HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 16 78 PC MinutesMay 16, 1978
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
May 16, 1978, 7:30 p.m., County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman; Col. William Washington, Vice -
Chairman; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Norma Diehl; Mrs. Joan
Graves; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Charles Vest; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio.
Absent was Mr. James Huffman. Other officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker,
Director of Planning; Mr. Ron Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Carlos
Montenegro, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
Mr. Easter called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum
was present.
Minutes of May 8, 1978, were approved by the Chairman as submitted.
Mr. Easter advised the public that the following items were requesting
deferral and would not be heard by the Commission that evening: Gercke Office
Building Site Plan, State Farm Claims Service Office Site Plan, and Seminole
Trail Site Plan.
Deferred item:
SP-78-15. F. Bosley Crowther - request for planned community on 1650 acres
zoned A-1:
Mr. Keeler stated that the request has been to public hearing and a work
work session prior to this meeting. He pointed to the new information included
in the Commission's packet. He briefly reviewed the comments from the Rivanna
Water and Sewer Authority, the Transportation Analysis Plan submitted by the
applicant to the Highway Department, the interior road plans for the development,
the fiscal impact analysis, and the staff's recommended conditions of approval.
Mr. Easter established for the record that all the concerns of the applicant
have been addressed in the conditions of approval.
Dr. Moore questioned if the entrance through Southwood had been addressed.
Mr. Stan Tatum, on behalf of the applicant, said that Mr. Crowther does have
a right-of-way there. Since 30 acres would be dedicated to the County, the county
will be able to develop that portion of the project as they see fit.
Mr. Crowther advised the Commission that he reluctantly agrees with the
Highway Department's requirements for road upgrading.
Mr. Keeler responded to a question raised by Mrs. Diehl that the Highway
Department requirements remain the same, however they will be accomplished in terms
of the phasing of the development as opposed to all being done in the beginning.
Mrs. Graves said that she had thought that the various land uses would be
drafted in such a fashion that the county would know the vehicle trips per day on
each road.
�4 8 z.-
Mr. Keeler replied that the transportation analysis plan had been
requested by the Highway Department as opposed to being requested by the
staff. He reported that the Highway Department accepts the plan for its
purposes, and Mr. Coburn confirmed this.
Mr. Edward Waple questioned the buffer area that is to remain on Route 20
and its use.
Mr. Keeler replied that it will be used for pasture and must conform with
the provisions setforth in the definition of "open space" in the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Payne read to the Commission the definition from the ordinance, and
stated that no buildings could be constructed in this area, not even a barn.
Mr. Crowther stated that this would be no problem.
Mr. Bruce Rasmussen asked about the plans for Old Lynchburg Road ( what
he said is really Route 708 ).
Mr. Coburn said that there are no immediate plans for improvements, however
this route is listed in the 6-Year plan for construction.
Mr. James King questioned the projected traffic that will be going from the
planned community to the university area. Mr. Tatum replied that there is no way
to know this until the development is occupied.
Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that the residential density of the
property as proposed is almost what it is if developed under existing zoning.
Dr. Charles Beegle noted the impact he felt the development would have
on the rural area and the farm community that has some historic value.
Mr. Waple said that he agreed with Dr. Beegle and was concerned about the
scenic roadway.
Mrs. Jean Davis said that she feels the only way to logically develop property
is through the planned community concept. She supported the plan as presented by
the developer.
Mr. Easter closed the public hearing.
Mr. McCann said that he supports the plan as presented by the developer,
though he did note his surprise in the applicant's willingness to accept the Highway
Department's recommendations.
Mr. Gloeckner supported the plan noting that this will prohibit uncontrolled
urban sprawl.
Dr. Moore supported the development, commenting that there is almost a lack
of density.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the word "proportional" in condition #1 as recommended
by the staff, and suggested the work "equal".
There was a brief discussion regarding the intent of this, and the
Commission unanimously agreed to Mr. Payne's suggestion of deleting the final
sentence of the condition and replacing it with the following wording:
FA
a i
"In the final site plan and subdivison plat approval process, open space shall
be dedicated as such in proportion to the developed area at a ratio of 1 acre
of open space to each 2 acres of developed area."
