Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 30 84 PC MinutesOctober 30, 1984 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, October 30, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Build- ing, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; and Mr. Tim Michel. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Joan Davenport, Senior Planner; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Planner; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Ms. Norma Diehl, Commissioner and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the October 16, 1984 meeting were approved as written. ZTA-84-04 Bonus Provisions - Amend the Zoning Ordinance to delete density bonus factors; amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for increased residential density for dedication of land to public use. Deferred from October 9, 1984. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. In addition, he stated that as bonuses are provided in the Ordinance, they are automatic, i.e. if the bonus provisions are satisfied, the Planning Commission has no discretion in the application of the bonus provision. He said staff is trying to develop an acceptable way for the Commission to apply the bonuses. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Suzanne Grove, a local building contractor, addressed the Commission. She stated she was speaking on behalf of small builders. Ms. Grove felt a repeal of the bonus factors would result in a higher cost of single-family dwellings. She urged the Commission to give the issue careful consideration. Mr. Bowerman stated it was his -hope the public would make their comments at this meeting and not hold them back until the meeting of November 20.. Ms. Joan Graves, representing the League of Women Voters of Charlottesville and Albemarle County, addressed the Commission. Ms. Graves read a statement from her organization (a copy of which was distributed to the Commissioners), which stated the belief that "some changes are necessary in order to fulfill expectations that the application of bonus factors would result in higher grade development as well as some low cost housing." The statement listed those provisions which the League felt should be given particular attention. She stated further that "not every piece of property should automatically qualify 97 October 30, 1984 Page 2 for bonus density,"and a ".tightening of the bonus factor provisions would ensure that they are earned." The League also felt the "bonuses for low cost housing should be retained." Mr. Blake Hurt, President of Republic Homes, addressed the Commission. He stated his opposition to the proposal to delete the density bonus factors for the following reasons: (1) It was a compromise point made when the Comprehensive Planwasaccepted and the County should not renege on that agreement; (2) ,The purposes of the provisions are good; and (3). Adds to a regrettable trend to complicate the permit process. Mr. Bowerman invited Mr. Hurt to submit specific written recommendations to staff, within a week or ten days, regarding. those areas he would like to see incorporated in the provisions. Mr. Don Wagner, representing Greater Eastern Management Corpora- tion, addressed the Commission, and indicated his opposition to changing the bonus factors. He stated his willingness to meet with staff and other interestedparties in an effort to develop alternatives to this proposal to delete the density bonus factors. Mr. Wagner felt this was preferable to.writing letters. In response to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, Mr. Wagner stated Mr. John Green served as a sort of liaison between his organization and the County. Ms. Peggy Van Yahres., representing Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the Commission. She stated her agreement with Mr. Wagner's suggestion that interested groups get together to discuss this matter, adding her organization was willing to participate in such meetings. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated he would have no objection to designating a member of the Commission to work with staff and members of the community on this issue. Mr. Cogan stated he was in favor of getting input from all -in- terested parties. Regarding notification procedures, he stated certain legal guidelines were followed and he questioned going beyond those guidelines to give certain groups special notifica- tion since this might be interpreted as favoritism. He suggested the public should be made aware of the notification process so that those interested would then.know what to look for. Regarding the City vs. the County methods for handling similar matters, Mr. Cogan stated the County was in a much different different situation for several reasons, including: (1) The County is growing at a much faster rate; (2) The County has much more land to be developed; and (3) The County has many more road problems. Mr. Cogan added that while he was originally in favor of rescinding the bonus factors, he was now leaning more toward finding a better way of implementing them, in view of the public comment that has been received. is October 30, 1984 Page 3 Mr. Michel indicated his agreement with Mr. Cogan and stated the Commission needed a better understanding of how to apply the bonus factors. Mr. Wilkerson indicated his agreement with Mr. Cogan