HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 20 1991 PC MinutesAugust 20, 1991
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, August 20, 1991, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Phil Grimm;
Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle.
Other officials present were: Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior
Planner; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr.
Richard Tarbell, Planner. Absent: County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of July
30, 1991 were conditionally approved.
SDP-91-056 Village Homes at Mill Creek II Preliminary Site
Plan - Proposal to construct 36 lots averaging 7,696 square
feet on a 7.17 acre site. The housing type proposed is
duplexes to be served by private roads. Property, described
as Tax Map 90C, Parcels D and E, is located on the south
side of the Southern Parkway approximately 1,000 feet west
of Rt. 742 and it is bounded by Mill creek Drive and
Copperstone Drive to the south. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit
Development in the Scottsville Magisterial District. This
site is located within a designated growth area, and is
within the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
In response to Commission questions, Mr. Tarbell:
--Confirmed that all access to double frontage lots
would be to the internal road only;
--Pointed out the location of the Mill Creek detention
pond;
--Confirmed that all drainage from these new lots would
drain into the detention pond;
--Confirmed that the detention pond had been sized for
the entire PUD.
Ms. Huckle felt it would be desirable for the detention pond
to be inspected by the Erosion and Sediment Control Officer
before further development. Mr. Tarbell stated that all
county -approved facilities are inspected once a year;
however, he was uncertain as to whether or not the pond
would be inspected prior to erosion control plan approval in
each case. Ms. Huckle was in favor of such an inspection
being conducted.
Mr. Johnson asked staff to comment on the applicant's
statement that on the basis of 10-ft contour intervals (as
referred to in the Zoning Ordinance) there were no critical
slopes (Muncaster letter to Mr. Tarbell dated 7-15-91). Mr.
/$ 4
8-20-91 2
Mr. Tarbell responded that the critical slope areas, in this
case, are not a critical concern, but staff advised the
applicant to request a waiver request "to be more thorough."
Mr. Johnson mentioned the possibility of precedent and felt
this issue should be clarified.
Mr. Johnson asked why there was no mention of sidewalks,
bikepaths, recreational facilities, open space, etc. Mr.
Tarbell explained that no recreational facilities are
required for this section of Mill Creek because they were
not part of the proffered plan. He stated further that the
remainder of the PUD has the required amount of open space,
i.e. the requirement is met elsewhere in the plan. Mr.
Tarbell stated that bikepaths and sidewalks could not be
required.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked staff to comment on the Engineering
Department's suggestion that the architecture of the
structures be revised to include the option of a basement.
He asked if this comment was based on a serious concern
about the amount of grading which would take place around
the foundations of these units. Mr. Tarbell explained that
staff had considered how the grading for the road would
effect the siting of the dwellings on the lot. He
confirmed, however, that the concern was not great enough to
influence the recommendation of the Engineering Department
on critical slopes.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Hunter Craig. His
comments included the following:
--He supported the recommendation that the existing
detention pond be inspected;
--This plan for duplex units is far superior to the
original plan for multi -family units;
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Gary Hollins, President of the Mill Creek Homeowners'
Association, addressed the Commission. He expressed concern
about the density and the impact on the sediment control
pond. His comments are made a part of this record as
Attachment A.
It was determined that the existing Homeowners' Association
is responsible for the maintenance of the pond. Mr. Tarbell
stated this issue had been discussed with the County
Attorney who advised that County Ordinances cannot require
(at this point of the development) that this section of
development be a part of the maintenance agreement for
/167'
8-20-91 g
the pond. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the current
homeowenrs in Mill Creek were aware of the maintenance
requirement at the time they purchased their homes. Mr.
Craig made the following statement: "We are fully aware of
the situation. Obviously, we wouldn't expect existing
single-family homeowners to pay for the maintenance•of a
stormwater detention facility entirely. We expect the
Village Homes --if existing single-family homeowners
agree --to allow each Village Homes, I, II and III, to be
totally separate entities and not be associated with the
existing homeowners' association. We will ensure that each
Village Homes pay its pro rata share of the maintenance of
that stormwater detention facility and the easiest way to do
that is on a per/lot basis." He confirmed this would be
placed in the deed covenants "so long.as the homeowners'
association wants separate associations for separate Village
Homes."
