HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 28 89 PC MinutesMarch 28, 1989
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
March 28, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other
officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Wayne
Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Senior
Planner; Mr. David Benish, Senior Planner; and Mr. James Bowling, Deputy
County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of March 14, 1989 were approved
as submitted.
SP-89-08 Phil Rogers - Request in accordance with Section 20.4.1(1) of
the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow
recreational facilities on property zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development.
Property, described as Tax Map 46B2, Section 1, Parcel 4, is located on
the north side of Hollymead Drive across from the Silver Thatch Inn.
Rivanna Magisterial District. Deferred from March 21, 1989 Planning
Commission Meeting.
Hollymead_ Racquet and Fitness Center Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to
locate a 23,700 square foot racquet and fitness center on 6.7 acres.
Proposal is to be served by 54 parking spaces (variance is obtained) and
access is to be from Hollymead Drive. Property, described as Tax Map 46B(2).
Section 1, Parcel 4 (part of) is located on the north side of Hollymead
Drive across from the Silver Thatch Inn. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit
Development. Rivanna Magisterial District. Deferred from March 21, 1989
Planning Commission Meeting.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The main issue discussed was the
fire safety requirement. The staff report explained:
Section 32.7.6.1 of the Zoning Ordinance site plan requirements
includes "Hydrant locations and fire flow requirements shall be
as prescribed by Insurance Service Offices (ISO) standards
and subject to approval of the Albemarle County fire official."
The fireflow available from an 8-inch waterline with hydrant
125 feet distant, is 1100 gpm at 20 psi. According to ISO,
without sprinkling the building or building firewalls, the
lowest fireflow requirement is 1,750 gpm at 20 psi. The tennis
barn area is a major contributing factor to this fireflow
requirement.
The Building Officials Codes Administrators (BOCA) building code
does not require sprinkling in this case. However, we have adopted
the ISO standards for their additional standards of fire protection.
J06
March 28, 1989 Page 2
The applicant verbally sought a reduction in the fireflow
requirements from the central ISO office, based on the specifics
of this case. That request was denied; they upheld their general
standard.
The applicant applied for a variance of the Ordinance requirement
to meet the ISO standards. The Board of Zoning Appeals chose not
to act on the variance, stating that it was not properly before
them and was out of their jurisdiction, and is for the Planning
Commission review. Therefore, the applicant presently requests
that the Commission waive the requirement of compliance with
ISO standards. The applicant offers as justification the fact
that it will be non-combustible construction and contents, with
very low numbers of occupants within the tennis barn.
The Planning and Inspections Department both recommended denial of this
waiver based on the following: (1) "The waiver would not serve the
public interest, but would solely serve the economic interest of the
applicant; (2) The applicant has the option of seeking property which
meets fire safety standards; (3) If development is proposed where fire
protection is inadequate, staff would recommend denial or alternate
methods of protection, if possible; (4) An exemption of the fire safety
standard may potentially endanger public safety and set an unwise
precedent. This opinion considers protection of off -site lives and
property; and (5) Staff can find no unusual conditions peculiar to this
property, which cause hardship or significant degradation of the site
or adjacent properties by strict application of these requirements."
The staff report concluded: "In staff's opinion, with the requirements
of compliance with ISO fire safety standards and with appropriate
screening and lighting, this petition will not be of substantial
detriment to adjacent properties and is consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan and the public health, safety* and
general welfare. Without these conditions, staff would not recommend
approval of this request. Therefore, staff recommends approval subject
to ... conditions."
Mr. Bowerman asked why the building was 40 feet high instead of 35 feet.
Ms. Patterson explained that the "peak" height was 40 feet. She
explained that the Zoning Ordinance defines building height as being
midway between where the roof begins and the peak height, so actually,
"under the Zoning Ordinance definition I think they would have a 35
feet height."
The applicant was represented first by Ms. Lisa Glass. Regarding the
fireflow issue, she stated a variance was being sought for the
tennis barn which is a very specific use and "we would tie it to
the use either through the special permit or to the site plan,
or however is best." She explained that the height of the
building was closer to 30 to 35 feet, as measured by Inspections,
and 40 feet had simply been given as the maximum height of the
building.
