Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-01-21 adj189 January 21, 1987 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (PaGe 1) An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held on January 21, 1987, at 3:30 P.M., Meeting Room ~5, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. F. R. Bowie, Mrs. Patricia H. Cooke (arrived at 4:03 P.M), Messrs. Gerald E. Fisher, C. Timothy Lindstrom and Peter T. Way. BOARD~MEMBERS ABSENT: Mr. J. T. Henley, Jr. OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., County Executive; Mr. John T. P. Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; and Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Deputy County Executive. Agenda Item No. 1. Call to Order. the Chairman, Mr. Fisher. The meeting was called to order at 3:34 P.M. by Agenda Item No. 2. Work Session. (deferred from December 3, 1986). ZTA-86-09. Site Development Plan Ordinance Mr. Horne said the staff prepared an addendUm to the previous report on the Site Development Plan Ordinance in order to answer questions raised at the public hearing by Mrs. Treva Cromwell of the League of Women Voters which comments have been endorsed by the Piedmont Environmental Council. Mr. Fisher said Mrs. Cromwell had called him to say that sh~ was not able to attend this meeting due to illness. She had said she is still not happy with what Mr. Horne Will be presenting, which is set out in a memorandum dated December 22, 1986, from John T. P. Horne to Guy B. Agnor, Jr., as follows: "Following are the staff's responses to the specific concerns raised by Mrs. Treva Cromwell at the December 6, 1986, Board of Supervisors' meeting. Under each item is Mrs. Cromwell's statement followed by the staff comment and/or suggested amendments. Section 32.2.2. The Commission may waive the requirement for a site plan after the agent has made his recommendation. Considering the intent of this plan as stated in Section 32.1, I wonder when such a waiver would be justi- fied? How would adjacent landowners know a waiver was requested when no preliminary plan would be required. Staff Comment: This section is a provision from the current site plan ordinance. The intent of this section is to relieve an applicant of the unnecessary expense and time delay of developing a detailed site plan drawing in a case where only one or two improvements would be required (i.e., a commercial entrance to serve three dwellings). As a matter of Com- mission and administrative policy, notification to adjoining property owners is provided. This could be further clarified by amending the first line of proposed Section 32.2.2 as follows: 32.2.2. The foregoing notwithstanding, after notice in accordance with 32.4.2.5, the commission may waive the requirement of a site development plan in a particular case upon a finding that the requirement of such plan would not forward the purpose of this ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest; provided that no such waiver shall be made until the commission has considered the recommendation of the agent. The agent may recommend approval, approval with conditions, or denial of such waiver. In the case of conditional approval, the agent in his recommendation shall state the relationship of the recommended condition to the pro- visions of this section. No condition shall be imposed through the application of the regulations of section 32.0. Mr. Lindstrom said this gives the Commission the authority to waive the physical preparation of the site plan. Mr. Horne replied yes, the Commission has that authority now; it is just being list~ again; it is not to waive the provisions of the ordinance. Mr. Horne said the Commission is suggesting that the words "after notice in accordance with 32.4.2.5," be added to the ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the following change: "the Commission may waive the requirement of the physical preparation of a site development plan." Mr. Horne replied that is fine. Mr. Agnor asked if Mr. Lindstrom meant the drawing of a site development plan. Mr. Lindstrom said that would be fine. Mr. Horne asked for confirmation of the wording, "the drawing of a site development plan." Mr. Lindstrom said yes. Section 32.3.11. The commission may waive, vary or substitute for any of the minimum standards in section 32.7. Such changes would not be reflected in the preliminary plan for commission or public comment. Section 32.3.11.2. The Commission may waive minimum standards because of certain physical conditions of the site that would lead to degradation of adjacent property. Section 32.7.3. Commission may waive requirements for accessways to adja- cent property. I believe that the text of the sections makes clear under what conditions waivers may be granted and can see the need to make adjustments. But I believe that the public has a right to know what chanqes are sought and, therefore, requests for waivers should come before the Commission in the Preliminary Plan. That's the only time the public can be sure of having a "crack" at what's being proposed. January 21, 1987 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) ( Pag~ ~ Staff Comment: It is intended that waiver requests accompany