HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 25 88 PC MinutesOctober 25, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
October 26, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia.. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Ms. Norma Diehl, Vice Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse; Mr. Tom Jenkins;
Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials
present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. John Pullen, Planner; Mr..Bill Fritz, Planner; Mr. Steve
Cresswell, Asst. County Engineer; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of October 11, 1988 were approved
as submitted.
CONSENT AGENDA
Forest Lakes Maintenance Building Preliminary Site Plan - This item was
removed from the Consent Agenda due to the receipt of a number of
letters of objection. It was decided that the Commission would review
the site plan.
Monticello Wesleyan Church Site Plan Amendment - It was decided this
item would be rescheduled for the Consent Agenda on November 1 because
Ms. Diehl had received some phone calls from members of the public.
The concerns dealt with septic field and parking adequacy.
Parcel E. Subdivision Plat - Proposal to subdivide 2.7 acres from an existing
18-acre parcel. This parcel will have access via an existing access easement.
The property is located on the west side of Route 29, approximately 1000
feet north of the intersection of Route 29 and Woodbrook Road. Tax Map 45,
parcel 109. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Stark, that the Parcel E Subdivision
Plat be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
Emerald Ridge Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 31 lots ranging in size
from 5 to 35 acres to be served by a proposed private road. Property is
located on the west side of Rt. 684 adjacent to the north of Mint Springs
Park. Zoned RA, Rural Areas with SP-87-110. Tax Map 39, Parcel 20.
White Hall Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The main issue of discussion in this review centered around public vs.
private roads. Staff was recommending public roads and the applicant
was requesting private roads.
October 25, 1988
Page 2
Mr. Fritz explained that the only difference between Saddleback Drive as
a public road or a private, road is the issue of dedication because the
road will have to be built to public road standards because of the number
of lots it serves..
In response to Mir. Stark's request, Mr. Cresswell explained the difference
in design between public and private roads. Mr. Cresswell stated the Virginia
Department of Transportation had indicated "mountainous standards" would
be allowed in the construction of the roads. Mr. Horne asked Mr. Cresswell
if a significant amount of additional grading would be required to install
public as opposed to private roads. Mr. Cresswell replied that he did not
think so.
There was some confusion as to the intent of condition 2(c) [Not more than
two dwellings shall be constructed on the higher elevations (Lots 17 and 25)
the location of which shall be specified on the final plat.]. Mr. Fritz
explained this had been a condition of the special permit and neant:
"Not more than two dwellings shall be constructed in the higher elevations.
Those higher elevations shall be in Lots 17 and 25."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Raturah Rouelle, the applicant, addressed the Commission. Mx. Rouelle stressed
that he had made great efforts to maintain the natural environment as much
as possible and he felt installation of private roads would cause least
disturbance to the environment. He also felt it would be easier to work with.
the local staff in the construction of private roads than with VDOT staff
because County staff would be more sensitive to "our" environment. He
did not feel maintenance of the roads would present a problem. He confirmed
he had no objection to the addition of condition 2(i) as suggested by staff,
i.e. "Lots 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 24, 25, 26 and 27 shall have drainfield
installed and approved prior to issuance of building permit."
Mir. Ron Langman, also the applicant, addressed the Commission.. He, too,
stressed the efforts of the applicants to preserve the natural environment -
He stated that requiring the "upper" roads to meet VDOT requirements would
result in a.great deal of additional grading. He stated the private roads
would be "prime and double sealed." He felt private roads allow more of a
'"community sense of spirit and privacy."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
In response to Mir. Bowerman's question, Mr. Fritz confirmed the proposal
met all the requirements of Section 18-36 for the allowance of private
roads, thus no waiver would be required.
It was determined the applicant was requesting private roads primarily
for environmental considerations.
Mix. Cresswell confirmed he agreed with the applicant that cul-de-sacs
built to VDOT standards would cause more environmental disturbance because
they would require more of a finished grade and a greater turning radius.