and Mr. Michel. Regarding notification, Mr. Bowerman again pointed out that any interested group who wished to receive special notification need only to furnish the Planning Office with stamped, self-addressed envelopes. He added the monthly agenda is printed a month in advance in the Observer and that special use permits and re -zonings are advertised and adjacent property owners are notified. He stated he had suggested a liaison in order to put the burden on the interested groups to communicate with the Planning Office. He asked for the Commission's feelings regarding getting everyone together (staff, public, commissioners) to gather ideas for staff to work with. Mr. Skove stated he felt this was a staff function since he did not feel comfortable with the idea that one commissioner would represent the ideas of the entire Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt it would be a good idea for the Com- mission to be represented in the discussions, if only so the Commission would have first-hand knowledge of what took place. Mr. Michel asked if staff would like to have more time to get their thoughts together before such a joint meeting would take place. Mr. Cogan indicated following such a process in this case might set a precedent for future issues and he felt this would detract from the standard format of the Commission. Mr. Cogan felt the Commission should convey its feelings to staff as to how this matter.should be dealt with and, at the same time, staff could get together with private interest groups and then work with putting all the recommendations together and then report back to the Commission. r Mr. Gould stated his feeling that the Commission should be removed from any meeting with public interest groups, indicating this should be left up to the staff who would then present the recom- mendations to the Commission. Mr. Skove moved that consideration of deleting the Density Bonus Factors from the Zoning Ordinance be deferred indefinitely. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Fall Fields Preliminary Plat - Located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of Route 20 on the east side of Route 649 and adjacent to the west bank of the North Fork of the Rivanna River. Proposal to locate 8 five -acre lots on a 110.4 acre parcel, leaving 70.4 acres residue. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, granted special use permit SP-84-38. Tax Map 47, Parcel 8. Rivanna Magisterial District. w October 30, 1984 Page 4 Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. Mr. Bowermanasked for applicant comment. Mr. Kirk Hughes, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the applicant had no objections to staff recommendations a, c, d or e. Regarding County Engineer's recommendation c (County Engineer approval of Volans and computa- tions for a 12 foot wide gravel driveway with four foot shoulders to serve lot 8 from the cut -de -sac.), he stated it should be the burden of the person who purchases lot 8 to take care of the driveway (as it will be for the other lots). Regarding County Engineer's.recommendation for public roads, he indicated the applicant felt the Commission had already approved private roads. Mr. Hughes stated the applicant was agreeable to working out revisions of alignment with the County Engineer for a private road -Regarding the applicant's proposal to prime and double seal parts of the road.where the slope exceeds 7% and gravel all other sections, Mr. Hughes stated the applicant has maintained this road in good order (as a gravel road) for 25 years. He stated making the road prime and double seal would create run --off problems, require higher maintenance costs, and invite public usage. He stated the maintenance agreement would serve both the farm and the subdivision and would provide the necessary funding to provide for a contractor to-do routine maintenance. He again stated it was the applicant's intention to prime and double seal the steep sections of the road, but not the entire road. There being no public comment, the Tatter was placed before the Commission. In reply to Mr. Michel's question as to why the County Engineer had said that allowing lot'8 to be served by an easement and requiring that the driveway be designed the same as the road would seta precedent, Mr. Elrod stated the road was.not being extended to the front of the lot, and it.would be just as easy to.bring the cul-de-sac all the way back. He explained that lot 8 is not connected to the private road, but is connected by an easement to a private road, not a public road, and the Ordinance does not provide for this. He stated the Ordinance says each lot in a subdivision must be given frontage on the road, public or private. Mr. Elrod stated he was recommending a re- alignment of the road because of the steep grade (approximately 20%) of the applicant's proposal. He felt it would be difficult for driveways to be built in alignment with the applicant's proposal since there was about a 35 foot vertical drop along much of the easement. Mr. Elrod stated that even if the cul-de-sac were extended.to the intersection of lots 7 and 8, he still would. feel the road should be realigned, paticularly since it would be easy to change the alignment to achieve a much better situation. Mr. Elrod pointed out the applicant's proposed alignment would be acceptable