.nor
March 28, 1989 Page 3
Mr. George Gilliam was also present to represent the applicant. His comments
dealt primarily with the fireflow issue. He stressed that the structure
(the tennis barn) would be of totally non-combustible materials. He stressed
that the BOCA Building Code contains a specific exemption for an indoor
tennis facility --they do not have to be sprinkled under the BOCA Code.
He explained, however, that Albemarle County has two sets of standards,
the BOCA Code and the ISO Standards, and the ISO standards have a very
general category (Indoor Recreation Arenas) and does not draw a distinction
between an indoor tennis facility and a large spectator arena such as
University Hall. He suggested the following approaches which the -Commission
might take to waive the requirement for sprinkling: (1) The ISO standards
do not speak to this type of facility, but rather to a much broader type of
facility; or (2) The Commission's general power under Sec. 32.3.11.1
authorizes the Commission to waive any standards as set forth in Sec.
32.7. He stressed that the ISO standards address facilities with wooden
floors, many spectators, etc. Quoting from Section 32.7, he noted that
the Commission could waive, vary, or accept substitutions "upon a finding
that a requirement of those improvements would not forward the purposes of
this ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest." He suggested:
"I think you could simply say that in a non-combustible building that is
separated by a firewall from the other uses, then sprinkling serves no
purpose other than to make this applicant spend an additional $45,000.
He noted that neither the BOCA Code nor common sense require that this
type facility be sprinkled. Mr. Gilliam pointed out that if this facility
were being built in an area not served by public water, this requirement
would not exist.
The Chairman invited comment fran Mr. Jay Schlothauer, the Deputy Director
of Inspections for Albemarle County. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Schlothauer
was recommending that the ISO standards be met. Mr. Schlothauer replied:
"I recommend that the codes are there for a reason and it really doesn't
matter to me, personally. I have to enforce them." Mr. Michel asked
if public safety was a consideration in a building that is essentially
non-combustible and would have, at most, 12 people in several thousand
square feet. Mr. Schlothauer responded: "The BOCA Code and the ISO
Standards address the non -combustibility of the building. If the building
had been built of wood, or partially of wood, the fireflow requirement
would have been much higher. The fact that it is made of non-combustible
materials allows a factor that lowers that fireflow, just as the fact
that if it had been made out of wood you couldn't build it in the first
place. It has to be made of non-combustible, or a combination of
combustible and non-combustible materials." Mr. Schlothauer confirmed
that the fireflow in question (1,750 gpm at 20 psi) applied only to the
tennis barn and not the auxiliary building. Mr. Michel asked: "Do you
agree with Mr. Gilliam that the definitions of a sports arena -type are
rather broad as opposed to the BOCA?" Mr. Schlothauer replied: "I
reviewed those and there is not a specific category in their extensive
list of categories that.addresses a large, open, non-combustible, lightly
occupied --it did not address that category. The direction we are given
in this instance and in building code instances is to put it in the closest
category you can." Mr. Bowerman stated that historically the Commission
has followed the recommendation of the Fire Official in matters related
to fire safety, but he sensed there was a "mixed opinion" in this case,
i.e. he interpreted Mr. Schlothauer did not necessarily agree with the
ISO Standard in this case. Mr. Schlothauer responded: "I don't have the
1008
March 28, 1989 Page 4
expertise to overrule ISO or BOCA--these people have done a iot homework --
they know their stuff. My primary responsibility is to enforce the building
code, the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code which references the
BOCA Code and ;fr. Gilliam is right, if you build this facility a couple of
miles further up Rt. 29, the wouldn't need to put a fire hydrant there,
they wouldn't need any fireflow and I would be happy --I would be satisfied.
It would conform to the codes and I would have no problem at all." Mr.
Rittenhouse asked if the ISO Standards were referencedby the Statewide
Building Code. Mr. Schlothauer responded: "Not at all." Mr. Rittenhouse
asked: "So the ISO requirements are simply a County ordinance requirement
separate from the Building Code requirement?" Mr. Schlothauer replied:
"That's true; the ISO requirements are a national guideline that Albemarle
County chose to incorporate in their zoning Ordinance." Mr. Bowerman asked:
"Are you recommending that we follow the ISO standard in this particular
case?" Mr. Schlothauer replied: "Yes, because they've done more work
than I have, and I am not comfortable with recommending that one code have
priority over another or that one code be thrown out." He confirmed that
he agreed with the conditions in the staff report.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked r1r. Schlothauer to explain why sprinkling would not
be required if the building were located beyond the service area. Mr.