October 25, 1988
Page 3
Mr. Rittenhouse stated it was his understanding that the applicant was
objecting to the "cul-de-sac roads" being public roads, but not Saddleback
Drive.. He stated it seemed there would be an advantage to having Saddleback
Drive designated as a public road from a maintenance standpoint, "all other
things being equal."
There was some discussion about the differences in the cul-de-sacs, i.e. VDOT
standards vs. private standards. Mr. Stark felt there would not be a great
deal of difference because "2:1 banking" would be necessary for both.
Mr. Bowerman stated that state standards would require that the slope be
lowered to a greater extent than would county standards.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked the applicant if he would object to the dedication
of Saddleback Drive as a public road. Mr. Rouelle indicated that though he
would prefer that the roads all be the same to assure uniformity of
maintenance, he would not object to dedicating Saddleback if that was
the only way the proposal would be acceptable.
Mr. Bowerman stated he was sympathetic to the request for .private roads
and since no waiver. was required he could support three of the roads
being private with Saddleback Drive being built to State standards and
dedicated as a public road. Commissioners Rittenhouse and Michel agreed.
Regarding condition 2(i), as stated previously, the applicant had noted
some concern about requiring drainfields before issuance of a building
permit. He was under the impression that a septic permit could not be
issued until the building permit had been issued. Mr. Bowerman asked
staff if this was a problem. Mr. Horne responded that staff could handle
this issue administratively, "if we inform the Health Department adequately
that this is a unique situation and what's going on, I think they'll
support us and not stick to that."
Mr. Rittenhouse moved that the Emerald Ridge Preliminary Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall meet the requirements of the Subdivision and Zoning
Ordinances.
2. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been
met:
a. Staff approval of deed restrictions to include a) the conservation buffer
zone, b) the minimization of earth disturbance, including tree removal
and c) the location of building sites on those lots (#8-16) proposed
for no stream crossings on Mad Run;
b. Best Management Practices shall be utilized during construction.
Staff (Watershed Management Official) shall review the Soil Erosion
Plan;
c. Not more than two dwellings shall be constructed on the higher
elevations (Lots 17 and 25) the location of which shall be specified
on the final plat;
d. No further division of any lot;
e. Note Saddleback Drive as a public road on final plat;
f. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and
calculations;
117
October 2�, 1988
Page 4
g. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
h. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage plans
and calculations;
i. Lots 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 24, 25, 26, and 27 shall have drainfield
installed and approved prior to issuance of building permit.
3. Administrative approval.of final plat.
Mr.. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Lowe's Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 70,000 square foot building,
including two (2) accessory structures. This site will be served by 335
parking spaces. The site will have access from the proposed Woodbrook Road.
The property located on the crest side of Route 29 South, at the northwest
corner of the proposed Woodbrook Road. Tax Map 45, Parcel 93A and 109A (part
of). Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. William Roudabush. He presentedan
artist's rendering of the proposed building. He explained the applicant
had concerns about condition 2: [A building permit will not be issued until
the following conditions have been met: a) X'DOT issuance of a commercial entrance
permit; and b) Bonding for construction of Woodbrook Drive.]. He pointed out
that Woodbrook. Drive is a dedicated road, the fee simple title for which lies
with the County. He did not think VDOT would issue a commercial entrance
permit on a road until it is actually in the system for maintenance. He
added that "the road is bonded for construction --the bonds are held by the
County." He felt this could be a stumbling block because the applicant
wanted to be able to get the building permit as soon as the final site plan
has been approved. He felt item 2(a) was covered under item l(d) [VDOT approval
of revisions to Woodbrook Road plans for commercial entrance design and
locations]. Mr. Roudabush.also pointed out that because woodbroo'k Drive
has already been bonded, condition 2(b) would be requiring a double
bond.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Steve Cresswell, Assistant County Engineer, stated he agreed with Mr. Roudabush's
assessment of condition 2(a). Regarding the bonding of Woodbrook Drive, Mr..
Cresswell stated he was not certain as to whether or not it had been bonded.
However, he pointed out that he felt it was not necessarily to be applied to
this applicant, but rather that staff was saying that prior to a building
permit, bonding or construction would have to have taken place.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
,Mr. Bowerman asked :lr. Pullen to comment on the.applicant's concerns about
the conditions of approval. Mr. Pullen recommended that condition
1(d) replace the original condition 2(a).