if there were no alternatives. October 30, 1984 Page 5 Mr. Keeler stated that if the Commission agreed with Mr. Elrod's recommendations, the plat would have to be re -worked. He pointed out the Commission was being asked not only to approve a private road but also to waive a lot of requirements for a private road. He said the Subdivision Ordinance explicitly tried to prevent this when the private road provisions were reworked. He further stated that even though Mr. Payne might advise the Commission that it could waive anything in the Ordinance it desires, he felt language had been included in the Ordinance which forbids this. Quoting from Section 18-36a of the Subdivision Ordinance, Mr. Keeler read: Private roads are intended to be permitted as the exception to construction and dedication of public roads in the subdivision approval process. Granting of private road usage shall be discretionary by the commission and shall be based on the circumstances and requirements contained herein. ...Except as otherwise expressly provided herein and per- mitted in accordance with procedures of section 18-36h, no waiver, modification or variation of standards, and no exceptions to the application of these regulations shall be permitted. Mr. Keeler stated the "necking down" of the road and the waiver of the paving requirements are not specified as sections of the Ordinance that can be waived. He added if the Commission starts to waive anything it desires, they would be back to where they were a year ago. Mr. Michel stated he felt the Commission had approved a private road in this paticular case some time ago. Mr. Bowerman stated the issue was not whether to allow a private road, but rather whether or not to waive certain requirements for a private road. Mr. 5kove said he could not recall any specific discussions on this issue which dealt with waiving the requirements. Mr. Cogan said that somewhere along the process, when the special use permit had been granted, it had been implied that a private road could be allowed if the lot sizes were five acres or more. He did'not think the Commission had ever actually said a private road was approved.. Mr. Skove indicated he could not support a private road since he did not feel circumstances in this case warranted a private road, and since the County Engineer had said a public road would not be much more costly. Mr. Cogan indicated he would have no problem with a private road, though he indicated he was in favor of it being primed and double sealed, but, as a result of the County Engineer's statements, he was concerned about the alignment of the road. He also stated he was not in favor of the driveway proposal for lot 8. /O/ October 30, 1984 Page 6 Mr. Bowerman suggested approving the proposal subject to the conditions of staff a through e (but not adding County Engineer's proposal c and d dealing with lot 8 as suggested by staff), adding a condition that the road be cul-de-saced to lot 8, applying the private road ordinance, and allowing the County Engineer to work out road alignment, and with staff approval of the final plat unless there is a major problem. Mr. Cogan said he agreed with this, but felt the matter would still need to be reviewed again.. Mr. Skove stated he was very reluctant to make an exception in this case and approve a private road. Mr. Michel stated he could.support a private road in this case, but he was concerned with the driveway for lot 8 and felt.that it should be re -worked. Mr. Payne pointed out that the Ordinance requires that the cul-de-sac be extended to lot 8. He also pointed out if the County Engineer was allowed to realign the road, the lot lines would be substantially different. He further stated the Ordinance does speak to good engineering practices and not allowing a situation that is not good engineering practice. Mr. Michel stated he felt the Commission should not place itself in the.position of dictating to landowners (referring to the proposed road re -alignment). Mr. Payne pointed out that since Mr. Elrod is the expert in these matters, his recommendations should be considered. Mr. Johnston, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the first design he had presented to the Commission had clearly stated private roads and the Commission had accepted that, as had the Board of Supervisors. He stated his proposal would have been very different if public roads had been. required. He emphasized his feeling that the subdivision absolutely requires privacy and a public road would be di- rectly opposed to this. Mr. Johnston further stated that Lot 8 was placed as it was because of his interpretation of a former staff recommendation, but he indicated he would be willing to change its position if necessary. Referring to the County Engineer proposed re -alignment of the road, he stated he felt his rec- ommendation was preferable since he was more familiar with the land, having lived on it for 30 years. Mr. Johnston concluded by saying he was prepared to compromise an anything reasonable that either Mr. Elrod or the Commission suggests. Y�x. Cogan stated his feeling that, if the present road alignment complies with the Ordinance and provided Mr. Elrod can oversee its construction to insure that it does adhere to good engineering practices, the Commission cannot force its desires for a particular design onto a developer. He indicated he could approve this proposal with the entire length of the road being prime and double Alz October 30, 1984 Page 7 sealed and the cul-de-sac being extended to the beginning of Lot 8. Mr. Cogan moved that the Fall Fields Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions and with staff approval of the final plat: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of sight easement and private street commercial entrance; b. County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and computations; C. County Engineer approval of provision for runoff control, if necessary; d. Issuance of an erosion control permit; e. County Attorney approval of private road main- tenance agreement and agreements for common access easements; f. Cul-de-sac to extend to beginning of Lot 8. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was approved with Messrs. Bowerman, Cogan, Wilkerson, Gould and Michel voting in favor, and Mr. Skove voting against. Carpenter Preliminary Plat - Located on the north side of Route 20 North, -0.1 mile east of its intersection with Route 600 in Stony Ppint. Proposal to divide 11.8 acres into 2 lots of 7.8 and 4 acres. Request for relief from 18-36(a) so the 4 acre lot can contain 2 dwelling units. Zoned VR, Village Residential. Tax Map 48, Parcel 14. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Carpenter, the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated he hoped the Commission would approve his proposal. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Could moved that the Carpenter Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions, and with a waiver of Sec. 18-36(a), and staff approval of the final plat: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of relocation of joint private entrance to assure adequate sight distance; 10-5 October 30, 1984 Page 8 b. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement; C. Note on plat: "The southernmost house must use the existing individual entrance, and not the joint entrance." Mr. Skove seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Chermont Vineyards - Request for a site plan waiver. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Mr. Payne stated this was'a clear cut case where staff believed no purpose would be served by requiring Commission approval of this plan. He further explained it was Mr. Keeler's belief that just because a farm winery is one of the specific agricultural uses in the supplementary regulations does not mean that a site plan approval is required. However, because'of some ambiguity in the Site Devel- opment Plan, Mr. Donnelly Bees that approval is required. Regarding the staff's recommendation to amend 32.0 Site Development Plan to remove the ambiguity, Mr. Payne explained that if the Commission agrees with Mr. Keeler, the Site Development Plan need not be amended. If the Commission disagrees with Mr. Keeler, but feels the Plan is correct as is, no change is needed. If the Commission disagrees with Mr. Keeler's interpretation of the Plan, but feels that the Plan should clearly reflect Mr. Keeler's interpretation, the said Plan should be amended according to Mr. Keeler's recommendation. Mr. Payne indicated he was inclined to agree with Mr. Keeler as to what was originally intended. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt this to be the intent of the Wayside Stand, i.e. it is.on a piece of property where the product is actually produced. In response to Mr. Michel's inquiry, Mr.. Keeler stated the Ordinance does not require Highway Department approval of the ingress and egress to such a site if it is strictly a winery with no retail sales. He added the Highway Department views this as an agricultural use which does not require the same type of permit as a commercial use. When retail sales are involved, then Highway Department approval of the entrance is required and said approval has been given in this case. It was determined that it was the consensus of the Commission that Mr. Keeler's interpretation of the Ordinance was correct, allowing administrative approval of the site plan, with no amendment to the Site Development Plan section of the Ordinance required. No action was required of the Commission. The meeting recessed at 9:05 p.m.; reconvened at 9:15 p.m. October 30, 1984 Page 9 WORK SESSION Interstate Interchange Study - A Metropolitan Planning organiza- tion (MPO) directed project consisting of review and recommen- dations for development impact and potential in the vicinity of the four urban interchanges of I--64: Shadwell - Route 250 East, Route 20, 5th Street (Route 631), and the Route 29/Bypass, cul- minating in policy and standard guidelines. Ms. Imhoff and Ms. Davenport gave the staff report. Ms. Imhoff stated staff was seeking Commission input at this time with the idea of possibly incorporating some of their ideas into the report and staff is also asking for recommendations for possible future transportation studies to be done next year. Ms. Davenport stated four urban interchanges on 164 that fall within the MPO study area would be dealt with at this time: (1) Rt. 250 Shadwell; (2) Rt. 20; (3) 5th Street (Rt. 631); and (4) Rt. 29 Bypass. She stated the MPO project design had addressed a traffic improvement plan for each of these interchanges. Ms. Davenport explained that since a large portion of the land in these