HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 27 84 PC MinutesNovember 27, 1984
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on Tuesday, November 27, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office
Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were:
Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman;
Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel and Ms. Norma Diehl. Other
officials present were: Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning
and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning;
Ms. Amelia McCulley, Planner; Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; Mr.
Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke,
Ex-Officio. Absent: Mr. Harry Wilkerson and Mr. James Skove.
Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after
establishing that a quorum was present.
The minutes of the November 13, 1984 meeting were approved as
written.
ZTA-84-4 Emmaus with Child - Request to amend the Zoning Ordinance
to read as follows: Amend RA., Rural Areas District to permit
a single family dwelling occupied by one (1) adult and his/her
family and not more than ten (10) adult women unrelated to the
adult under the supervision of that adult. All such women shall
come to the home of their own volition. For purposes of this
section, the term "family" shall include the spouse and children
of such supervising adult.
The Chairman stated the applicant had requested indefinite
deferral of this item.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZTA-84-4 be indefinitely deferred. Mr. Michel
seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
ZTA-84-5 HenryJavor - Request to amend the Zoning Ordinance to
read as follows: Prohibit rental or leasing of trucks, vans, or
trailers from service stations consisting of less than 30,000
square feet. Such operation allowed only at free standing service
station, not adjacent to any other operating business establish-
ments.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report.
In reply to Mr. Bowerman's question as to why an amendment change
would have no effect on this existing use, Mr. Keeler confirmed
this was because it is already existing and the site plan had
been approved prior to the adoption of the Site Plan Ordinance.
He added that no amendments are retroactive.
In answer to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, Mr. Keeler stated he did
not think there was a minimum size requirement in the Highway
Commercial Zone, but there is a minimum frontage of 150' and
the frontage cannot exceed the depth.
/a 8
November 27, 1984 Page 2
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Henry Javor, the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He stated he was seeking relief from the excessive storage of
the U--Haul trucks and vans that are being stored at the Texaco
Service Station at the Woodbrook Shopping Center. He stated
he owns the service station in question, but he leases it to
Texaco, and the current operator does what he pleases at the
station. He submitted photographs of the station to the Commission.
Mr.Javor referred to the recently passed City ordinance prohibiting
the storage of these vehicles, thus the county had inherited
them.
Mr. Bowerman explained to the applicant that any action taken
by the Commission at this time would have no effect on this
existing operation. He suggested that Mr. Javor might have a
remedy through the Zoning Administrator's Office, if an
ordinance is being violated. He pointed out Mr. Javor does have
an ultimate solution since he owns the land. Mr. Bowerman em-
phasized the only matter before the Commission at this time is
the exact motion to amend the Zoning Ordinance as stated in the
staff report.
In answer to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Javor stated the situation
had been in existence for about three years, since the current
operator took over. He added that. not only does the presence of
the vehicles make the area unsightly, they also create a hazard.
Ms. Cooke asked by what authority are the trucks allowed to be
parked in'the empty lot across the street.
Mr. Javor replied he had been in touch with the owner of said lot
and had been informed no permission had been granted for this
usage. He said the trucks are moved from time to time, but they
always return.
Mr. Michel mentioned the fact that service stations seem to
be expanding to include many different uses.
Mr. Keeler stated that in some cases some control is available
through the physical requirements of the Site Plan Ordinance.
He gave as an example parking space requirements. However, he
felt the Zoning Administrator could only pursue this if a site
plan were approved after the Site Plan Ordinance was adopted.
Mr. Cogan pointed out there.are differences involved when dealing
with a free-standing service station and one that is located
within the confines of a shopping center, such as traffic patterns.
Mr. Cogan asked if the storage of the .rental trucks and vans was
a permitted use within the shopping center.
Mr. Keeler stated the area was zoned either Highway Commercial
or Shopping Center Commercial (PDSC, Planned Development Shopping
Center).
al
November 27, 1984 Page 3
Mr. Javor stated he had submitted a site plan for the shopping
center in 1976. He explained that even though the development was
already in existence when he purchased it, he was told a site
plan had never been approved, so he had to go through the process
of approval.