//J
October 25, 1988
Page 5
Regarding condition 2(b), Mr. Horne stated: "The intent of that condition was
to, if necessary, double bond. I think we can review the content of the
bond and if the County can be assured that if the original subdivider and/or
if it's a site plan bond --if we can apply that bond to an entirely different
site plan, then I think we're O.K." He stated he was not sure he agreed
with Mr. Roudabush's analysis. He added: "I think if you just want to leave
it open, what you could do is bonding for construction of Woodbrook Drive
to the satisfaction of the County Attorney." He explained that staff wanted
to make sure that if something happened to the Rio Hills project, there would
be a remaining bond to draw upon for7nentirely separate site plan.
Mr. Horne clarified that staff was not implying -that if Rio Hills defaulted
this applicant would be responsible for the entire construction, but rather
just for that section serving this site plan.
Mr. St. John stated: "We have no power to make this applicant responsible
(if the road is not finished and the bond is inadequate) --we want to make
the record clear that this building can't be built until that is done by
somebody."
Mr. Horne stated staff wanted to make sure that the bond that is in place is
transferable. He added: "We do not want to issue a building permit to
build this building until we can guarantee that there's public road access
to Woodbrook Drive."
Mr. St.. John asked: "We're not saying that if the first developer doesn't
build it, they are agreeing to or incurring a personal responsibility to
build it?" Mr. Horne responded: "No; only if they want to build their building."
It was determined condition 2(b) would be amended as follows:
a Bonding for construction of Woodbrook Drive to the reasonable satisfaction
of the County Attorney and Planning Staff.
Mr. Stark moved that the Lowe's Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to
the following conditions:
(1) The final site development plan will not be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
a) Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and
calculations;
b) Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans
and calculations;
c) Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit.
d) Planning staff approval of landscape plan;
e) Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and
sewer plans.
(2) A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have
been met:
October 25, 1988
Page 6
a) Virginia Department of Transportation approval of revisions to Woodbrook
Drive plans for commercial entrance design and locations;
b) Bonding for construction of Woodbrook Drive to the reasonable
satisfaction of the. County Attorney and Planning Staff.
3. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
conditions are met:
a) Final Fire Officer approval;
b) Completion of Woodbrook Drive.
4. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
Mr. '_Michel seconded the motion which .passed unanimously.
The Centre at Branchlands Final Site Plan - Proposal to create a 53,365 square
foot building to be located on 6.8 acres. The site will have access from
Branchlands Boulevard and Hillsdale Drive, and will be served by 273 parking
spaces. The proposed use is retail. The property is located on the east
side of Route 29 North, approximately 1/4 mile from its intersection with
Greenbrier Drive. lax.Xap 61Z, Parcel 1. Zoned PI:D, Planned Unit Development.
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions, including the following changes to the suggested conditions:
.add 1(e) :
• Department of.Engineering approval of guardrail location.
Change 2(a):
• G'D.OT approval of revisions to Phase I road plans for Hillsdale
Drive.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. William Roudabush represented.the applicant. He was accompanied by Ms.
Roxenne Hill, a partner in the development. Ms —Hill presented an artist's
rendering of the proposal. Regarding the ErDOT commercial entrance permit
(condition 2(a), Mr. Roudabush again pointed out that VDOT would not
issue a permit until the road had been .taken into the state system. He
explained that the roads were near completion but because the.length of
time for the acceptance could not be determined, he asked that this not
be tied to the building perudt.
Mr. Roger Wylie, also representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
Regarding the performance bond (condition 2(b)), he stated: 71,1r. Chairman,
you asked earlier about obligations to complete the road connection
through to Greenbrier Drive as well as the drainage improvements in the PL'D
as a part of the transaction by which these applicants acquired this property.