Schlothauer replied: "Sprinkling would be required in auxiliary areas
or they could go with a firewall option. We have facilities that do require
sprinklers with no option --they go to heroic measures--they.build storage
tanks, they put in fire pumps, but they do it. If the building code
requires a sprinkler system it is installed whether they are within public
water or not. The ISO requirement by the Zoning Ordinance, which is hinting
at this other sprinkler system in the tennis portion of the facility is
based on a statement in the ISO regulations that says 'Provide this fire -
flow or an acceptable alternative' and ISO goes on to say that sprinkling
a building is an acceptable alternative. It typically requires a lot less.
water; it's a more finely tuned, engineered system and requires a lot less
water than does a fire hydrant." fir. Rittenhouse asked: "Did you say
if they were located in another area the sprinkling would not be required?"
Mr. Schlothauer replied: "Except in the auxiliary areas --except as presented
in the building code which is the auxiliary areas or a fi,rewall separating
the tennis barn from the auxiliary areas. They would have to address that
somehow. It would not have to be there as a substitute for a hydrant.
It's a confusing... type of thing." Mr. Rittenhouse interpreted: "Since
there would be no hydrant there is no substitute for the hydrant which is
not there?" :1r. Schlothauer responded: "Exactly."
The Chairman invited public comment on either the special permit or the site
plan.
John and Beth lftda,adjacen.t property owners, addressed the Commission.
They were primarily concerned thatthe value of the property be maintained.
Referring to a statement in the staff report ("This petition will not be
of substantial detriment to the.adjacent properties"),he asked for a
definition of the term "substantial." Ms. Varda.suggested a rearrangement
for some of the parking which would move some of it away from their
property.
409
March 28, 1989 Page 5
In response to the Vat's request for a definition of "substantial detriment,"
Mr. Bowling stated this was a subjective term and it was impossible to
say what percentage of detriment there would be.
Mr. Vaidaasked that the Commission do everything within their power to lessen
the detriment to their property.
Mr. Bowling pointed out that since this is a case where commercial property
adjoins residential property, anything that is placed on the commercial
property will be a detriment to the residential property. Mr.Bowerman
added: "Which is why we have the setback provisions, landscape provisions,
etc."
In response to an issue which had been raised earlier, Ms. Glass stated
that the tennis barn at the Boars Head was not sprinkled.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Michel asked if the waiver, as suggested by Mr. Gilliam, could potentially
apply here if the Commission chose not to use the ISO standards. Mr.
Bowling replied: "I think you could waive it if you want to without creating
a legal precedent because of the fact that the ISO does not address this
narrow type of use. It has some sort of broad category that applies to all
recreational facilities no matter what they are, no matter how many people
are going to be using them. I think that that is enough to take away any
legal problems you may have if you decide you want to do that. ... He
also pointed out that the waiver speaks to "serving the public interest."
Ms. Diehl asked for more information on the "verbal" request for a reduction
of fireflow which the applicant made to the central ISO office. Ms. Glass
explained that she had written a letter to the ISO office and they did
not respond in writing, but stated, by phone, that they would not make a
special category for tennis courts.
In response to Mr. Rittenhouse's question, it was determined the walls of
the building would contain non-combustible insulation.
Mr. Michel stated: "I am having a hard time, as least so far as this fireflow
goes, requiring this applicant, if it really comes down.to either the ISO
not having a correct category or the pressure of the property in question
being in a service district where the pressure is too low. It just seems
unreasonable."
Mr. Bowerman asked if it would be to the public good to allow the waiver
and go with the BOCA standard. Mr. Michel responsed: "We are not creating
a precedent --it seems like a truly unique case --a crack in the system."
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the applicant would still have to meet the
BOCA exceptions, i'.e. they will have to put automatic fire supression in the
pro shop or physically separate it, plus the other three requirements.
(Mr. Gilliam indicated the applicant understood this.)