Mr. Keeler stated the site plan had been submitted even later
than 1976, but it had not included the Texaco station.
Mr..Javor disagreed and stated he believed the site plan had
included the station.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Cooke asked if there was a limit as to how many parking spaces
the service station was allowed to occupy within the shopping
center parking lot. She also asked how many businesses exist
in the shopping center, excluding the service station and the
7--Eleven Store. She stated that she felt these vehicles seemed
to be using more than their share of the parking spaces.
Mr. Gould said he felt the U-Hauls probably occupy all the parking
spaces alloted to the service station and they do impede traffic
flow.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, Mr. Javor stated the
lease on the station runs for another ten years. He added he
had been in touch with Texaco, but there is little they can do
since no law is actually being broken.
Mr. Bowerman stated the following: (1) The activities of the
service station should be confined only to that portion of the
property which it is leasing and it should not be allowed to
spill over beyond those lines. He suggested that Mr. Javor, as
owner of the property, define what the activities of the service
station should be and require that the station keep within those
activites. (2) As a university town, this situation will
continue to occur, and it might be desirable to review some of
the ordinances to see if it might be possible to provide some sort
of facility, outside the city, where these vehicles could be
stored.
Mr. Cogan stated the City has had an ordinance against the
vehicles, but it had not been enforced until very recently.
Thus, all the vehicles had been moved to the County. He
suggested that the matter be referred to the Zoning Administrator
to see if he might be able to arrive at a remedy. Mr. Cogan
felt if the ordinances were looked at carefully, it might be
possible to identify some violation that the station is performing.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if it were possible to change the
ordinance in such a way as to limit the amount of use of a
property for a particular use that is not "grandfathered",
i.e. amount of space available and what can be put there,
after the fact.
/& Z)
November 27, 1984
Page 4.
Mr. Payne replied that this was probably not possible since.
it would be difficult to design such -a restriction and even
more difficult to enforce it.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Zoning Administrator, under the
broad guidelines of public health, safety and welfare, could view
an existing situation as being unsafe and thus restrict use.
Mr. Payne replied affirmatively that this was possible, though
he emphasized that the Zoning Administrator would be faced with
a very substantial burden of proof. He said this has happened
very rarely since it is extremely difficult to prove.
It was determined no representative of the Zoning Administrator's
Office was present at the meeting.
Mr. Bowerman stated his agreement with Mr. Cogan's earlier.
suggestion that a memo be sent to Zoning relating the concerns
of the Commission in this and similar situations, and asking if
there is any remedy under the existing ordinances.
Mr. Bowerman restated the issue currently before the Commission,
i.e. ZTA--84-5.
Mr. Cogan, stating such an amendment would not solve Mr. Javor's
current problem, moved that ZTA-84-5 be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Georgia Leake Final Plat - Located on the south side of Route 631,
south of I-64 and -600 feet east of the intersection with Route 780.
Proposal to subdivide 4.94 acres into two (2) parcels, one 1.948
and the other 1.386 acres. The 1.948 acre parcel is served by a
30 foot easement. Zoned R-2, Residential. Tax Map 76, Parcel 53A.
Scottsville Magisterial District.
Ms. Joseph gave the staff report.
The applicant was present but indicated she had no comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission,.
in response to • Mr. Michel's question as to why this was
not a shared driveway as opposed to a private road, Mr. Payne
stated that a private road is a shared driveway.
Ms. Leake, the applicant, stated the land was not to be sold,
and the division was being made in order to secure better financing.
/.Y/
November 27, 1984
Page 5
Mr. Gould moved that the Goergia Leake Final Plat be approved sub-
ject to the following conditions:
a. Planning staff approval of technical items:
1. Change note on zoning from R-1 to R-2.
2. Note that public sewer and water is not available.
3. Note magisterial dsitrict.
4. Add note that "Lot A shall use private road as
sole means of access."
b. Highway Department approval of closing existing entrance
and approval of private road entrance.