We retained in escrow an amount of money that we believe is sufficient
to cover all of those improvements as well as the traffic signal on 29
October 25 1588
Page 7
at Branchlands Blvd.._ That money is to be held in escrow until the
developer of the PUD replaces it with a bond that will run in favor of
both of the County and of the owners of this site so that it can be
enforced by either of us...."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
The Chairman asked Mr. Cresswell to comment on the three items for which the
Engineering Department had not yet given approval, i.e. (1) Drainage
and grading plans and calculations; (2) Stormwater detention plans and
calculations; and (3) Retaining wall design. Mr. Cresswell responded
that the stormwater detention plans were covered by the construction of
the wetlands. He indicated he did not anticipate any problems with
the drainage and grading plans. (Mr. Cresswell's comments were inaudible.)
There was a brief discussion about the retaining wall. Ms. Hill pointed
out the location of the retaining wall and the fact that it would be
only about 4'8" high.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that it had not been clear at the time of the
preliminary approval that the filling of the site had not been completed.
He felt this made a significant difference as the building looked much
better on the site at its current elevation.
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Centre at Branchlands Final Site Plan be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final site development plan shall not be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans
and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and
calculations;
c. Department of Engineering approval of retaining wall design;
d. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
e. Department of Engineering approval of guardrail location.
2. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
a. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of revisions
to Phase I road plans for Hillsdale Drive;
b. A performance bond or other acceptable financial guarantee, in a
form and amount acceptable to the County shall be submitted to
guarantee completion of drainage and road improvements as outlined
in the zoning conditions of the PUD.
3. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Final Fire Officer approval;
b. A11 the required improvements as outlined in the PUD zoning
- conditions of approval (drainage and road) must be physically
completed.
October 25�, 1988 Page 8
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The meeting recessed from 9:05 to 9:15.
Coventry Subdivision Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create seven (7) lots
from a total of 68.136 acres ranging in size from 3.5 to 21 acres. Lots are
to be served by a proposed public road. The property is located on the south
side of Route 641 approximately one mile east of Route 29. Zoned RA, Rural
Areas. Tax Map 21, Parcel 45. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Fritz gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Dick rlbidin who offered no additional
comments.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins moved that the Coventry Subdivision Preliminary Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall conform to the requirements of the Subdivision
and ,Zoning Ordinance.
2. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have
been met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and
calculations;
b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit;
c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage
plans and calculations.
3. Administrative approval of final plat.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Cedar Hills Mini Storage Site Plan Amendment - This proposed amendment is
requested to seek relief from condition B, which required that the
applicant upgrade the existing left turn lane located at the northbound lane
of Rt. 29. The property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 221, is located on the
west side of Rt. 29 southbound lane, in front of Cedar dill Trailer Park,
Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. The report explained the applicant's
justification for requesting the amendment:
"Albemarle County Planning Commission recently* approved a significantly
larger warehouse project for Mr. Blake Hurt in a nearby location
and specifically waived the requirement of constructing a turning
lane at the crossover on Rt. 29 North. Mr. Beard's project will be
considerably smaller and he has no plans for future additions. Since
the primary users of the storage facility will be occupants of Cedar Hill
Mobile Estates little additional traffic flow will be generated. It
would appear that Mr. Beard's request to have the requirement that
/aa
October 25, 1988 Page 9
he construct a turning lane on the Northbound side of Rt. 29
should also be waived."
Staff concluded: "In the opinion of staff, this amendment would also seem
appropriate given the Commission's past action concerning the subject
turn lane. Further, the Cedar Hill site will be a substantially smaller
development, generating less traffic than the Rivanna Commercial Park
development. Staff is in support of this amendment. "
The applicant, Mr. Beard, was present but offered no additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman felt staff's logic was clear but wondered "how we keep this from
getting out of hand." He stated he had concern about "additional locations
on 29 and, more importantly, prior approvals we have already made on 29...."
He added that he wanted to "clearly differeniate this one from the first one
assuming that the Commission in the future chooses not to follow its policy
on Blake Hurt's warehouse, assuming that we haven't set a policy change. I
won't want to lose the ground we have already gained on 29 and the 29N
corridor study."
Ms. Diehl asked: "How can you justify it at this point after the decision on
the Hurt property?" She felt the damage had already been done.
