive Plan.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Silo Structure:
Mr. Cogan moved for a two week deferral of the request by Rivanna Water & Sewer
Authority to locate a 45 foot lime storage silo a distance of 23 feet from the
southern property line at the South Rivanna Water Treatment Plan.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
(NOTE THIS WTT,T, BE RWIEWID ON SEER 4, 1984) .
Berkmar Car Wash Revised Site Plan - located on the north side of Berkmar Drive at
its intersection with U.S. Rt. 29 North. Proposal to locate a 10 bay car wash and
a one story building on 1,936 square feet with two drive through bays for automotive
services. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Tax Map 61U, Parcels 1 and 2.
r • i • NOW03040
Ms. McCulley presented the staff report.
$ 029s-
August 14, 1984 Page 8
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. Ball Edwards stated that he would answer any questions the Ccmrzission may
have.
With no cent from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter was before the
Commission.
of
Mr. Cogan stated that he felt the amount/parking shown on the site plan is adequate.
Mr. Bowerman stated his concern regarding traffic circulation on site.
Mr. Edwards pointed out that stacking is provided in front of the building (shown on the
site plan) noting that this is where people would be waiting in their cars. He stated
that this "stacking" is not included in the number of parking spaces provided.
He noted that the parking spaces are provided for in accordance with the Zoning
Ordinance.
Mr. Skove noted his concern regarding cars stacking onto Rt. 29.
Mr. Edwards explained that there will be ten bays available for washing of cars and
stated that they do not expect stacking of cars.
Mr. Edwards explained that the vacuum is located on the up -hill side of the site, this
is to allow for ease in cleaning and also provides better traffic circulation.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that oil/grease removed from cars will be stored in an oil
tank, also fresh oil will be stored on site.
Mr. Edwards explained that the oil separator, shown on.the plan, deals strictly with
oil coming off the cars in the. car trash area. He noted that the discharge goes
into the sanitary sewer system.
Mrs. Diehl noted that the applicant intends to contribute to a regional storn►water
detention basin, but questioned how stormwater would be handled until this basin
is built.
Mr. Elrod noted that the Board of Supervisors is scheduled to review the Capital
Improvements. Budget on August 23, it this is approved vie -can proceed -with the necessary
steps for acquiring land, and hopefully construction of the basisn will begin next -
spring.
Mrs. Diehl reiterated her concern that the adjacent properties have protection from
any drainage fray this lot up until the time the regional stormwater detention basin
is in place.
Mr. Elrod stated that the storm sewer system shown on this site plan ties into the
existing storm sewer system. He also noted that analysis indicate that the main
clog in the drainage system (at this location) is the pipes located on the Wayside
Press property, pipes under Shopper's World and. Berk:nar Drive (to the south) are
adequate.
M,
August 14, 1984
Page 9
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the applicant plans to start construction as soon as
possible.
Mr. Elrod stated that once.the Board of Supervisors approves the regional detention
basin he plans to start construction next spring and hopefully this will be completed
by the end of the summer.
Mr. Elrod explained that drainage from this lot will not flow directly into the detention
basin, pointing out that the detention basin will be located behind Wayside Press.
Mr. Bowerman explained that the volume of water going over Berkmar Drive/Wayside Press
would be reduced and the amount of water discharged from the detention basin plus
runoff from Berkmar and Wayside Press property could be accdated by the existing pipes.
Mr. Elrod explained that their computations took into account not only the drainage
area above Wayside Press but all the drainage area down to where the stream goes under
Rt. 29.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that development of this site, size of pipes, etc. was included
in the County Engineer's eemputations for the competency of the pipes.
Mr. Cogan suggested the following wording for condition l.a.:
l.a. County Engineer approval of drainage and grading plans and ccoputations and
stormwater detention.
Mrs. Diehl pointed out that this site does not have an area for a detention basin.
Mr. Cogan stated that if an of site detention basin cannot be provided, then the site
plan will have to be revised.
Mr. Bowerman asked how much additional runoff could be expected from this site
after development.
Mr. Elrod stated that he did not anticipate any problems with the additional runoff
from this site, reiterating that the regional detention pond hopefully will be in
operation by the end of the summer.
Mr. Cogan suggested that signs stating "No stopping or standing" be placed at the
intersection of Berkmar Drive and Rt. 29.