C. County Attorney approval of private road maintenance
agreement.
d. County Engineer approval of private road.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Ednam Section D of Final Plat - Located west of the 29/250 Bypass on
south side of Route 250. Proposal to locate 12 residential du--
plex.lots with an average size of 7,492 square feet on a 3.7177
acre parcel leaving a 16.53 acre residue. Zoned PRD, Planned
Residential Development. Tax Map 59D(2), Parcel 06--1_
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Ms. McCulley gave the staff report.
The applicant was represented but offered no comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Ednam Section D of Final Plat be.approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
b. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans;
c. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final
sewer plans;
d. County Attorney approval of homeowner's documents
to include maintenance agreements for joint driveways
and for Worthington Drive;
e. Fire Official final approval of fireflow;
f. County Engineer and Planning staff approval of
building setback lines to assure adequate sight distance.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
ZU,
November 27, 1984 Page.6
Hydraulic Road Apartments Parking Addition - Located on the
eastern side of Rt. 743 (Hydraulic Road), at the intersection.
of Rt. 656 (Georgetown Road). Proposal to add 29 additional
parking spaces serving Hydraulic Road.Apartments, covering
0.330 acres. Zoned R-2, Tax Map 61, Parcel 39B. Charlottesville
Magisterial District.
Ms. McCulley gave the staff report.
Mr..Bowerman stated this development had. originally been expressed
as an elderly unit and the parking provision had been based on
this, but the use of these units now seemsto be in some sort of
transition. Ms. McCulley confirmed that if the original proposal
had been for conventional apartments, 132 parking spaces would
have been required.
Mr.. Tom Gale, representing the applicant, was present but offered
no comment.
Mr. Bowerman invited public comment.
Ms. Joan Graves addressed the Commission. She asked if the lot,
which is zoned R-2 would have to be rezoned to R-15 and indicated
she would not be in favor of this. She also questioned how far
away the parking spaces are from the apartments they are to
serve, stating the ordinance does not allow them to be more than
200 feet away. She also stated there did not seem to be any
allowance for guests or recreational vehicle parking.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Payne confirmed that when the R-2 lot is incorporated into
the R-15, it will remain R-2, though it does not remain a
separate parcel. He further explained that this parcel could
not be the main use on the parcel, but could only
be an accessory use. if the parcel is free-standing, it only
has one use, a parking lot, and that is not permissabler so it
must be joined to this.parcel to make it an accessory use.
In response to Mr. Michel's question regarding the grading
easements, Mr. Payne stated Mr. Elrod, County Engineer, has
been requiring these easements.
It was determined the low number of parking spaces had been
granted originally because the development was supposed to be
for the elderly, and a variance had been granted in 1980 which
included the statement that "The facility must be inhabited 75%
by people over 62 years of age." It was pointed out this was
no Longer the case.
Mr. Payne confirmed the variance should still be applicable.
He added that this type of problem arises when the identity of
the inhabitants becomes an issue, rather than the character of
the building and the land use.
/�
November 27, 1984
Page 7
Ms. Diehl stated, and Mr. Michel agreed, it was of little use to
have the condition stated in the variance if it was not going
to be regulated. She pointed out the applicant was originally
allowed 3/4 of a space per unit by the variance, instead of the
14 spaces stated in the Ordinance.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler if the Commission had at any time
in the past added parcels to other parcels, for uses like
parking, where the zoning on the added parcel was substantially
less than the zoned parcel.
Mr. Keeler responded a similar -type situation had occurred with
the Western Albemarle Shopping Center, i.e. the drain field and
water storage tank were on a portion of the property that was
zoned Rural Areas. He added the Ordinance requires that the
parking be on the same lot as the main use unless the Commission
permits some other arrangement.
Ms. Diehl pointed out a note on the plat .stated the property
could only be used in accord with R-2 uses in the future.
Mr. Payne confirmed this, since the lot would still be R-2.
He repeated that it would not become R-15. He also confirmed
that the lot could be a parking lot in an R-2 zone, but not
as a main use, only an accessory use.