Commission review of the site plan as evidenced by proposed Section 32.5.3. This can be further clarified by changing proposed Section 32.3.11.4 as follows: 32.3.11.4. A developer requesting waiver, variation, or substitution pursuant to this section shall file with the agent a written request which shall state reasons and justifications for such request together with such alternatives as may be proposed b¥ the developer. Such request shall be submitted prior to Com- mission consideration of the preliminar~ or final plan, by such date as may be specified by the agent. No such request shall be considered by the Commission until the Commission has considered the recommendation of the agent. The agent may reco~m-~end approval, approval with conditions, or denial. A recommendation of approval or conditional approval shall be accompanied by'a statement from the agent as to public purpose served by such recomendation, particularly in regard to the purpose and intent of this ordinance, the Subdivision Ordinance, and the Comprehen- sive Plan. Mr. Fisher said this means it must go to the Commission before the agent can grant any waiver; it must be known by the Commission at the time it considers the rest the plan. Mr. Horne replied yes; the rest of the changes take almost all of the waiver provisions out of the hands of the agents. So, all waiver provisions are going back to the Commission. The Commission must grant the waiver and it must be submitted prior to consideration of the preliminary or the final site development plan. Mr. Fisher said the applicant can have a preliminary site plan that does not have the request for waivers, and then a final site plan that does have that request. Mr. Horne replied yes; due to changes. However, all adjoining property owners will receive notice; this would not be agent approval of the final site plan. The agent does not have the power to grant waivers. Mr. Lindstrom said he is concerned because people are depending upon minimum standards being applied. He does not mind the waiver as long as there is adequate notice to adjoining property owners or whoever would be an aggrieved party because the waiver is granted. Mr. Lindstrom asked how the Commission would handle it if a request for a waiver comes in a day or two before the preliminary hearing; would there be time for proper notification. Mr. Horne replied that requests for waivers must be in writing and must be submitted with the application for preliminary approval. At site committee review, the applicant has a revision deadline, and at this point the applicant must submit all information that will be going forward to the Commission. If the revision deadline is not met, neither the plan nor the waiver will proceed. Mr. Lindstrom said the Commission does not foresee any waiver being considered unless it was filed with the preliminary site plan or by the revision date. Mr. Horne said the latest date would be the revision date after site review. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the words "the waiver must be submitted with the preliminary site plan or by the final revision date," be included. Mr. Horne suggested the following: "Such request shall be submitted prior to the revision deadline for review of the preliminary or final plan." Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with rewriting if the intent is to clarify. However, if procedures are being changed, he would like to know because it is difficult to tell now. Mr. Lindstrom suggested the following: "Such request shall be submitted prior to Commission consideration of the preliminary or final plan, but in no event less than prior to such consideration." Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning, said this does not give staff time to respond. Mr. Lindstrom asked what kind of notice adjoining property owners receive when a waiver is requested. Mr. Horne replied the notice does not state whether a request for a waiver has been submitted. Mr. Lindstrom said on waiver requests, notice should be provided to interested parties so it is not assumed that minimum standards apply. Mr. Keeler said the Commission is now trying to insure that by the revision deadline the applicant supplies everything that is necessary so further revised plans are not turned in at the Commission meeting. By revision deadline (22 days), this would be the plan that goes to the Commission. Mr. Lindstrom again suggested that the request for a waiver be included in the notice. Mr. Bowie said this seems reasonable. Mr. Bowie then asked what happens if a request for a waiver comes in after the 22 day deadline. Mr. Horne replied that the petition is taken, off the agenda. Mr. Horne suggested that the phrase "by such date. . ." be deleted and the following be inserted in its place: "no later than the site review revision deadline." The Board members agreed. Section 32.3.8. Revisions. This is either an accidental omission or a drastic change from the draft plan I saw in September. "No change, revi- sion, or erasures shall be made on any pending or final site development plan or on any accompanying data sheet unless where approval has been endorsed on the plan or sheet unless authorization