Col. Washington stated that he feels the access to the public area should
be addressed in a condition. Mr. Easter agreed. Mr. Tucker suggested the following
wording for an additional condition of approval: "Access to the public property
shall be provided to the major collector and the area of Oak Hill on demand by
the County of Albemarle, with a minimum right-of-way width of 50 feet." Mr. Crowther
stated that 50 feet is agreeable, however he has only 50 feet to dedicate.
Mr. Keeler said that he wished to state for the record that if the county
puts a large traffic generator into the public area, the county will be responsible
for any upgrading of the internal roads that would be necessary due to the impact
from the public area.
Col. Washington also stated that he feels the Comprehensive Plan addresses
special attention to slopes over 15%. He said that he would prefer that condition
#14 read as follows: "County Engineer approval of grading and site work on slopes
of 15% or greater; provided that not more that 25% of the land area of such slopes shall
be graded on any individual site." The Commission unanimously agreed to this
suggestion.
Mrs. Graves said that she wished the record to note that the open space
is the area outlined in green on the plan and the lake. She specifically said that
she wants the open space to conform to the definition as setforth in Section 16-65.1
of the Ordinance.
Mr. Crowther agreed that this would be no problem.
Mrs. Graves then established that as the commercial and industrial areas
develop, the road will be upgraded as the area becomes more intense.
Mr. Gloeckner then moved approval of the plan subject to the following
conditions, noting that this is the sort of plan the county has been requesting
from the previous owner ( included in the motion was the note regarding the open
space suggested by Mrs. Graves ):
1. Locations and acreages of various land uses shall comply with Approved Plan 1.
Approval is for 825 dwellings distributed as shown on the plan. In the final site
plan and subdivision plat approval process, open space shall be dedicated as such
in proportion to the developed area at a ratio of 1 acre of open space to each
2 acres of developed area;
2. Commercial development shall not exceed 60,000 square feet in retail area. Specific
use approval is for:
MAXIMUM SQUARE FEET
Food shopping (
including meat dept. and
20,000
floor
area
produce )
Retail service
facilities ( such as hardware,
15,000
floor
area
drugstore,
dry cleaners, beauty shop, etc. )
Gas station ( including
service area )
15,000
site area
Bank
1,000
floor
area
Restaurant
5,000
floor
area
Professional Office ( including doctor, dentist,
4,000
floor
area
attorney,
real estate, travel, etc.)
lf�34
3. Not more than 10 individual industrial uses shall be permitted. Permitted uses
shall be in accordance with the following uses; provided that similar uses may
be substituted without amendment of the special use permit:
--Publishing and broadcasting establishments
--Office buildings
--Hospitals
--Research and development establishments
--Technical education
--Research and technical manufacturing and the processing, fabrication, assembly
and distribuion of products such as computers, scientific instruments,
communication and electronic equipment confined to "light" industrial products
or components
--Recreation service uses of a non-commercial nature, limited to those for use
of employees whose work is done within the area
--Cafeterias and dining rooms serving employees of on -site facilities, visiting
customers and other owner -authorized visitors, but not the general public
--Product sales areas for employees only, limited to four thousand (4,000)
square feet per employer
--Assembly of electrical appliances, electronic instruments and devices, radios,
and phonographs and the manufacture of small parts, such as coils, condensers,
transformers, and crystal holders
--Laboratories - Pharmaceutical and/or medical
--Manufacture, compounding, processing, packaging or treatment of such products
as hair products, drugs, perfumes, pharmaceuticals, perfumed toilet soap,
toiletries and cosmetics
--Manufacture of musical instruments, toys, novelties, and rubber and metal stamps
--Manufacture of pottery and figurines or other similar ceramic products, using
only previously pulverized clay, and kilns fired only by electricity or gas
--Office and business machines, sales and service
--Public utilities: Poles, lines,transformers, pipes, meters, and related or
similar facilities; water and sewerage distribution lines
--Public utilities: unmanned telephone exchange centers
--Printing shopes
--Fire stations and rescue squad stations
4. Approval of a special use permit in accordance_ with Section 9A-4-2 and approval by
appropriate federal, state, and local agencies of the dam structure and main