Mr. Johnson asked if this was being offered as a proffer.
It was pointed out that proffers are attached only to
rezonings.
Though it was pointed out that the Commission did not have
the latitude to impose this as a condition, Mr. Keeler noted
that the representation made by the applicant could be
accepted and would be clear in the record.
Mr. Johnson commented: "It sounds like that would be very
satisfactory, but I certainly don't think we're obligated in
any way to consider approving any project which has an
adverse effect on somebody else without having that covered
in some manner, notwithstanding however it was placed with
the County Attorney. It is completely beyond the scope of
the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan for us to
approve something for somebody that adversely effects
somebody else without making appropriate provisions."
Mr. Rittenhouse agreed this was true, but added: "But you
have to establish that it does indeed adversely effect
someone."
Ms. Huckle, referring to a comment made by Mr. Hollins that
there had been some runoff problems after a recent storm,
asked if it were possible that the detention pond is not
sized adequately. Mr. Keeler responded that this pond could
not have caused those problems because the lots which
experienced the problems are upstream from the detention
facility. He added that "internal soil erosion protection
falls under the Soil Erosion Ordinance." He also explained
that even the best soil erosion control measures are only
80-85% effective.
159
8-20--91 4
Mr. John Hermsmier, representing Citizens for Albemarle,
addressed the Commission. He read a statement expressing
concerns about both Village Homes plans (See Attachment B).
His primary concerns dealt with development on critical
slopes and also about the reduction of the side setbacks
from 15 to 10 feet.
Mr. Brian Thomas, an adjacent property owner, addressed the
Commission. He expressed concern about building on a
drainage swale and how that might effect drainage in the
buffer area. He also expressed concern about the reduction
in side setback.
Mr. Tom Muncaster, engineer for the project, explained the
drainage plans. It was concluded that final contours, after
grading and fill, would result in much less drainage in the
swale area.
The Commission discussed at some length the issue of a
reduction in the setback from 15 to 10 feet. Mr. Tarbell
explained that issue had been resolved by the Director of
Planning -and Community Development who is authorized, (under
Section 8.5.6.3), to reduce the setback if he finds it is
within keeping with the PUD plan. Mr. Tarbell explained
this was not an issue before the Commission. (Mr. Johnson
asked if the public had a chance to challenge that decision.
Mr. Tarbell responded negatively.) Mr. Keeler added that
this is a judgmental decision which is delegated to the
Director of Planning. He further explained that the
ordinance states that a 15 foot sideyard setback (in urban
residential districts) can be reduced to 10 feet if certain
conditions, related entirely to fire flow, can be met. (The
setback for this section has no relation to the setback
followed in other sections.) The Director of Planning had
determined that these conditions were met in this case.
(Mr. Keeler explained the history of the 15 ft. sideyard
setback.)
Mr. Thomas again brought up the issue of the swale. He
asked how grading and re-routing of the drainage would
effect the buffer. Mr. Tarbell pointed out that the buffer
along the single family units was "totally voluntary" on the
part of the appliant.
Mr. Jenkins asked if the drainage, as described by Mr.
Muncaster, was a part of the plan or if it was just a part
of the minutes of this meeting. It was determined the plan
(of record) shows that the drainage will be handled with a
drop inlet. The drainage was all shown as being piped.
459
8-20-91 5
Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant would be liable for any
damage which might occur to existing properties as a result
of drainage from this phase of development. Mr. Tarbell
responded that a drainage easement does exist, but if
drainage exceeds that easement, that would be a legal matter
between private parties. Mr. Keeler agreed, but added that
if the drainage does not work after the swale is moved,
then, under the Soil Erosion Ordinance, the Engineering
Department can require a soil erosion plan and require
corrective measures any time activity on a property causes
downstream damage, i.e. the County can require that it be
corrected, but any damages would be a civil matter.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the final site plan would show
final contours and staff's final review (under
administrative approval) would require that drainge is
adequately provided for. He also noted: "The easement
requires that whoever might own those lots has to allow the
drainage to find its course along that easement."