Mr. Wilkerson moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been
met by the applicant:
a. County Engineer approval of drainage and grading plans and computations and
stormwater detention;
b. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
c. County Engineer approval of finished floor elevations to insure bay pits are
above one hundred. (100) year flood level;
ita�Ier
August 14, 1984
Page 10
d. County Engineer acceptance of developer contribution to regional stormwater
detention basin costs;
e. virginia Department of highways & Transportation approval of commercial
entrances and frontage improvements on Berkmar Drive;
f. Compliance with the requirene is of the industrial waste ordinance;
g. Recordation of a plat combining parcels 1 and 2 into one parcel;
h. Issuance of oil tank permit;
i. Fire Official approval of hydrant location; oil tanks and vent location,
dumpster location and screening,
j. Planning staff approval of parking spaces as required by the Zoning
Administrator;
k. Planning staff approval of one-way directional signs as deemed appropriate.
2. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the following conditions
must be met by the applicant:
a. Fire Official approval of fireflow;
b. Staff approval of landscape plan to include Albemarle County Service Authority.
approval of any plantings located within water and sewer easements.
Mr.,Cogan seconded the above noted motion.
IDMOM-6.11M* ►w
Mr. Gosld ascertained that the applicant would be required to provide for stormwater
detention on site if the regional detention basin is not approved by the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that once the Board of Supervisors adopted as ants to
the Comprehensive Plan various stormwater management measures he no longer required
on site design, as he assumed that the County intended to put these measures in place.
Mr. Elrod explained that once it was established what amount of contribution could
be expected from each developer he no longer required on site designs. He noted
that he felt he had guidance from the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission
that the regional detention basin would be built.
Mr. Cogan stated that he did not feel amending condition l.a. (to read as noted above)
would preclude. -die applicant from obtaining a building permit.
Resolution - Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Cogan, that staff be directed
to request that the Highway Department install "No stopping or Standing"
signs from the location of the Berkmar Car Wash ingress, close to Rt. 29,
to prevent cars from legally backing up onto that stretch of highway.
The motion passed unanimously.
0271
August 14, 1984
Page 11
WORK SESSION
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation Sidewalk Policy - Staff analysis
and recommendation regarding Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
sidewalk policy. Mr. Keeler led the discussion.
He concluded the staff report by stating that in regard to the Highway
Department's policy, staff was recommending: (1) No change to the Ordinance
at this time; (2) Continue to review development on a case -by -case basis
with some communication between the Commission and School Board as to whether
a mandatory walk -to -school distance is desirable and, if so, how should it
be effectuated; and (3) In the development of a sidewalk plan staff would
need to work closely with the Highway Department, the Education Department
and the Department of Parks and Recreation..
Mr. Keeler stressed that if there are to be sidewalks in the County where
the Commission deems appropriate, the County will have to come up with
some means for maintenance, e.g. a public works department or a homeowner's
association.
Mr. Bowerman stated he would like to see them constructed wherever possible
with some mechanism to maintain them.
It was the consensus of the Commissionthat sidewalks were a "very desirable
amenity."
Mr. Keeler stated he felt the Commission should deal directly with the School
Board regarding issues of policy and staff would then work with the Parks
Department and the Education Department to determine locations.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler to draft a letter to the School Board which
would outline the proposed scope of such a study and suggest that 2 members
of the School Board meet with 2 members of the Commission on this issue.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Roosevelt if the Highway Department would continue to
accept those sidewalks which had been required with previous approvals.
Mr. Roosevelt responded that the Highway Department would not accept
sidewalks in subdivisions which were approved after June 22, 1981.
In response to Ms. Cooke's question, Mr. -Roosevelt confirmed that the
Highway Department would not accept a road for maintenance unless there
was some provision for the maintenance of the sidewalk.
Mr. Keeler confirmed he would draft a letter to the School Board and submit
it to the Commission for approval before sending it.
Streamlining Process - Discussion of administrative approval; twice -a -month
submittal; modified Site Review Committee process.
Mr. Keeler led the discussion.
Af �
August 14, 1984 Page 12
Seven measures were proposed, and discussed, as strategies to permit the
Commission more time to deal with an increasing number of issues of
community interest. The measures could be pursued individually or in
combinations. The staff is seeking guidance from the Commission as to which,
if any, of these measures could be pursued. Those measures proposed
were: Limited administrative approval;. Increased exemption from review;
Reduced number of special use permits; Zoning/subdivision amendments;
Twice --monthly submittal schedule; Revised site review committee/administrative
procedure; and Consent agenda.
The Chairman allowed public comment.