lake shall be obtained prior to construction of dam and/or grading of lake bed;
5. County Engineer approval of smaller impoundments and dams before construction of
the same;
6. Final site plan approval shall conform to the approved Transportation Analysis
Plan for internal streets;
7. Dedication of the 30 acre public area to the County of Albemarle;
8. Only those areas where a structure, utilities, streets, sidewalks, recreation
areas, pedestrian trails, parking areas, and debris basins are to be located shall
be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state;
9. County Attorney approval of Homeowners' Assocation agreements;
10. No grading shall occur within any area of the site until final site plan approval for
that area has been obtained;
11. Highway Department approval of improvements to Routes 631 and 20 South and approval
of plans and specifications of those internal roads to be dedicated to public use;
12. Public sewer as approved by the Albemarle County Service Authority shall be required
for all industrial and commercial uses and for the Cluster Housing; provided
that interim means of sewage disposal, as approved by the Health Department,
may be employed only after written agreement with the Albemarle County Service
Authority to hook to public sewer when capacity is available;
13. All areas except the Farm Community shall be served by public water as approved
by the Albemarle County Service Authority;
118-s
14. County Engineer approval of grading and site work on slopes of 15% or greater;
provided that not more than 25% of the land area of such slopes shall be graded
on any individual site;
15. The following shall serve only as a general phasing guideline for the development
of Biscuit Run Planned Community:
Phase I: Planning/commencement of proposed lakes; commencement of farm
community; dedication of rights -of -way to public use on Routes 631 and 20
South in accordance with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
functional plan; construction of entrance connection to Route 631 to its
ultimate design.
Phase II: Initial development of residential area in northeast corner of
development; development of portions of research park, village, and cluster
areas; construction of entrance connection to Route 20 South to its ultimate
design.
Phase III; Completion of state road down eastern area of the development through
farm community; completion of research park, village, and cluster area;
development of balance of eastern area of development; completion of all
internal roads except northwest corner and connector roads to ultimate design
standards as per Transportation Analysis Plan ( Approved Plan 2 ).
Phase IV: Development of northwest corner; completion of all internal roads
in accordance with Approved Plan 2 ( Transportation Analysis Plan ); completion
of construction on Route 631 north of the connector road entrance in accordance
with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation functional class-
ification plan; completion of dam for main lake.
16. Access to the public property shall be provided to the major collector and
the area of Oak Hill on demand by the County of Albemarle, with a minimum
right-of-way width of 50 feet.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion for approval.
Discussion:
Mr. Easter said that he feels very strongly that the entire tract should be
planned as a unit, and he supports the concept presented by the developer.
The motion carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
Mrs. Diehl left the meeting.
SP-78-20. Edmund M. Kardys to locate a mobile home on 5.003 acres
zoned A-1. Property is located on the west side of Route 20 approximately
1 mile southwest of Carter's Bridge. County Tax Map 112, Parcel 18A,
part thereof. Scottsville Magisterial District.
M
40
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mr. Kardys stated that his intent is to locate the mobile home 720 feet
from the road, behind an existing row of trees. The mobile home is to be a
permanent one, to be used as a retirement home due to his poor health.
Mr. Jim Murray, on behalf of himself, and several other property owners
in the area, opposed the location of the mobile home due to the historic character
of the area, and the fear that it would set a precedent for other single-family
units of that type. Noting that he sympathized with the applicant's problem
of health, he further stated that this would change the character of the scenic highway.
He suggested that the applicant pursue the possibility of an FHA home, with 1000
financing.
Mrs. Dahl said she supported the comments of Mr. Murray.
Mr. Kardys said that he is not trying to blight the area and will hardly
be visible from the highway. He said that he hopes to be a good neighbor to --those
living in the area.