In response to Ms. Andersen's question, Mr. Tarbell
explained the difference in a landscape easement [condition
1(h)] and a buffer. It was noted that the landscape
easement referred to in the conditions applied to the double
frontage lots (where it is required), "all the way around
the road."
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the Ordinance does not provide
for buffering between similar residential uses.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked if the word "regarding" should be
changed to "requiring" in condition 3(c)? It was decided
the word "regarding" was appropriate.
Mr. Grimm felt the proposal met the requirements of the
Ordinances. Therefore, he moved that SDP-91-055 for Village
Homes at Mill Creek II Preliminary Site Plan be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals
for the following conditions have been obtained. The final
site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading
and drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations;
C. Department of Engineering approval of
stormwater detention plans and calculations;
160
L-12FX6g_PI
Cl
d. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit;
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of right-of-way improvements and drainage plans;
f. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of amended ultimate road plans to show a 12 foot, 100'
x 100' left turn lane;
g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
water and sewer plans;
h. Staff approval of landscape easement and
landscape plan to include screening in accordance with
Section 32.7.9.8(c.4) on lots 1-16, 22-27, and 29-36;
i. Revise road names as follows: White Post Road
shall be Stoney Ridge Road and Boxweed Circle shall be
Boxwood Court;
j. Prior to any development or land disturbing
activity, the existing erosion and sediment control
pond will be inspected by the County Erosion and
Sediment Control Officer. (This condition was added as
requested by Ms. Huckle.)
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
3. Administrative approval of the final plats to include;
a. Show existing property line to be vacated;
b. Private road maintenance agreement;
c. Language regarding the preservation of the
existing trees in the undisturbed buffer, and
delineation of the landscape easement on the plat.
4. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be -issued until the
following item is met:
a. Fire Official approval.
Ms. Andersen seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
SDP-91-056 Village Homes at Mill Creek III Preliminary Site
Plan - Proposal to create 40 lots averaging 6,810 square
feet with 1.34 acres of open space on a 8.28 acre site. The
housing type proposed is duplexes to be served by private
roads. Property, described as Tax Map 90C1, Section 1,
Parcel A2, is located on the west side of Rt. 742 (Avon
Street Extended) at its intersection with Stoney Creek Drive
and it is bounded to the west by Shady Grove Court. Zoned
PRD, Planned Residential Development in the Scottsville
Magisterial district. This site is located in a designated
growth area, and is within the EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay
District.
141
8-20-91
7
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions, including.the addition of
Condition No 5 as follows: "Adequate fire flow shall be
provided for all units. Any cost incurred in providing
adequate fire flow shall be the responsibility of the
developer."
In response to Mr. Johnson's question about open space, Mr.
Fritz explained that the plan has met the open space
requirements.
Mr. Johnson asked staff to comment on the fact that the
internal road was to be "built to state standards and
dedicated." Mr. Fritz explained that at the time that
condition had been imposed this area had been shown as
multi -family and had no public roads, but this area is now
proposed for duplexes and qualifies for private roads under
Sec. 18.36(d)4. He stated staff has reviewed this phase in
the same manner as Village Homes I and II. He confirmed
that the remainder of the project does have public roads.
Mr. Johnson "took exception" to the Zoning Administrator's
opinion that because these units are duplexes as opposed to
multi -family "the recreation requirements of Section 4.16
are not applicable and recreation areas are not required in
order to satisfy the requirements of ZMA-87-22." Mr.
Johnson quoted from a section of the Ordinance which stated
that recreational areas are to be provided for "every
development of 30 units or more, equal to or exceeding 4
dwelling units per acre, except for single family and
2-family dwellings developed on conventional lots." Mr.
Fritz responded: "These are 2-family dwellings developed on
conventional lots." Mr. Johnson questioned the definition
of conventional lots; he referred to Section 10.3.1 which
he stated was the closest definition he could find. Mr.
Fritz pointed out that section was referring to Rural Areas.