Jo
March 28, 1989 Page 6
Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the County has two separate requirements: (1) the
BOCA requirements;. and (2) the one that was chosen to apply in addition to
the BOCA requirements, i.e. the ISO Standards. He stated: "If both
equally apply, then I think we should apply both of them or if they both
obviously .apply to a situation and one addresses it and the other one doesn't --
in any event we have to apply the BOCA Code, there's no option there. But,
in this case, perhaps the ISO criteria really doesn't apply and the key in
my mind is the fact that this seems to be an extensive list of applications
and this particular application is not included in that list, but BOCA
does overtly address it specifically. That's one consideration. Another
is that if this facility were to be located in an area not served by public
water there would be no question and I am not inclined to penalize the
applicant because the application is specific to a site that happens to be.
served by public Crater vs. a location that may be further away from a fire
station. If it's acceptable to the county that this facility be located
elsewhere without sprinklering, it is difficult for me to say that because
this is an area served by public water then because of that it has to be
sprinkled. I am inclined to support the application."
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Bowling: "Could the Commission find that the ISO
standard does not apply but the BOCA Code does and that is the position of
the Commission?" Mr. Bowling replied: "I think that's within your
discretion and the waiver requirement requires you to find that "upon
a finding that the requirement of such improvement would not forward the
purposes of the ordinance."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he would feel differently if BOCA did not specifically
address this particular use.
There followed a brief discussion about the Vaea.'s concern about the_proximity of some
of the parking area. Rather than a shifting of the pro shop as suggested by
the Vardas, r1r. Jenkins pointed out that their concerns could -be met by eliminating
some of the parking spaces on the side adjacent to the Vandas. It was determined
the plan shawai 11 more parking spaces than were required (54 shown--43 required)..
The applicant confirmed he had no objection to the elimination of 6 parking
spaces (the eastern parking spaces).
Regarding the applicant's request for administrative approval of the site plan,
the Commission voiced no objections.
To address the issue of the waiver, it was decided condition No. l would be
changed to read as follows:
o Waiver of Sec. 32.7.6.1 is granted; compliance with BOCA Code is required
with the following stipulations: (1) Fire.dfficial approval of any change
in use in accordance with ISO standards; (2) No seating in the tennis barn;
and (3) No fixed mechanical equipment other than lighting in the tennis
barn.
To address the issue of the deleted parking spaces, the following was added
to condition No. 6:
Q The plan shall be revised to delete the eastern -most 6 parking spaces.
all
March 28, 1989 Page 7
Mr. Michel moved that SP-89-08 for Phil Rogers be recommended to the Board
of Supervisors for approval subjectto the following conditions:
1. Waiver of Sec. 32.7.6.1 is granted; compliance with BOCA Code is required
with the following stipulations; (1) Fire Official approval of any change
in use in -accordance with ISO standards; (2) No seating in the tennis
barn; and (3) No fixed mechanical equipment other than lighting in the
tennis barn.
2. Planning staff approval of lighting plan, to include none or minimal
spillover onto residential properties.
3. Planning staff approval of landscape plan, to include a double staggered
row of evergreen trees directly beside the building where it is visible
from residential properties, with one row of trees to be a minimum of
8 feet in height.
4. Building area shall be limited to 23,700 square feet; building height
shall not exceed 40 feet at the peak.
5. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. to 11 p.m.
6. Administrative approval of the site plan and subdivision plat; the plan
shall be revised to delete the six (6) easternmost parking spaces.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
NOTE: No separate action was taken on the Hollymead Racquet and Fitness Center
Preliminary Site Plan because approval of SP-89-08 included administrative
approval of the site plan.
SP-88-113 County of Albemarle - Request in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.1
of the zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for
the construction of a dam and access road in the construction of a dam and
access road in the floodplain of Walnut Creek. Property, described as
Tax Map 100, Parcels 33, 35, 37 and 39, is Located on the east side of
St. Rt. 631, approximately 1/2 mile south of its intersection with St. Rt.
708. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Albemarle County Southern Regional Park Preliminary Master Plan - Proposal to
locate a public park on approximately 500 acres. Proposed improvements
include a lake for swimming and fishing, and nature trails. Property,
described as Tax Map 100, part of Parcels 33, 35, 37 and 39, is -located on
the south side of Rt. 631, approximately one-half mile south of the inter-
section with Rt. 708, on Walnut Branch of the Hardware River. zoned RA,
Rural Areas. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the
special permit subject to conditions. The staff report for the Preliminary
Master Plan stated: "Staff is unaware of any issues requiring resolution by
the Commission. Therefore, this report will be primarily informational."