Mr. Whiteside said that he is concerned about what will happen after this
mobile home - will it open the door to lots of mobile homes in the area?
Mr. Alan Rasmussen, the individual who sold the property in question to Mr. Kardys,
said that he had talked to the two immediate adjoining property owners, and they have
no objection. He felt that they would have more concern that anyone else.
Mr. Easter closed the public hearing.
Col. Washington asked if the applicant would be agreeable to a condition
addressing the fact that the mobile home will be neutral in color and of non -
reflective surface.
Mr. Kardys said that this is agreeable.
Mrs. Graves asked if this permit were granted if a residence could go on the
property without Planning Commission approval. Mr. Keeler replied that it could.
Mrs. Graves said that in view of this she would like to view the property
and defer the item for one week. She then made this a formal motion, which was
seconded by Dr. Moore.
It was pointed out that the request is to be heard by the Board the following
evening and that Mr. Kardys is here from New Jersey just for these public hearings.
Mrs. Graves then moved denial of the special permit. The motion died for
lack of a second.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the special permit subject to the following
conditions:
1. Unless otherwise expressly provided herein, compliance with Section 11-14-2 of
the County Zoning Ordinance;
2. Provide a white pine screening ( 5' to 6' :in height ) along Route 20 to the
reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Department;
3. Mobile home to be located as shown on plat submitted by applicant;
4. Only one dwelling unit to be located on this property without Planning Commission
approval;
5. Mobile home to be of neutral color and of non -reflective surface.
q8 7
Mr. Vest seconded the motion.
The motion to approve with the five conditions carried by a vote of 6-2, with
Mrs. Graves and Mr. Easter dissenting.
Mr. Keeler then advised the Commission that the wording of condition #4 means
that if the applicant ever wants to construct a conventional dwelling, he must once
again go through the public hearing process.
Mrs. Graves moved that the Commission reconsider the request, suggesting
that a possible condition might be: "conventional dwelling unit would necessitate
removal of the mobile home."
Col. Washington said that he is not agreeable to that wording due to the
fact that the applicants an Tittle over five acres, and this would be too restrictive
under the current density permitted in the A-1 zone.
Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that the new wording just proposed by
Mrs. Graves would improve the condition.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion to reconsider. This motion died by a vote of 4-4.
Bootie Ballard Preliminary Plat:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the property is located
off Route 749 near Route 601 in the Free Union area. The proposal is to divide one
15+ acre lot from a 108+ acre parcel. The property is to have access by way of an
existing road. The staff's main concern is with regard to insuring safe and proper
access to the subject property. The staff research has found that the existing
road was platted as an "old road" as long ago as the 1930's. However, the staff has
not seen evidence that an easement exists over the entire length of the road. An
actual access easement does not exist. The staff recommended approval of the plat
subject to the following conditions:
1. A 30' wide easement is to be recorded for access to the proposed lot;
2. County Attorney's Office approval of maintenance agreement for private road;
3. County Engineering Department approval of private road specifications;
4. Written Health Department approval;
5. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance
for private road;
6. Technical requirements of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Ballard said that he wants the 15 acre parcel to construct a house for
himself, and that he has no intention of further subdivision of the 15 acres.
Mr. Roger Rogan, owner of the property, said that it will be difficult
to change the road in any fashion to meet the county requirements. He noted that
it is his and Mr. Ballard's desire to leave the road as a mountain road.
Mr. Montenegro pointed out that the easement required in 41 condition may be
problem with the five other property owners in the area.
Mr. Easter said that he is familiar with the property,and a 14' gravel road
would be exorbitant in cost, as well as unrealistic for the location.
0
Mr. Rogan said that he does not see how a commercial entrance can be
constructed, since it is impossible to purchase additional land to meet the
width requirement of the road.
Col. Washington said that since it is possible that no right-of-way
exists, he would like to know what is involved in right-of-way by prescription.
Mr. Payne said that the only sure way to resolve it is to litigate it.