Mr. Johnson felt not requiring recreational areas in this
instance was a violation of the Ordinance. He stated he
found no evidence in the Zoning Ordinance to support the
conclusion that these are conventional lots. He felt they
are not conventional lots. He asked under what
circumstances the provision for providing recreational
facilities was visualized.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked what would make the lots
"unconventional?"
Mr. Fritz explained it was the Zoning Administrator's
opinion that the minimum setbacks are being met, yards are
being provided [pursuant to Section 4.2.2(a)] and,
therefore, they do not have to provide recreational
facilities which are envisioned for townhouse/apartment type
dwellings.
ra,, ;?
8-20-91 8
Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the steep slope next to
Shady Grove Court.
In answer to Ms. Huckle's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed the
sideyard setback is 15 feet.
Mr. Fritz also explained the meaning of the condition
requiring stormwater detention plans and calculations. i.e.
"before the Engineering Department will grant final approval
further calculations from the applicant are needed in order
to ensure that the detention facility is adequate and the
means of carrying the water to the detention facility are
aequate." Ms. Huckle asked about bonding. Mr. Fritz
explained that some of the downstream facilities are in and
he did not think they would need to be bonded unless a
maintenance bond should be required. He added that the
applicant has shown much more stormwater detention on the
plan than is typical.
It was noted the correct term for the dwellings proposed was
"single-family attached" rather than duplex.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Hunter Craig addressed the Commission. His comments
included the following:
--He asked for a 10-foot side setback, the purpose
being to save trees. He explained the size of the houses is
not going to change and the actual location of each house
will be plated with the final plat.
--The stormwater detention facility is already
constructed.
--Referring to Mr. Brent's letter dated August 15,
1991, to Mr. Fritz, Mr. Craig stated: "I am in agreement
with Mr. Brent's letter with full reservation of our rights.
I don't think his intentions were to take away our rights.
I think we all agree; I just want to get that on the
record." In reply to Ms. Huckle's question as to what
rights Mr. Mr. Craig was referring, Mr. Craig responded:
"Constitutional." Ms. Huckle asked for an explanation. Mr.
Craig responded: "We are presently in a serious litigation
over that very issue --constitutional rights --and I was
informed today that this could be construed as me waiving
our rights. I don't want to waive any rights whatsoever."
Some Commissioners expressed a lack of understanding of Mr.
Craig's meaning. Mr. Craig explained further: "We are
presently discussing who should pay for it. We entered into
a very lengthy agreement... that we construed to mean that
they provide us with water. This could be construed to mean
that we absolve them of that responsibility and that clearly
is not the case."
/09
8-20-91 9
Mr. Keeler added: "There is a difference of opinion between
the service authority and the developer. Let them work it
out. All the developer is saying is 'I'm in here to get the
subdivision approved tonight; I'm not yielding to their
interpretation...."
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, he confirmed that the
sideyard setbacks could vary somewhat, with 10 feet being
the minimum.
Ms. Huckle asked if there were any guarantee that the size
of the dwellings would not change, as stated by the
applicant. Mr. Craig responded: "We have no plans at this
time to change our design." He explained that the
structures would be similar in design to the existing single
family dwellings.
Mr. Craig emphasized that this was a far superior plan
because it reduced the density from 100 to 40 units.
Ms. Andersen asked if the applicant was requesting the
addition of a condition regarding the setback. Mr. Tarbell
explained this request would be addressed by the Director of
Planning who would use the same criteria for making his
decision, i.e. adequate fire flow, as had been described
earlier in the meeting for Village Homes II. Mr. Fritz
explained that the Fire Official would make the final
determination as to adequate fire flow.
Mr. Keeler explained: "I think the language on this is
clear; it's clear in the PUD and I think Mr. Cilimberg can
make that determination at a later date. All Mr. Craig is
asking you is to allow it to be reduced in accordance with
the Ordinance at a future time." Mr. Keeler quoted from the
pertinent section of the Ordinance. He concluded: "Mr.