is granted in writing by the agent." In the earlier draft, "authorization is granted by the Board of Supervisors or its agent." Why was "Board of Supervisors', omitted? In my discussion with Mr. Keeler and Mr. Horne, I had questioned under what conditions such great responsibility would fall to the agent and suggested for consistency as well as for the a~ent's sake, a set of guidelines should be developed to assist the a~ent during discussions with the applicant. Streamlining Land Use: A Guidebook for Local Government, published by Housing and Urban Development, addressed this situation and recommended that when staff asks the applicant to modify a project, "there must be a set of guidelines to limit staff discretion durin~ discussion." I believe that such criteria would also relieve them of undue pressure from applicants. 19! January 21, 1987 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (P_aqe 3) Staff Comment: The first paragraph of Section 32.3.8 has been in the Site Plan Ordinance since its adoption in 1975 (reference to the Board of Super- visors was deleted since staff could not recall any occasion in which revision by the Board was requested. The Board has reviewed several appeals). The purpose of the paragraph is to establish that unsolicited or unauthorized changes to a pending or approved plan are unacceptable. Language in this section appears awkward. Staff recommends that the follow- ing be substituted for the first paragraph of Section 32.3.8: 32.3.8 Revisions No change, revision or erasure shall be made on any pending or final site development plan nor on any accompanying data sheet where-apg~eva~-has-been-endorsed-en-~he-p~a~-o~-shee~-ua~ess except where such chanqe has been required by the site review committee or commission. Any site development plan may be revised, provided that request for such revision shall be filed and processed in the same manner as the original site develop- ment plan. The foregoing notwithstanding, the agent may approve administra- tively, without submission to the site review committee or the Commission, minor changes to approved site development plan in any case in which he shall determine that the site development plan, as amended, is in compliance with the terms of all appli- cable law; is substantially in compliance with the approved site development plan together with all conditions imposed by the co...ission or agent thereof; and will have no additional adverse impact on adjacent properties or public facilities. Mr. Horne said since 1975 the Board has not reviewed a revision, this has been done at other levels. Mr. Horne pointed out the recommended revision. He said the intent is to make it clear to the applicant that once the staff has endorsed a copy of a plan, no unsolicited changes are wanted since it will change components of the approval procedure down the line. Mr. Fisher asked if the word "pending" means something different than the word "preliminary." Mr. Horne said there is no difference, and if the word "pending" was changed to "preliminary" it would not create any additional burden. Section 32.5.3. Preliminary Plan Content -- Waivers. Section 32.5.6. Several phrases added to first draft, making requirements more specific. Believe there's a duplication with Section 32.5.6.c, unless for some reason emphasis is needed. Staff Comment: Section 32.5.3 refers to waivers while Section 32.5.6.c refers to variances, rezoning proffers and bonus factors. Attempt was made to make language more specific than original draft. Section 32.5.6.h. Add intermittent streams" unless Health Department' s regulations cover them. Staff Comment: Staff agrees that "intermittent streams" should be added and recommends the following for Section 32.5.6.h: 32.5.6 h. Location of septic setback lines from watercourses 'including intermittent streams and other bodies of water. Section 32.6.6.d.7. Flood Plain Limits: I believe the acreage should be less than 100 acres. Thought the staff had some reservations also. Staff Comment: Staff recommends the following change to Section 32.6.6.d.7: 32.6.6 d. 7. Flood plain limits for the one hundred year storm for all watercourses ~ha~-have-a with an upstream drainage area of fifty (50) acres or more provided that the county engineer may waive this requirement u~on determination that such information is unnecessary for review of the proposed development. Concerning Section 32.6.6.d.7, Mr. Horne said below the 50 acre level is not parti- cularly useful in site review, and it cannot be accurately estimated what a one hundred year storm will do on a smaller drainage basin. The 50 acre level is based on the advice of the County Engineer's staff of what is a reasonable size that is useful in the review process, "provided that the County Engineer may waive this requirement. . ." Mr. Fisher said when construction is allowed to take place on a floodplain or near enough to it that there is risk or liability, there is a potential of serious problems for the County. Mr. Horne said he agrees. Mr. Bowie said if construction takes place upstream and it changes the floodplain, he does not know if complete engineering will have made any difference. Mr. Bowie said he feels