Mr. Keeler stated the Board has asked for a review of the defi-
nition of accessory uses and one thing being considered is to
require that the use not only be on the same lot or parcel, but
in the same zoning district.
Mr. Bowerman stated he did not have a problem with this because
he felt an error had been made in the original approval, and
91 parking spaces should have been approved at that time. He
further stated he was concerned that this was "creeping -up"
zoning, i.e, approval is obtained for a proposal that later.
turns out not to be workable, so zoning is then extended over
into lower boundaries to make it work. He indicated he did not
feel approving this would set a precedent, since it would merely
be bringing it into line with what it should have been initially.
He added he felt there had clearly been a change in the intended
use of this property.
Mr. Cogan stated he was concerned because there was no way to
determine what the percentage of elderly would be at any given
time.
Ms. Diehl expressed concern as to how far the parking spaces
would be from the apartments they were to serve, particularly
if they were to serve the elderly.
Mr. Keeler stated the requirement was 100 feet from the residence
served, increasable to 200 feet under certain circumstances.
/3j/
November 27, 1984
Page 8
Mr. Michel moved that the Hydraulic Road Apartments Parking
Addition be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A grading permit will not be issued until the
following conditions have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of erosion control plans;
b. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage
plans and computations;
c. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation ap-
proval of closing the existing entrance and replacing
with curb and gutter to match the existing roadway;
d. Fire Official approval of handicapped parking;
e. Recordation of a drainage easement to the detention
pond;
f. Recordation of a plat combining this parcel with
that of Hydraulic Road Apartments.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion.
Further discussion followed.
Mr. Payne confirmed Mr. Keeler's statement regarding parking
distances, and quoted from Section 4.12.3.3 of the Zoning
Ordinance:
For residential uses, where parking is provided in
bays, no parking space shall be located further than
one hundred (100) feet from the entrance of the dwelling
such space serves (except where the Commission may
increase this to two hundred (200) feet).
It was determined measurement is made from the individual space
rather than from the parking lot line.
Mr. Payne quoted further from Section 4.12.3.3:
Distances in (a) and (b) above may be increased in such
cases where the commission shall determine that the
public interest or convenience would be equally or better
served by such increased distance; that the allowance of
a greater distance would not otherwise be contrary to
the purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided that in
no case shall the maximum distance from the entrance of
a dwelling unit and its appurtenant parking space exceed
two hundred (200) feet.
Ms. Diehl pointed out the discussion had centered around this
parking being for residents of the apartment, but the staff report
had stated the additional parking being requested was for guests
and recreational vehicles. She stated she assumed, since Mr.
Gale had not indicated otherwise, the parking would also be
used for residential parking.
Mr. Gale, representing the applicant, responded he was not sure
what use was intended for the spaces, but he had understood it
/3'Ir
November 27, 1984
Page 9
to be an auxiliary parking lot.
Mr. Payne stated parking spaces for nonresidential use could
be located as much as 500 feet away.
Mr. Gale, agreeing with Ms. Diehl, stated he thought it would
be difficult to regulate the use of the spaces.
Mr. Bowerman stated he could support the motion, but only
because he felt the Commission had erred in the original
approval by not requiring at least 91 spaces at that time.
Ms. Diehl asked if it would be feasible to include the statement
from the Board of Zoning Appeals which stated,"The facility must
be inhabited 75% by people over 62 years of age."
Mr. Payne confirmed this would be acceptable and added if this
was done a reference should be made to the variance.
Rather than making a substitute motion, it was agreed that Mr.
Michel would amend his original motion to include the requirement
of the Board of Zoning Appeals as stated above as condition (g)
of approval.
Thus, the conditions of approval would be as follows:
1. A grading permit will not be issued until the
following conditions have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of erosion control plans;
b. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage
plans and computations;
c. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
approval of closing the existing entrance and
replacing with curb and gutter to match the
existing roadway;
d. Fire Official approval of handicapped parking;
e. Recordation of a drainage easement to the detention
pond;
f. Recordation of a plat combining this parcel
with that of Hydraulic Road Apartments.
g. The facility must be inhabited 75% by people
over 62 years of age as required by VA-79-83,
February 29, 1980.