Mr. Bowerman replied: "I think we made a mistake." He added: "I think we
can make a mistake, recognize a mistake and act to correct the mistake in the
future if, indeed, that's what we consider it to be. ... I don't have any
problems with making a mistake, doing something -like this to rectify part of
that mistake and inequity, but then not extending it any further."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated he had a problem with granting the amendment based on
the reasons stated here. He felt the requirement for a turn lane for this site
should stand on its own merit. He stated "I don't think it's good reasoning
to predicate our views on this particular technical item based on what was
done on some other site." He did not think it was sound judgment to say
"On 29 we can't require the turn lane on any site that is smaller than Blake
Hurt's site." Mr. Rittenhouse felt there were two inconsistencies involved
in this issue: (1) He understood the applicant's position and felt that
the applicant was making a logical and reasonable request; and (2) Prior to
this point the turn lane was seen as necessary and it would be inconsistent
to continue to ignor those recommendations. He stated: "We have to reserve
the right to make a mistake, if we see it as a mistake, and correct the
mistake. I don't think we are bound to continue the mistake because we have
made a mistake."
Mr. Bowerman responded: "The only thing that's different is it's the same
location, and clearly Blake Hurt's application generated more traffic than
this one. I agree with everything that's been said except I cannot
rationalize away not granting the amendment in this case because of our
action on the last one because it is exactly the same location."
/a3
October 25, 1988 Page 10
:fir. Rittenhouse felt there was one difference, i.e. "there was sentiment on
the Commission that if we approved that site there would be further development
and we would reassess the traffic (at some point of future development) and there
would be a probable opportunity to have that turn lane installed." He did not
think the Commission "signed off" of there ever being a left turn lane in that
location. He wondered if that would be the result of granting this request.
Mr. Bowerman stated: "I don't think we did that."
Mr. Stark agreed and stated: "Clearly I don't think we did that before. I
think we said that the first phase was such that we could live with it that
way and would review it each time he came.in for an additional phase."
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the traffic from Phase 1 of Mr. Hurt's development
was greater than was that generated by this applicant's use. Mr. Rittenhouse
agreed.
Mr. Rittenhouse stated: "I'm willing to consider the amendment, but I want to
be convinced that it's not on its own merits warranted."
Mr. Pullen interjected that the turn lane had not been an issue with this
application because the applicant had not objected and therefore no analysis
had been done by either the staff or the Commission. He added that in
the case of fir. Hurt's application 'Mr. Hurt had objected strenuously to the
turn lane.
Mr. Horne explained that VDOT did not have any standards for when a turn lane is
recommended but rather based their recommendation on the level of traffic,
type of traffic, speed at which traffic travelled, etc. He stated that it
would be difficult for the Planning Staff to come up with any purely objective
standards. He stated: "I think we have,based on recommendations in the past
on the presumption that on a divided primary highway with.high speeds, that
it really needs to be demonstrated in reverse, i.e. it needs to be demonstrated
that the existing turn lane is, in fact, adequate and if there is any inkling
that it is not adequate for the number of vehicles and type of vehicles that
are going to be stacking, then we add the presumption on the other side --upgrade
to the full 200 x 200. From the Planning Staff point of view, we would continue
to make that kind of presumption. That may potentially be a way to differentiate
this site from Mr.. Hurt's site in that with 'Mr. Hurt's site you are dealing
with truck traffic ... so a type -or -vehicle argument could be applied."
There was.a brief discussion as to the method for determining which developer.
is responsible for this type of improvement when the same condition of
approval might be placed on several different plans. Mr..Jenkins was
interested in this issue. Aar. Bowerman explained that it was a "first come"
basis. Mr. Jenkins felt there should be some way for this type of improvement
to be allocated among the developers. (It was later decided staff would
research this issue.)
There was a brief discussion about who would be using these storage units. Mr.
B and explained that approximately 10% of the users would be persons living
in the mobile home park with the remaining coming from off site.