The following persons addressed the Commission:
Ms. Shirley Munsen, representing the League of Women Voters - She read
a statement which indicated her organization was in favor of improving the
process, but there were concerns about an "administrative approval" process
because it would exclude public input.
Mr. John Greene, representing the Homebuilderd' Association - He stated
he could endorse an administrative approval process provided there was
continued public input.
INIs. Darlene Sansell - She felt developers should not be allowed to turn in
incomplete plans.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, representing the Highway Department - He stated his
department felt there were two problems with staff's proposal: (1) Local
office of the department can't respond to consultants' plans without discussing
these plans with the Culpeperoffice; and (2) Direct contact between the
consultant and the Site Review Committee members takes the Planning.
Department out of the process. He felt there should be some central
organization in the County whose job it is to keep track of what is being
required of the developer.
Ms. Joan Graves - She objected to being limited to a three -minute
presentation. (The Chairman allowed Ms. Graves to read her presentation.)
She was concerned about public comment being omitted. She distributed
copies of her remarks to the Commission.
Mr. Patterson, representing the Citizens for Albemarle -- He stated
he agreed with Ms. Graves comments.
Colonel Washington - He was strongly in favor of public participation,
though he stated he was more concerned about public being omitted from the
subdivision process than from the site plan process.
Mr. Don Wagner, representing the Blue Ridge Homebuilders' Association
He urged the Commission to consider all the measures proposed by staff.
There being no further public comment, the public hearing was closed.
Mr. Skove felt the real purpose of the Commission, primarily, is to review
subdivisions and "to check up on staff," and to listen to the public.
Ms. Diehl felt one of the major roles of the Commission was to be a reflection
of public interest. She did not want to "lessen our capacity to listen to
the public." She stated she was not ready to consider limited administrative
approval at this time but she did feel that the suggested zoning and
subdivision amendments would be an improvement.
August 14, 1984 Page 13
Responding to some of Ms. Diehl"s questions, Mr. Keeler stated he.felt the
three key members of the Site Review Committee were the Highway Department,
the County Engineer and the Planning Staff. Referring to some of Mr.
Roosevelt's comments, Mr. Keeler stated he felt it should be possible ,
in many cases, for the Highway Department to provide some "initial"
information without having to wait for response from the Culpeper office.
However, he stated if Mr. Roosevelt would not feel comfortable meeting
with an applicant until after Culpeper's review, then this proposal would
not work.
Mr. Bowerman stated he agreed with Ms. Diehl. He felt there should
definitely be a penalty for a third submittal.
Mr. Keeler stated Site Review Committee members would have to clearly
distinguish between their requirements and their recommendations.
He stressed, "I don't think that we (staff) have the right, under any
circumstance, to stop a submittal administratively." He also stated that
the Site Review Committee could not require a developer to do anything
beyond Ordinance requirements.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt the problems with the streamlining process were
caused by trying to combine two issues into one: (1) Technical issues
that staff and Site Review Committee face; and (2) "What is the Planning
Commission going to do about what they are going to review and what they
are not going to review." He stated he would not be in favor of any
process which would exclude public participation. He stated he would like
for staff to work with the developers and Site Review members to improve
the time schedule and come up with something that would eliminate these
""social ghost plans" and.all the site plan revisions. Mr. Cogan stated
he was in favor of a twice -a -month submittal process.
Mr. Gould stated he did not think it would be appropriate for staff to move
forward on all of the'strategies. He felt they should be prioritized with
the first priority being to revise the schedule and then to address
zoning and subdivision amendments. He felt the Site Review Committee
does have a chance to reject a plan and say "we're not going to take it
any further."
Mr. Keeler recommended against instituting penalties. He suggested that
the process be tried on a trial basis and if it didn't work, we "go back
to what we have now."
It was determined to be the consensus of the Commission that staff
proceed as suggested by Mr. Gould.
Ms. Diehl asked if it might be possible for the Zoning Administrator
to be included in the Site Review process, or would that involve an amendment
to the ordinance.
Mr. Keeler felt the Zoning -Administrator should review the plan for
consistence with the Zoning Ordinance, but he was not sure he should be
a voting member of the Site Review Committee.
JID/
August 14, 1984
Page 14
The Chairman called for a motion to adjourn to executive session to discuss
potential litigation in relation to Briarwood.
Ms. Diehl moved, seconded by Mr. Cogan, that the meeting adjourn to executive
session. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting adjourned to executive
session at 11:00 p.m.
Recorded by: Janice Wills
Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms, July, 1988
3bA