The amended motion was unanimously approved.
Riyerrun-Section Seven (Chatham Ridge) Townhouse and Condominium
Final Plat - Located north of the Charlottesville City limits on
the north side of Route 768 between Route 631 (Rio Road) and Penn
Park. Proposal to locate 48 townhouse condominiums with an average
_ size of 2,000 square feet, on a 5.325 acre parcel. Zoned R-6,
Residential. Tax Map 62, Parcel 17. Rivanna Magisterial District.
/.4 4
November 27, 1984
Page 10
Ms. Joseph gave the staff report.
The applicant was represented, but no comment was offered.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Riverrun Section Seven (Chatham Ridge)
Townhouse and Condominium Final. Plat be approved subject to the
following conditions:
a.. Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans.
b.t County Engineer approval of dimensioning of easements.
C. County Attorneyapproval of condominium regime documents.
Mr. Cogan seconded the notion which was unanimously approved.
Overlook Apartments Site Plan - Located west of Route 250/Route 64
intersection on eastern side of South .Pantops Drive. Proposal to
locate 40 residential units with an average density of 8.6
dwelling units per acre on a 4.655 acre parcel. Zoned R-15,
Magisterial District.
Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. She stated that condition
(h) should be added to the report: Fire official approval of
fire flow, final hydrant location and handicapped facilities.
It was determined State Farm Blvd. is not a part of the state
system, and South Pantops Drive is not yet completed.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry about the requirement for
bonding, Mr. Payne explained staff's.condition requires that
one of the ways out to Rt. 250 be constructed by this development.
He stated bonding implies construction.
The applicant was represented by Mr: Mark Keller, who stated he
had no comment but was available to answer questions.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission
Mr. Bowerman asked if the County Engineer was satisfied that the
conditions of staff would enable him to deal with his concerns
in this matter. Ms. Joseph replied affirmatively.
Ms. Diehl stated, in cases such as this where there is a significant
question about drainage she would prefer to have more information
from the County Engineer before being asked to make a decision.
Ms. Joseph presented a copy of the.arevised site plan which did
contain the County Engineer's comments on it.
/137
November 27, 1984 Page 11
Ms. Diehl stated that at one time the Commission had been
receiving statements from the County Engineer concerning whether
or not conditions had been, or could be, satisfied. She questioned
why this information was no longer being received, and stated
she felt this placed the Commission in the position of sometimes
operating in the dark.
Mr. Cogan and Mr. Gould indicated they were in agreement with
Ms. Diehl.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission at one time had been receiving
"Preliminary" county engineer approval on such proposals.
Mr. Payne stated the Commission had been receiving a statement
indicating whether or not a proposal was workable on a particular
site. He stated he felt this was probably what was being said
in staff's comments.
Ms. Diehl stated she was concerned because she could see no type
of preliminary approval, nor any statement that the concerns could
be taken care of.
Mr. Keeler stated he felt the County Engineer was concerned about
the term "preliminary approval" and he thought Mr. Elrod regarded
it more as a preliminary review. He added that preliminary
approval had resulted in some difficult situations with developers.
He also stated Mr. Elrod had been led to believe he would not
be required at tonight's meeting.
Ms. Diehl asked if staff was requesting administrative approval
of the final plat.
Ms. Joseph indicated this had been suggested in an effort to
streamline the process.
Referring to condition (e) of staff's recommendations, (Virginia
Department of Highways & Transportation and County Engineer approval
of road plans for public road [from site including entire
frontage of property] to Route 250, and bonding or construction of
same), Mr. Bowerman asked what effect omitting the words "and
bonding" would have.
Mr. Payne replied if by dropping those words the intent was actual-
ly not to allow bonding, then the road would have to be constructed
before a building permit could be issued.