Col. Washington said that he would like to know there is a right-of-way there.
Mr. Jim Murray said that if the Commission insists on the applicant proving there
is a legal right-of-way it may be a very time consuming and expensive matter. He noted
that approving the plat as submitted does not give the applicant anything that he doesn't
already have.
Mr. McCann felt that the applicant and Mr. Rogan can settle between themselves
the proper maintenance for the road, and in view of the location, he felt that there
was no need to require a private road standard as set forth by the Subdivision
Ordinance.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Written Health Department approval;
2. Technical requirements of the Albemarle County Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Gloeckner said that on the final plat he would like to see a note
addressing no further subdivision without Planning Commission or County approval.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Bridlewood Preliminary Plat:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, locating the 234+ acres of A-1
property on the south side of Routes 794 and U. S. Route 250 East just west of
Boyd Tavern. The proposal is to divide parts of two parcels into 13 lots, average
size of 18+ acres. All lots are to be served by a private road. The staff recommended
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Written Health Department approval;
2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance;
3. County Engineering Department approval of private road specificiations;
4. County Attorney's Office approval of maintenance agreement for Bridlewood Drive;
5. Grading permit.
Mr. Mike Boggs, on behalf of the applicant, pointed to the type of large lot
development at the front of the property. There was no public comment.
Mr. McCann moved approval of the preliminary subject to the five conditions
recommended by the staff. The motion, seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, carried unanimously,
with no discussion.
14'q�
Broadway Street Final Plat:
Mr. Payne noted for the record that he would not participate in the discussion
of this item.
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the 1.5 acres of
M-1 property is located off the north side of Broadway Street near Franklin Street.
The proposal is to divide 1.5 acres from the 7-acre parcel. The property will have
frontage along Broadway Street. The road plans for Broadway Street have been approved
by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation with the exception of the pave-
ment design. The Highway Department has no problem with the proposed subdivision
and have stated that the road plans for Broadway Street have already been approved
with the exception of the pavement depth. The staff recommended approval subject to
the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans and
specificiations for Broadway Street;
2. Virginia Department of Health approval of septic facilities;
3. County Engineering Department approval of drainage easement locations;
4. City of Charlottesville approval of this subdivision.
Mr. Tom Sinclair, on behalf of the applicant, asked if bonding could suffice
for part of condition #1.
Mr. Montenegro replied that bonding is one way to handle what is addressed
in this condition.
There was no public comment, and Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat
subject to the four conditions recommended by the staff.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Vest, and carried unanimously, with no further
discussion.
Gercke Office Building Site Plan:
Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from the vote on this item.
Mr. Vest moved that the Commission defer this site plan until June 20, 1978,
as requested by the applicant. The motion, seconded by Dr. Moore, carried unanimously,
with no discussion.
State Farm Claims Service Office Site Plan:
Col. Washington moved that this item be deferred as requested by the applicant.
This motion was seconded by Mr. Gloeckner, and carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Seminole Trail Site Plan:
Upon the motion of Col. Washington, and second of Mr. Gloeckner, the Commission
unanimously voted to defer this as requested by the applicant.
.m
FHM Office Building ( Doctor's Court ) Site Plan:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, locating the 2+ acres of B-1
property on the east side of Hydraulic Road, across from Georgetown Green.
The first phase of this site was approved by the Commission in April, 1976. The
applicant proposes to lcoate one more office building on the previously approved
site. The building will be served by public water and sewer and will have 5,400
square feet of net office space. The previously approved entrance on Hydraulic
Road does not meet current sight distance requirements due to the interference
of a slopes which is off -site. The staff feels that the use of this entrance should
not be intensified without the improvement of the sight distance to the south.
The staff recommended approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions:
1. Either the sight distance to the south of the Hydraulic Road entrance is improved
to meet current Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation minimum
standards, or the parking areas shall be closed off so that the new office
building shall have access from Whitewood Road only;
2. County Attorney's Office approval and recordation of shared parking and access
easements between parcels A, B, and C;
3. Staff approval of Landscape Plan;
4. Staff approval of outdoor lighting;
5. Note the Magisterial District on the plan.
Mr. McCann asked if this is one of the locations along Hydraulic where the
alignment, etc. have been determined. Mr. Coburn replied that it is, and thus
no major improvements to be required of the developer.