areas is undeveloped, a new approach was called for. Thus a major portion of the report deals with the question as to why these areas have not developed. One main reason for this, Ms. Davenport continued, is because of the distance to public utilities. She stated it was very costly and complicated to extend water and sewer lines under 164 and the Water and Sewer Authority have advised it would be preferable to consider parallel lines to 164 and the location of such lines need to be given serious consideration. A second reason these areas have not been developed is related to the hodge-podge of zoning that exists. Ms. Davenport further explained that 164 is unique because it is the only true limited access highway in Albemarle County. She stated traditionally planning in relation to interstates centers around the unique quality of interchanges and the groups usually targeted are regional users (not local,everyday users). Planning also deals with industrial usage of interstates. She emphasized this was one main area on which the staff was seeking Commission input, i.e. whether or not regional uses around the interchanges should be sought or should they be left as they are. Ms. Davenport brought Part 3: Recommended Objectives of Study, Policies and Stand- ards, to the attention of the Commission and stated this was the main part of the report. She stated these guidelines would be used for any possible future amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. She added these standards would also be used in the review of site plans, subdivisions, special permits and zoning amendments. Ms. Imhoff pointed out the MPO is asking only for policy guidelines, not an actual drawing or designing of the interchanges. Mr. Bowerman asked what specific areas of input staff is seeking from the Commission. he asked staff to highlight those policy questions on which they are particularly interested in obtaining Commission comment. /da October 30, 1984 Page 10 Ms. Davenport recommended continuing with the report with the hope that what staff was requesting would be made.clear later on. Ms. Imhoff stated it was staff's desire for the Commission to review all the policy recommendations to insure they did not conflict with any Commission policies. Ms. Davenport pointed out that the policy recommendations assume that the Commission will recognize that the interchange areas are unique and some planning process will be involved with these areas distinguishing them from other roadways. Ms. Davenport continued with the presentation, reviewing the usage statistics of 164 as presented in the staff report. She also presented maps of each of the Four interchanges, explaining surrounding zoning,. etc. She again emphasized the need for feedback from the Commission regarding the staff's recommendation that no commercial development should occur in.these areas without public water and sewer. She pointed out that none of the inter- change areas was located .in a watershed impoundment area and she asked the Commission to be mindful of the Highway Department's and Service Authority's caution regarding extending utilities under I64. Ms. Davenport also stated the Service Authority does not do utility planning, but looks to the Board of Supervisors for making all policy recommendations. in response to Mr. Cogan's inquiry, Ms. Davenport stated the Highway Department did not want any commercial activity within 1,000 feet of the entrance and exit ramps, measuring not from the center of the interchange, but from the farthest point of the access ramp. Ms. Davenport concluded her presentation by stating three main areas on which the staff is seeking -guidance from the Commission: (1) Utility Planning - Is a study of utility planning in the southern urban area desirable? (2) Ordinance Amendments - Overlay Zone as a possible way to specify and limit the types of land uses that would be located in the interchange areas or those areas that the Commissiondetermines should develop in a regional rather than a local nature. (3) Comprehensive Plan Amendments - Should the policy guidelines as presented in the staff report.be adopted into the Comprehensive Plan, and should tourism be promoted? In response to Mr. Bowerman's statement that only 10 or 15 acres actually seemed to be available for development in relation to these interchanges, Mr. Davenport stated if the Commission determines public water and sewer is not a requirement for this type of development, then a lot of other land will be opened up. She added if the Commission determines this type of development should only exist if public water and sewer is available, then she agreed the area is limited. It was determined the recommended policies and standards of the report were developed by staff through research and study. It was again emphasized that staff was particularly interested in Commission input on Part 3 of the report, Recomended Objectives of Study, Policies and Standards. /a6 October 30, 1984 Page 11 Mr. Cogan stated a factor to be kept in mind when considering these interchanges is the under -utilization of I-64. Regarding Ms. Davenport's reference to an over -lay zone limiting development, Mr. Payne stated he felt this was intended to mean macro -scale development was desirable in these areas, designed to deal with the major highway. Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan says interchange development is to be directed at regional and state traffic. Mr. Bowerman determined staff was seeking input from the Commission on the three areas previously outlined and particularly Part 3, Recommended Goals and Policies. Ms. Davenport stated if the staff received no comment from the Commission, the report would be presented to the MPO with staff revisions. The final report is scheduled to go to the MPO at the end of November. Criteria for Review of Rezoniri •Petitions - Staff presentation of information booklet for the public. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He stated he was somewhat re- luctant to distribute such a booklet to the public since it is an attempt to paraphrase the Ordinance and could possibly lead to confusion. He added that it was helpful, particularly to new staff members, since it outlines those sections of the Ordinance that are utilized in the review of a rezoning. Staff proposal to include a minimum lot size in the R-4, R-6, R-10, R-15 Residential Districts; to amend the definition of "cluster development" and to amend Section 2.2.3 Minimum Open Space Required. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He stated this issue has come up several times in the past, the fact that there is no specified minimum lot size in the higher density residential districts. This proposal would amend those districts to include a minimum lot size for conventional development, and would also dress up some of the language related to open space and cluster development. Mr. Payne further explained the proposal would mean for conventional development a minimum lot size would be required which would be the inverse of the density, and also that cluster development would be required to have common open space. Mr. Skove moved that a Resolution of intent be adopted to amend the Zoning Ordinance as follows: 1. Add minimum lot size requirements for conventional developments to the AREA AND BULK REGULATIONS tables of the R-4, R-6, R-10 and R-15 Residential Destricts. /0 7 October 30, 1984 Page 12 (2) Amend the definition of "cluster development" as follows: Cluster Development: An arrangement of structures on adjoining lots in groupings allowing closer spacing than would be generally permitted under ordinance requirements for lot widths or area with the decrease in lot width or area compensated by maintenance or equivalent even-space-etl�e�-e�se*oahee-err-tke-het-ems- tke-Eerm-ef common open space. (3) Amend 2.2.3 as follows: 2.2.3 MINIMUM OPEC? SPACE REQUIRED Except as otherwise provided in the PRD and PUD districts, a minimum of twenty-five (2.5) percent of the total land area of the cluster development shall be in common open space, subject to Section 4.7, regulations governing open space. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Also related to this issue,.Mr. Keeler stated the Commission had been faced.in the past with the question of allowing development in R-4 districts, on small pieces of land, that was not consistent with the existing development. He said this was paticular only to the R-4 district. He indicated staff is currently considering several ways of dealing with this situation and would bring the matter back to the Commission at a future date. Draft letter for Planning Commission review regarding Piedmont Corridor Proposal. Following Planning Commission direction, Ms. Imhoff stated she had drafted a letter to Mr. Harold King, Commissioner, State Department of Highways & Transportation, concerning the Piedmont Corridor Proposal. She stated she had also attached the Resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors regarding this proposal. Ms. Imhoff also presented a copy of a letter written to Mr. Bowerman by Ms. Louise Putnam -Stoner, a citizen, which also raised several questions regarding this proposal. She asked if the Commission wished for the questions in the citizen's letter to be incor- porated in the Planning Commission's letter. It was again pointed out that the Planning Commission has more authority in this matter than the Board of Supervisors. It was agreed staff would incorporate the citizen's questions in the Planning Commission letter and said letter would be mailed under Mr. Bowerman's signature. /n6 October 30, 1984 Page 13 NEW BUSINESS Mr. Bowerman reminded the Commission of the joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors scheduled for Wednesday, November 7, 3:30 p.m. He stated Mr. Lindstrom was proposing a review of the entire procedure for reviewing site plans, subdivisions, rezonings and special permits, and this issue would be discussed at the meeting. Mr. Cogan suggested the Board might also wish to be updated on the Mobile Home Study and Bonus Provisions. It was again emphasized priorities needed to be established and it was pointed out part ofthe problems revolved around the reluctance to allow staff to handle some matters administratively since this could result in exclusion of public comment. Mr. Bowerman stated he would like for the Commission to develop a consensus as to what its goals are. Mr. Michel mentioned his interest in Scenic Roads and Rivers, and Mr. Payne suggested he get together with Mr. Donnelly since he was interested in this issue also. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. DS low jl'- James R. Donnell Secretary /a9 I