that within reason professional staff should be allowed to make professional judgments Mr. Agnor asked if the "provided that" section can be d~opped now that the drainage are. has been lessened to 50 acres, so that there is no provision for a waiver. Mr. Horne said this can be done; however, engineering staff feels circumStances will come up where an unnecessary calculation will be imposed on an applicant. After some further discussion, Mr. January 21, 1987 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Page 45 Lindstrom suggested that the words ""for drainage areas of less than one hundred (100) acres," be added after the words "provided that the county engineer may waive this requirement" in Section 32.6.6.d.7. Mr. Horne agreed. Section 32.7.4.1.b. This section doesn't take into consideration impact of adjoining parcels each with a minimum impervious area. Staff Comment: Mrs. Cromwell's reference is to an existing provision known as the "urban stormwater detention ordinance." Some years ago staff identi- fied the need for a comprehensive and Simultaneous review of the urban stormwater detention ordinance, run-off control ordinance, and soil erosion and sedimentation control ordinance. Such review has been repeatedly delayed due to personnel changes in various departments. Mr. Horne said this is the best available section the staff has at this time, and it is the exact section that is in the current ordinance. Mr. Lindstrom said this section waives a requirement within certain geographical areas where the development of a lot would result in a total impervious surface. Section 32.7.9.1. Landscaping Plan. Although required (except where it's waived by the agent in Section 32.7.9.3) in the final plan, it is not required in the Preliminary Plan unless the Commission required it, or the a~ent determines it is necessary for the preliminary plan, or when the impervious area exceeds 80% of the gross area. Landscapin~ is often the problem with adjoining landowners. It is not fair to let them wait until the final plan to let them know what is proposed. Section 32.7.9.3. Furthermore the agent may vary or waive in whole or in part of the landscape requirements together with improvements required. I do not understand the procedure by which adjacent land owners will know what was originally required or what the agent has changed. How can we be sure there is consistency in such decisions? Staff Comment: Prior to adoption of landscaping provisions as proposed by staff, the vast majority of landscape plans were approved by staff after Commission review of a site plan. Proposed Section 32.7.9.3 clearly out- lines procedures for, and limitations on, variations and waivers on which the agent could act, including requirement of written record. For example, in any case where an adjoining owner expresses concern about landscaping/screening during Commission review of the preliminary plan, the Commission would add a condition to its approval as has been done in the past. This would prohibit the agent from acting (This issue was specifical- ly discussed at the Commission's hearing. For more specific information, see the Commission's minutes). Should the Board determine that a change to the proposed language is warranted, staff recommends the following: 32.7.9.3 Variation and Waiver. The commission may vary or waive the requirement of a land- scape plan in whole or in part together with improvements required herein and~o~-~m~emen~-w~u~d-n~e-~orwa~d-~rp~ses-o~-~h~s-e~- d~anee-or-o~he~w~se-se~e-~he-p~e-~e~es~?-p~ew~ded ~ha~7-s~eh-va~a~e~-e~-wa~ve~-sha~-~esm~-~-a-p~an-s~- s~s~en~-w~h-~R=~=8-e~-~s-see~en in accordance with section 32.3.11. January 21, 1987 (Afternoon - Adjourned Meeting) (Page 5) Mr. Horne said the reason the staff feels differently about this is because the landscaping provisions in the Zoning Ordinance are detailed, but it cannot be quantified in all cases, i.e., what is an appropriate tree in an appropriate location. Since the County has a detailed landscaping ordinance, Mr. Bowie does not see why the agent should not be able to make changes or waivers, rather than sending it ~back to ~the Commission. Mr. Horne said if a site plan is turned in and adjoining property owners express concern about a particular landscaping item, the Commission can impose a specific condition and this condition becomes an approved provision of the site plan. In this case, the agent.cannot vary this. Mr. Lindstrom said the procedures worked out earlier in the meeting do not apply to this set of waivers. Mr. Horne replied no. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the section contains a pro- vision for notice to adjoining property owners. Mr. Horne replied no. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not object to this if there is a provision for notice that would be compatible with the notice sent out for request of waiver in Section 32.4.2.5. Mr. Tucker said ina landscaping plan, in most cases the Commission approves a plan with the condition of staff approval of the landscape plan. Mr. Horne said if an adjoining property owner is concerned about the site and landscaping, when they receive notice about the site plan, they will get involved in that process. Mr. Bowie said if it is not specified by the Commission that there is interest in the landscape pla~, this is the purpose of the ordinance so guidance is available for staff. Mr. Lindstrom asked if, at the final review stage, the property owner can request a waiver in whole or in part for the requirement of a landscape plan. Mr. Horne replied this is an extremely remote possibility. Mr. Lindstrom asked if this can be done, legally speaking. Mr. Horne replied yes. Mr. Lindstrom suggested that the deleted words in 32.7.9.3.a. be reinstated, and a phrase about notification be included also. Mr. Horne suggested that the words "after ten days notice as required in Section 32.4.2.5," be inserted just before the phrase "in accordance with. Section 32.3.11." Mr. Lindstrom said he has no problem with leaving Section 32.7.9.3.a. the way it was written as long as it contains a stipulation about notification. Mr. Bowie said he has no problem with the notification provision, but he dOes with the interpretation of when people must be notified when something is being done. He said three years have been spent trying to streamline the ordinance; now notification is being rein- serted every time something is being done. The Planning Commission approved this in its original format, and now changes are being made and the Commission should be allowed to comment as to whether or not the changes are reasonable before a vote is taken by the Board. He said the Commission should have a chance to consider whether or not the changes will cause staff so much trouble that it will get in the way of a proper job being accomplished. The changes are minor, but they will entail a great many letters having to be mailed out. Mr. Lindstrom said the first notice of waiver is no different than the notice that will have to be sent. The notice under discussion is new, but this is also a new waiver. It concerns the last stages of approval. Mr. Horne said he understands what Mr. Bowie is speaking about. However, he does not think many situations will come up where an actual variance on a landscape plan will have to be done. The landscape ordinance is specific and it gives a choice of methods; within that choice, a great majority of applicants will be able to complete landscape plans. Mr. Lindstrom said this is not a waiver, it is just a choice of "a" or "b." Mr. Horne said he does not think the staff will have any problem with this, and he thinks the Commission would prefer this method to the Commission doing this itself. Mr. Fisher asked if the Board members had come to a consensus of opinion. Mr. Way asked for confirmation that Mr. Horne believes this will happen only rarely. Mr. Horne replied yes. Mr. Fisher said the consensus seems to be to reinsert the deleted words and add the phrase about the written notice. Staff Comment: amendments: In addition to the above, staff recommends the following 32.5.6 r. 2. Existinq contours - one-half (1/2) of the contour interval required in section 32.5.6.d above; 32.6.6 h. 2. Existinq contours - one-half (1/2) of the contour interval required in section 32.6.6.b above; Mr. Fisher asked if the Board members had any other concerns to discuss. He recognized a lady in the audience who asked for clarification on what the wording is for Section 32.6.6.d.7, Flood Plain Limits. Mr. Lindstrom read the decided upon wording. Mrs. Joan Graves asked if the Board members had had time to consider the suggestions made in her letter of January 14, 1987. Mr. Fisher said not yet. Concerning the remarks in Mrs. Graves' letter about waivers, Mr. Lindstrom said he feels there will be no problem with the waivers as long as people have knowledge that a waiver will be granted. He said the language in the ordinance concerning waivers is such that waivers will not be arbitrarily granted. The notice will allow people to participate and voice their concerns. Mr. Keeler said unless the Board gives the Commission the authority to waive requirements in this section of the Zoning Ordinance, then it falls to the Board of Zoning Appeals, and that would be a very complicated process for all concerned. Mr. Bowie said he agrees with Mr. Lindstrom that you cannot write an ordinance without some kind of waiver process. Mr. Way said he believes the waiver process will improve a situation that would otherwise be unacceptable. Mr. Fisher asked the Board members to give some attention to a letter from the Piedmont Environmental Council, dated January 6, 1987. Mr. Horne gave a brief analysis of the letter, (a copy of which is on file in the Clerk's office), section by section, with the Board members commenting as follows: Section 32.2.2. Waiver of requirement to develop a site development plan. Mr. Horne said this has been accomplished. Section 32.3.8. Addition of the Words "in accordance with the next paragraph." Mr. Horne said he does not think this is necessary. Section 32.3.10. January 21, 1987 (Afternoon- Adjourned Meeting) (Pa~e6) 194 Additional notice, explaining waivers. Mr. Home said it is not practiCal in. notifications include to an explanation. Mr. Lindstrom agreed. Section 32.3.11. Guidelines for granting waivers. Mr. Horne said the guidelines are adequate. Section 32.3.11.2. Addition of the words "or. to adjaCent properties." Mr. Horne said adjoining properties are implied in the designations.