Mr. James Payne, the developer's representative, had no comment. There
was also no public comment.
Mrs. Graves questioned the conditions of approval on the recent Huff/Stoke's
applicant.
Mr. Tucker replied that that special permit was conditional upon rural
entrance standards for the property.
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the plat subject to the first four
conditions recommended by the staff ( Mr. Montenegro had earlier stated that the
fifth condition had already been addressed. )
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Pizza Inn Restaurant Revised Site Plan:
Mr. Montenegro stated that the 2.78 acres of B-1 property is located on the
southwest corner of Routes 29 North and Dominion Drive. The proposal is to locate
a restaurant facility on a portion of a 2.78 acre site. The facility will be served
by one entrance from Dominion Drive and is proposed to be served by private water and
sewer. Mr. Montenegro then reviewed the history of the previous applicant on
the property on the northwest corner of Route 29 North and Dominion Drive. The
staff felt that with the revised site plan the question of access is of prime
importance. The staff and the Highway Department have considered various
W
points of access to this site and requiring the developer to procure access rights
from an -adjacent property owner. The location on Dominion Drive is preferable.
The staff recommended approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions:
1. Fire Official approval of fire fighting facilities;
2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance
including left turn lanes;
3. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
4. Staff approval of landscape plan;
5. Grading permit.
Mr. Tom Sinclair, on behalf of the applicant, stated that there are no object-
ions to the conditions of approval. He did state that any point of access off -site
would be prohibitive in cost, running at a minimum of $50,000. As shown on the plan,
the entrance facility and turn lanes will cost in excess of $9,000.
Mr. James Cosby, representing the Berkley Community Association, feels that
this is a proper use of the property, however he did state that the property is
not zoned B-1 because of Dominion Drive. Any sort of entrance as shown on the
plan would destroy the trees on the left side of the drive into Berkley, as well
as remove part of the entry sign to Berkley/Four Seasons. He requested that access
be from Route 29 only, and again requested a study for a traffic light at the
intersection of Dominion Drive and Route 29 North.
recerlt
Mr. Easter stated that as its mostnstudy showed, the Highway Department
had stated that there is not enough traffic at that intersection to justify the
location of a traffic light.
Mr. Alan Scouten reinforced the comments made by Mr. Cosby, and asked that
access be from the Branchlands crossover in view of the future development that
is planned for the area.
Mrs. Joan Demetsky said that she is aware of the fact that one of the
adjoining property owners objects to the Dominion Drive access. Furthermore,
she suggested that the homeowners of the area assist the applicant in his negotiations
with Mrs. Marinos in order to have off -site entrance. She stated that the concerns
of the area are safety -oriented.
Mrs. Graves questioned the meaning of the open space along the stream
shown in the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Tucker replied that open space is recognized
along all stream beds in the County in the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Coburn advised the Commission that the Highway Department is opposed to all
accesses from Route 29 for commercial purposes - the more curb cuts made into Route 29,
the less acceptable it is as an arterial route.
Mr. Gloeckner asked if the Highway Department comments address safety as well.
Mr. Coburn replied that they do, noting that access to Route 29 would encourage more
U-turns to get to the property.
Mr. Gloeckner then stated that under the conditions in which the developer and
the county have to work, this proposal is the best solution.
Mr. Wood said that he has attempted to discuss off -site entrance to the property,
however Mrs. Marinos would not even discuss her property with him.
Z-
Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the site plan subject to the five conditions
recommended by the staff.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mrs. Graves said that she could not support the motion, since she
favored a joint entrance.
The motion carried by a vote of 6-1, with Mrs. Graves dissenting.
With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
zw � -
Rob rt V. Tucker, Jr. - Secr tary
19