Mr. Bowerman stated his understanding that the alternative would
be that State Farm Blvd. would have to be accepted into the State
system. Referring to the term "plans for public road" in condition
(e), Mr. Bowerman stated he interpreted this to mean either one of
those two roads. Mr. Payne indicated this interpretation was
accurate, provided no additional construction was necessary on
State Farm Blvd.
i.3 e
November 27, 1984
Page 12
Mr. Payne stated the problem with constructing the road had
dealt with agreement over the design. Mr. Keeler indicated that
after working with this matter for eight years, he did not feel it
was any closer to resolution than it had been in the beginning.
Mr. Keeler stated he felt it would be better to bond it than
to actually construct it since there will be a number of other
entrances that will interfere with curb and gutter and sidewalks.
Mr. Payne pointed out that the developer is not able to build
anything at the moment because he does not know what to build.
Mr. Keller, representing the applicant, stated it was his understand-
ing that this current proposal was. to act as incentive for the
County Engineer and the Department of Highways and Transportation
to finally make a decision. He added that he had understood staff
comments had indicated that an agreement had been reached and
the profiles and cross -sections shown on the drawing are a re-
flection of the County Engineer and Highway Department comments.
Mr. Keeler explained Mr. Keller was talking about South Pantops
Drive, and there is no dispute over that road. He emphasized
the dispute is over State Farm Blvd.. He further explained this
is why the option of South Pantops back to River Bend is likely.
Mr. Keller added that his client (the applicant) has a contract
with Dr. Hurt which excludes him from any improvements to South
Pantops Drive or any of this particular tract. Thus, it will
be Dr. Hurt who will be bonding or building.
It was determined that staff was still recommending construction or
bonding, since it allowed some flexibility.
Ms. Diehl moved that the Overlook Apartments Site Plan be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Include curb and gutter on parking area and access
pavements, in notes or graphically.
b. Approval of Service Authority (1) this includes recorda-
tion of deed of easement and (2) submission of a final
water plan.
C. County Engineer approval of drainage, site work, and
grading plans and computations.
d. Issuance of erosion control permit.
e. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation and
County Engineer approval of road plans .for public road
(from site including entire frontage of property)
to Route 250, and bonding or construction of same.
f. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval
of commercial entrance to the site from South Pantops
Drive.
November 27, 1984 Page 13
g. Planning staff approval of technical items.
h. Fire official approval of fire flow, final hydrant
location, and handicapped facilities.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
OLD BUSINESS
Lindstrom Letter - Mr. Cogan submitted a draft of a letter to
be sent to the Board of Supervisors in response to Mr. Lindstrom's
previous letter. With some minor changes, the Commissioners
indicated their approval of the letter and Mr. Keeler was
directed to have the letter re -typed, affix Mr. Bowerman's
signature, and post.
It was the consensus of the Commission that no issues should be
placed on "hold" in anticipation of the formation of some sort
of committee as proposed by Mr. Lindstrom since the actual date
of the establishment of such a committee, as well as its duties,
was very much in question.
NEW BUSINESS
December and January Meeting Schedule - Mr. Keeler reviewed up-
coming agenda items and stated the Commission will meet on Thursday,
December 20 with the next meeting coming on Thursday, January 3.
Zoning Text Amendment--Vacation/Fitness Resort - Mr. Bowerman
presented a letter he had received from Mr. Edward Bain regarding
a request for a zoning text amendment to be heard before the
next regularly scheduled date. It was the consensus of the
Commission not to hear zoning text amendments except at the
regularly scheduled six month dates.
Meeting with Engineering Department - Mr. Bowerman requested that
a meeting be arranged with staff, Mr. Elrod and representatives
of the Commission in order to discuss concerns..
Elimination of reading of "histories" included in staff reports -
Mr. Bowerman stated, in the interests of saving agenda time, it was
not necessary for staff to read all the history that is included
in the staff report on a certain issue. He indicated the history
should be included, but unless an item was of particular importance,
it need not be read.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 1Q:00 p.m.
A.nA I ml
�.
James R. DonZ!n Secretary
DS
/'7
u