-J ZZ
March 28, 1989
Page 8
.ir. Mark Osborne represented the applicant. He explained that the project. would
impact only one adjacent property owner, Mr. Graves, who is amenable to granting
an easement for the water that will be on his property. He commented on the
size of the lake and how the site was chosen. He also commented on how a
reduction in the size of the lake, so as to keep it off Mr. Graves` property,
would impact the project.
Mr. Riley also represented the applicant and presented slides of the site
which included slides of a similar lake.
Mr. Pat.Mulaney, representing the County Parks and Recreation Department, was
also present but offered no significant additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
1Ir. Stark moved that SP--88-113 be recommended to the Board of Supervisors
for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. No dam construction activity shall occur until County of Albemarle
ownership or easement for that portion of the adjacent property (parcel
45) impacted by the increased floodplain which results. No increase
in dam height that would further impact adjacent properties if permitted.
2. Department of Engineering approval of final dam design and specifications.
3. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit.
4. Approval of all applicable permits from all State and Federal regulatory
agencies.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The Chairman called for a motion on the Master Plan.
;Mr. Stark :roved that the Albemarle County Southern Regional Park Preliminary
Master Plan be approved, including administrative approval of the detailed
site plan.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
WORK SESSION
Six -Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan - The discussion was led by �lr.
Benish who was assisted by :Ir. Cilimberg and.Xr. Roosevelt (VDOT).
Mr. Benish noted this was an interim year review to make minor adjustments
as necessary and to provide direction to staff pertaining to road and
other related transportation planning efforts. The staff report stated
there were no new projects recommended for inclusion in the plan at this time,
nor were there any recommended changes to the priority of any projects currently
in the list.
March 28, 1989
Page 9
The staff report also stated that the major adjustment to the budget for this
fiscal year was in the funding of unpaved road projects. This topic generated
considerable discussion. The report stated that the total amount of unpaved
road funds available for 89-90 was $777,500 for four projects. However,
the total project cost for these four projects, for 89-90, was $1,120,000,
which reflects an excess of $342,500 which is needed. The staff report
included the following explanation of this issue:
Indications from the resident engineer are that VDOT will not allow
the County to credit this excess cost to future unpaved road project
allocations in subsequent budget years; therefore, the County must fund
the $342,500 excess in this year's budget. The proposed budget presented
by Mr. Roosevelt recommends funding three of the gravel road paving projects
with the available unpaved road funds and funding the Rt. 693 road paving
project ($300,000) with revenue sharing funds. The effect of this
recommendation is that the excess $342,500 is made up with a combi-
nation of other secondary road funds ($42,500) and revenue sharing funds
($300,000). The net effect to the Six Year Secondary Road Plan is that
$342,500 excess is used for gravel road projects, is not available to
fund other projects in the priority list, and will not be recovered.
Based on these facts, staff recommends that the minimum allocation policy
continue to be adhered to and, furthermore, recommends that the Board
fund only $777,500 of unpaved road projects.
In the event the County has no choice but to approve more than
the minimum allocation for road paving projects in 89-90, the staff report
listed moral options available to fund the additional cost.
It was the consensus of the Commission to support staff's recommendation,
"to stay with the policy and ask the Board to request a waiver," and
if the County has no chDie but to approve more than theminimum allocation,
the Commission supported staffs options in the same priority as
recommended by staff.
In response to Mr. Roosevelt's request for the Commission to make a recom-
mendation on revenue sharing, it was the consensus of the Commission to
recommend that the County participate in revenue sharing for the 89-90
fiscal year.
Origin of Critical Slope Provisions - Mr. Keeler led the discussion.
Commission and staff comments included the following:
Bowerman: "The reason for having (this provision) does not distinguish
between major vs. minor areas of critical slopes where in effect what you
are doing is getting rid of critical slopes. The intent of not building
on critical slopes might be more than what is stated in the Ordinance."
He felt there was more reason for how this got to be in the Ordinance than what
vas stated in staff's memo. "The part of the Ordinance which gives me some trouble is
that there is no distinction made between the quantity or the magnitude of the
slopes in terms of the impact development might have on them."