Cilimberg cannot reduce it unless the Fire Official reduces
it. This is not a matter of discrimination on the part of
Mr. Cilimberg. He is simply acting in accordance with the
Ordinance." Mr. Keeler added that the applicant has the
right to pursue the reduction of the setback under the
provisions of the Ordinance because there was nothing in the
original zoning approval to preclude that.
There being no further applicant or public comment the
matter was placed before the Commission.
There followed a lengthy discussion as to whether or not
condition No. 5 (as stated previously) should be included or
not. Mr. Rittenhouse explained that it should be included
if the Commission determines it is appropriate. He
8-20-91 10
interpreted: "The applicant is not saying that it is an
inappropriate condition; he's just not going any further
than that." Mr. Johnson felt very strongly that approval
with this condition included meant that the applicant was
accepting that condition and, therefore, based on the
statements made by Mr. Craig, the applicant could not accept
this approval. Mr. Fritz stated that the County Attorney
had approved the language as stated. Mr. Craig agreed that,
"in the strictest sense" Mr. Johnson's interpretation could
be correct. Mr. Craig suggested that Condition 5 have added
the words "subject to that being overturned by another
authority or by agreement." Mr. Rittenhouse again stated
that if the Commission feels it is a valid condition,, it
should be imposed and if the applicant challenges it in the
courts and the courts agree, then the applicant will be
relieved from the requirement.
Mr. Johnson continued to argue the point. He did not think
the applicant could proceed with the development under those
conditions. Mr. Wilkerson pointed out that construction
would not be halted because the condition is tied to the
Certificate of Occupancy, not a building permit.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated that staff and the County Attorney
are advising that "this is an appropriate condition to
protect the County."
Mr. Keeler added: "We're simply trying to attach a
condition which will keep everything from grinding to a
halt. The applicant can certainly make improvements to the
system and continue to sue, and either he wins or he loses.
If he wins, then the Service Authority pays him for those
improvements. If he loses, he has his development." He
stressed that the Ordinance prohibits approval of a
development without adequate fire flow.
Mr. Johnson suggested an alternative condition: "Adequate
fire protection is required." He felt this would not unduly
jeopardize the rights of the applicant.
Ms. Andersen stated she felt that as representatives of the
County, the Commission was required to protect the County.
Mr. Rittenhouse agreed and pointed out the County Attorney
had initiated the condition for that purpose.
Mr. Johnson responded: "The people are the County. Let's
get off it now. The people make up the County. ... We
better get together and work this thing out."
Ms. Andersen moved that SDP-91-056 for Village Homes at Mill
Creek III Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the
following conditions:
8-20-91 11
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals
for the following conditions have been obtained. The final
site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading
and drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations;
C. Department of Engineering approval of
stormwater detention plans and calculations, if
required;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit;
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of right-of-way improvements and drainage plans;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
water and sewer plans;
g. Staff approval of landscape easement and
landscape plan to include screening in accordance with
Section 32.7.9.8(c.4) on lots 7 through 14;
h. Staff approval of road names;
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan;
3. Administrative approval of the final plats to include:
a. Private road maintenance agreement;
b. Language regarding the preservation of the
existing trees in the undisturbed buffer and
delineation of the landscape easement.
4. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the
following item is met:
a: Fire Official approval.
5. (See Below*)
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson stated he would oppose the motion on the grounds
that it jeopardized the rights of the applicant.
The motion for approval passed (6:1) with Commissioner
Johnson casting the dissenting vote.
SUB-91-019 Stillfield Prelimina Plat - Proposal to create
seven new lots averaging 2.17 acres with a 6.4 acre residue
from three existing parcels totalling 22.43 acres. Six of
the lots are proposed to be served by an internal road.
Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parels 69A, 69A1, and
*5. Adequate fire flow shall be provided for all units. Any cost incurred
in providing adequate fire flow shall be the responsibility of the developer.