Mr. Stark felt this was an important issue. He stated: "I think before when we
made the argument for the turn that we were not extending it downward, that
/ a4l
October 25, 1988 Page 11
we were talking about not having (large trucks). If in fact we now have some-
thing besides cars going in there, and we might well have small trucks using
that site for storage, I don't see why we shouldn't just leave it."
Mr. Bowerman responded: "Because there's one big thing. We� old that Mr. Hurt's
site was going to use semi -trailers and we didn't choose to make him build it
so we couldn't possibly reverse it...."
Mr. Bowerman felt the applicant's argument was "absolutely correct." Mr. Bowerman
stated that he had no choice but to vote in favor of the amendment, "even though
I categorically disagree with the Hurt situation and I really disagree with
doing this, I feel that I don't have any choice but to vote for it." He added,
however, "but I will not be amenable in any reasonable circumstance to do it
again in the future, when it's reasonably demonstrated to me that additional
development in the future is going to warrant improvements to Rt. 29. I'm
not going to let either one of these stand in my way of seeing my way to
require those. But I think this is a question of equity."
Mr. Rittenhouse stated: "I also disagreed with the Commission's action on
the Rivanna Commercial Park and I believe firmly that the turn lane should
have been installed by that developer. I can't, in good conscience, vote
to require Mr. Beard to construct that turn lane which I think should have
been constructed for the Rivanna Commercial Park, but I will -not be influenced
by any precedent that has been set here." He stated that while he was
uncomfortable with this issue, he would be more uncomfortable voting against
the amendment.
Mr. Rittenhouse moved that. the Cedar Hills Mini Storage Site Plan Amendment,
to delete condition l(b) requiring upgrading the existing left turn lane ,
be approved.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed (6:1) with Mr. Stark casting the
dissenting vote.
nicriiccinn
Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the applicant's motives were based .on equity
and not trying to avoid his responsibilities.
Mr. St. John pointed out that any court would .consider the issue of equity
because they did not just look at technical matters. He explained that
the courts treat applicants "similarly .situated," and therefore the issue
of equity was a legtimate consideration. He explained that the "real test" as
to whether or not this type of requirement can be imposed on an applicant
is the finding that the need for the improvement is "peculiarly and specifically"
generated by this application and "if you can't find that you can't make him
do it."
Mr. Stark expressed concern about the possibility of setting a precedent.
Mr. St. John explained: "You can make a mistake and correct if you acknowledge
that you made a mistake, and that's not a precedent." Mr. Stark asked: "And
have we done that?" Mr. St. John replied: "I think your record is good on
that." Mr. Bowerman added: "And I think we settled an inequity tonight
based on that mistake but now I think we're done with it, hopefully."
/a6
October 25, 1988
Page 12
Mr. Bowerman stated he would like for Mr. St. John to discuss with staff
whether there is any way to address what Mr. Jenkins perceives as an
inequity in determining which developer is responsible for a particular
improvement that might be used by many developers.
Regarding the need for staff analysis, Mr. Pullen asked Mr. St. John;
"Are you still of the opinion that an analysis is required even it the
applicant agrees to a recommendation?" Mr. Pullen gave as an example
persons who voluntarily dedicate 25 feet of.right-of-way on state roads.
Mr. St. John responded: "I think if they voluntarily dedicate them
knowing that they don't have to, that's fine. But if they are voluntarily
dedicating them because you have --when they get the recommendation
from you you have got that in there as one of the requirements, it's
just like telling them that they have to pay $50 to you or to me in order
to get this approval so long as they don't complain about it. No, I don't
think it's right to put it in there in the first place unless you have
some legitimate basis."
Mr. Horne interjected: "That's stated as a requirement. We can recommend
and we can request."
and the staff
Mr. Bowerman concluded: "I know that the intent of this Commission/has been
to mitigate the public concerns that are necessitated by a development, to
try to make the situation at least as good as it was after the development
as it was before. I think the intent has been there. If tie have been a
little bit lax in terms of the application, then.perhaps there's some
things we have to do."
Mr. St. John felt that even if a requirement was mitigated by a perceived
public benefit, it should not be required without an analysis.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
DS
9'JLohn Horne, ecretary
/.76