Keeler: The Commission has problems with requests that are in the urban area
with water and sewer available, and seems to have little problems with the
critical slope provision in rural subdivisions, i.e. "if they haven't got the
,1*
March 28, 1989 rage 10
building site, that's it --there's no discussion on it. Tne problem is in the
urban area." Mr. Keeler explained that possibly staff's recommendations have
not been as formal as desired by the Commission and have not "hit on every
aspect of the request, e.g. the area involved, is the applicant cutting
or filling, the character and erodability of the soils, etc." He stated
that those issues will hereafter be addressed by both the Engineering
and the Planning staff.
Rittenhouse: He felt a key issue is whether or not there should be a distinction
made between natural vs. man-made slopes. He stated: "From an erosion
standpoint, I am still wrestling with the difference between grading on a
critical slope at 4:1 or allowing a fill slope of 2:1. ... If erodability isthe
driving influence in the Ordinance, there seems to be something that can at
least be perceived as being inconsistent (because) tonight we allowed 2:1 natural
fill slope while in the past we have denied development on 4:1 slope." He
felt this was a source of confusion to developers.
Michel: He asked staff to provide a list of past requests for waivers which
have been granted. He felt this would show criteria which has been followed.
Keeler: He pointed out that the more involved a review becomes the greater the
need for additional staff.
Rittenhouse: He felt one way to address this problem, if it is found viable
to Lnpose some criteria, is to make it incumbent upon the applicant to
furnish that kind of data, i.e. to furnish evidence to staff that would be
the same kind of verification. He stated he did not want staff to become
field inspectors.
Bowerman: "I would like to have provisions in the Ordinance, under the waiver
section, that deal specifically with what criteria have to be :get or under
what circumstances a waiver can be granted. Maybe it's only in the urban
area ---maybe it's only in the urban area if it represents less than a certain
percent of the site -maybe it's only if those two things can be met and
you have to have some public benefit to be derived." He felt staff should
proceed from this point of view rather than giving additional information
on each application. He felt a policy should be formulated first.
He felt there were situations "where sticking to that provision accomplishes
nothing except it denies developability of the property and I don't knout
if that is the primary intent of having it or whether it's the erodability
of the soils. I think it's the later rather than the former. I think we
should recognize that and have some standardized provisions in the Ordinance
whereby we can waive it if certain conditions are met or if certain criteria
are met. At least we should have staff put something together to see if we
can agree to it. railing to do that then we'd leave it the way it was."
Rittenhouse: He felt developers did not have a good grasp of what is expected
and that causes frustration.
Bowerman: "I guess the thought would be that you put something together
whereby we would look at amending the Ordinance by putting some criteria on
the waiver provisions, and we would look to staff's input in terms of what
those criteria would be and under what circumstances."
a&�
March 28, 1989
Page 11
Rittenhouse: "Again, I'm not after sufficient criteria to waive the Ordinance
but rather some necessary criteria."
Land Use Regulation Committee (LURC) - Status Report - Mr. Keeler led the
discussion..
Mr. Bowerman stated he was concerned about only one aspect of the memo, i.e.
"the continued ping-ponging of people as they come in trying to find out
information between zoning, planning and engineering." He felt this was
tied to the fact that the Development Information Office was not working
as well as expected.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the Agency Coordinator of the Development Information
Office was working exactly as approved by the Board. However, the DIO, as
recommended by staff, was substantially a more responsible position than what
the Board approved. He explained it was staff's intent that the DIO coordinator
would serve as an ombudsman who had the authority to take someone from -office to office
to get answers to questions. He stressed that it is a misconception that the
Planning Department has that authority and that continues to cause problems.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that this has been a problem for a long time and is
an organizational problem.
Mr. Michel recalled that the intention of the Agency Coordinator was more for
the benefit of the non-professionals and those .people are still "floundering
in the halls."
It was the consensus of the Commission that the report be passed on to the
Board and that the Board be made aware of the problems.
Annual Report (1988) - The report, prepared by Mr. Rittenhouse, was unanimously
approved. The Commission directed staff to forward the report to the Board
with a cover memo.
Solid Waste Management Committee - Mr. Stark was chosen to represent the Commission
on this committee.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
DS
JAV