~ However, if the Board feels the addition of these words is necessary, he does not believe the Commission would object to including this phrase. Mr. Lindstrom said this is sometimes stated in various places in the ordinance. He suggested it be included in this section and in Section 32 7 9.3 b. Mr. Horn~ agreed. · · - Section 32.3.11.4. Citizen review and comment; 10 day review period... Mr. Horne said the staff believes this is covered. Section 32.4.2. Requesting notification of Site Plan Review Committee meetings. Mr. Horne said the staff prefers this be continued as a technical meeting between staff and the designer of a particular site. Mr. Lindstrom said he does not have a problem with this as it stands. Mr. Fisher said people are not prohibited from attending the meetings, but they are not invited to come. Mr. Horne said the results of these meetings go to public review and to the Planning Commission. Mr. Lindstrom said land development has public responsibility and obligation even though it is the property owner's development of his own property, and to make it subject to public negotiation at every stage is more than what is necessary. Mr. Keeler said the issues between the developer and adjoining property owners will not be addressed by any agency who is party to a site review committee. Many of the agencies are not County agencies and the County relies on their cooperation. The meetings run quite long, and if it becomes a public hearing type meeting, the meetings will not move along as rapidly as they do now. Section 32.5.3. No waivers should be accepted after submittal of a preliminary/final plan unless... Mr. Horne said this has been changed so that waivers can be requested up to revision date, including notice to adjacent owners, waiver requests to be included in notice, sufficient review time, and extensive guidelines. Section 32.6.6.d.7. Flood Plain Limits. Mr. Horne said this has been changed. Section 32.7.2.8. Pedestrian Obstacle Studies. Mr. Horne said while some are incorporated into this ordinance, the Commission feels these are not adopted County poliCies and were never intended to be. Section 32.7.4.1. Drinking Water Supply Watershed. Mr. Horne said in some sections of the Rivanna River there are no requirements for water detention. He believes water detention is being confused with runoff control. Water detention is not always required because it is felt it is best to allow flood waters in a low drainage basin to move on rather than wait for the full upstream flood waters. Mr. Lindstrom asked what happened with the Riverbend Shopping Center Site Plan. Mr. Keeler said the issue was that there were no other properties between the site and the Rivanna, a receiving stream. The idea of this ordinance is to protect downstream properties; new language has been added to deal with potential pollution problems that will apply wherever a site plan is required. Section 32.7.9.6. Fire Protection. Mr. Lindstrom said this has already been done (adding subparagraph b). Section 32.7.9.8.c.3. Screening. Mr. Home said the Commission does not feel it is necessary to change the word "objectionable" to "visibly intrusive." Mr. Fisher asked if there were any other comments or questions. There were none. Mr. Fisher said it appears the Board has a consensus agreement on the bulk of the ordinance. He asked if the Board members wanted to adopt the ordinance today. Mr. Lindstrom said he has no objection to adopting the ordinance as it now stands, as a recommendation to the Commission. He does not feel the essence of the ordinance has been affected. Mr. Bowie agreed; however, because of the changes made based on the letters received, he believes it is courteous to send it back to the Commission for its comments. Mr. Lindstrom said this is reasonable. Mr. Fisher said it would be stronger if the Board adopted the ordinance on a resolution of intent as modified. Mr. Horne agreed. Mr. Lindstrom offered motion to adopt a resolution of intent to adopt the Revised Site Development Plan Section 32 of the Zoning Ordinance, with the amendments indicated in the staff's memorandum of December 22, 1986, as modified on January 21, 1987, with Section 32.9.3 reverting to the original wording in the ordinance, with the ordinance being returned to the Planning Commission for its comments. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bowie. There was no further discussion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Mr. Bowie, Mrs. Cooke, Messrs. Fisher, Lindstrom, and Way. NAYS: None. ABSENT: Mr. Henley. Mr. Tucker suggested that when the Board does decide to adopt the ordinance, it be adopted effective 30 or 60 days from that date to allow an opportunity for staff to get ready for implemention and so that the public might be notified of the pending date of adoption. Agenda Item No. 3. to be discussed. Other Matters Not Listed on the Agenda. There were no other matters Agenda Item No. 4. Adjourn. With no further business to come before the Board the meeting was adjourned at 5:04 P.M. '