16
8-20-91
12
69F, is located on the north side of Barracks Road
approximately 1200 feet west of Montvue Drive. Zoned RA,
Rural Areas in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This
property is not located within a designated growth area.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Gale. He offered
no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Stillfield Preliminary Plat be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall not be submitted nor shall it be
signed until the following conditions are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of road and
drainage plans and calculaitons;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit;
c. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff
control permit;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval
of road and drainage plans and calculations;
e. Staff approval of an amended road maintenance
agreement for the Lot 7 access to Montvue Drive or a
comparable agreement to the satisfaction of the Montvue
Homeowners Association;
f. Note on the plat: "The driveway to Lot 7 is
restricted to the shared access with Parcel 69F. The
driveway shall be constructed no less than 40 feet from
the edge of pavement of Montvue-Drive and not further
than Point A shown on the plat."
2. Dedication of additional right-of-way on Route 654 is
necessary to accommodate the 100 foot taper lane.
3. Administrative approval of the final plat.
Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
IBM Office Building Site Plan Amendment Extension Reguest -
The applicant is proposing to construct a 5,000 square foot
addition to the existing IBM office building resulting in a
total building size of 18,400 square feet on 1.89 acres
zoned C-1, Commercial. The development will be served by 93
parking spaces. Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel
48, is located on the south side of old Ivy Road, just east
167
8-20-91
13
of its intersection with Rt. 250W and adjacent to the C & O
Railroad in the Jack Jouett Magisterial district and is
within the EC, Entrance Orridor Overlay District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff did not support
the extension request for the following reasons:
--Length of time from original approval (3 years);
-Lack of delay caused by any governmental agency;
--Changes in the ordinance which could effect previous
approvals.
Mr. Fritz noted one significant Ordinance change since the
original approval -of this application, that being the
adoption of the Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Dick Shank. He
explained that the needs of the applicant change rapidly and
having an approved site plan allows a much quicker reaction
to changes. He stated he would like to keep IBM as a tenant
and would like the flexibility to offer additional space.
There was a brief discussion as to how long the process of
re -submittal takes. It was noted that Commission review of
a re -submittal would take longer than an Administrative
Approval.
Ms. Huckle indicated she was in agreement with staff's
position regarding the purpose of time limits and granting
extensions without apparent cause.
Ms. Huckle moved that the IBM Office Building Site Plan
Amendment Extension Request be denied and that a
re -submittal of the plan be reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ms. Andersen stated she would not support the motion because
she was in favor of option No. 2 in the staff report, i.e.
administrative approval of a re -submittal. She expressed a
sympathy for financial difficulties currently being
experienced by applicants because of the economic recession.
The motion for denial passed (6:1) with Commissioner
Andersen casting the dissenting vote.
MISCELLANEOUS
Extension Requests - Mr. Jenkins expressed an understanding
of staff's position regarding extension requests; however,
he felt the Commission and staff should be as supportative
as possible in expediting the review of re -submittals.
Im
8-20-91
14
Water Resources Committee -- Mr. Rittenhouse reported that
the Board has asked for two representatives from the
Commission to serve on this Committee. Those persons were
to be named at the August 27th.meeting.
Meals Tax Referendum - Mr. Rittenhouse reported that the
Board has requested that the Commission adopt a Resolution
of Intent indicating support for the inclusion of a Meals
Tax Referundum being placed on the ballot in the upcoming
election, the revenue from the tax to be used for Capital
Improvements Projects, particularly schools.
Village III__Homes - Mr. Johnson again brought up the issue
of Condition No. 5 which had been added to this approval.
He felt the following should have been added: "Accepting
this as a condition of approval in no way jeopardizes the
applicant's options for further appeal." He felt if the
applicant began work under this approval, he already "had
two strikes against him in regards to any appeal." Mr.
Rittenhouse noted that Mr. Johnson was trying to protect an
applicant who was not looking for protection because "he has
his eyes wide open as to what this means and is fully
aware . "
Existing Improvements to Rt. 250 East - Mr. Keeler advised
the Commission that staff was frequently being called on to
make decisions about amendments to plans (waste areas, tree
cuttings,, etc.) to accommodate the highway project. He
stated: "We will exercise our discretion only to the extent
necessary to accommodate the highway project." The
Commission expressed no objections.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
9:20 p.m. ,
DB
/6 9