HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 06 81 PC MinutesJanuary 6, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting on Tuesday, January 6,
1981, 7:30 p.m., Board Roofm, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Those members present were : Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman, Allen Kindrick, James R.
Skove, Kurt Gloeckner, Corwith Davis, and Mr. David Bowerman. Other officials
present were Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney, and Mr. Ronald S.
Keeler. Absent was Mr. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-officio.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order.
Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., presided over the nominations of officers.
Mr. Gloeckner nominated Mrs. Norma Diehl for Chairman of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bowerman seconded this nomination which carried unanimously.
Mr. Skove nominated Mr. Bowerman for Vice -Chairman.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded this nomination which carried unanimously.
Mr. Gloeckner nominated Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., for Secretary to the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Skove seconded this nomination which carried unanimously.
Westfield Section One, Block B, Final Plat - located at southeast corner of the
intersection of Commonwealth Drive and Greenbrier Drive; proposed division of 2.49+
acres into two parcels of 40,000 square feet and 68,836 square feet. Tax Map
61W, parcel 9, Charlottesville, Virginia.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Kit Collins representing the applicant, stated that since it was a corner lot, the
owners were under the impression that they could have a parking lot with access
on both Greenbrier and Commonwealth Drive as long as they met the requirements of
visability, etc.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler if he had any comment concerning this.
Mr. Keeler replied he was unaware the applicant had any difficulty with the
Highway Department recommendation. This was a deferred item and the recommendation
was made sometime ago.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing.
r
Mr. Gloeckner questioned why the Highway Department was asking for access only
on Commonwealth Drive. He further stated, that: there was sight distance on
Greenbrier and being a corner lot, he thought this was a heavy restriction to
put on this property.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the reason for this might. be that the Highway Department
viewed Greenbrier Drive as being a thru street between Hydraulic loop and Rte. 29
and wished to limit access.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that an access point would be closer to the property line, and
the street and property grade are close together. He also stated that he would like
to see a site plan before he would limit this to subdivision level.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler if the Highway Department had a reason for this condition.
Mr. Keeler replied that the Highway Department recommended access be restricted to
Commonwealth Drive. He further stated that the Highway Department was obligated
to give an access to public road and they could determine which public road should
have access.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there were any further comments.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that perhaps the Highway Department wished to restrict Lot 11
from going thru Lot 11A, and the Commission could restrict this lot as far as
access to Greenbrier Drive.
Mr. Bowerman stated that a site plan for this area was passsed with two entrances,
and he felt that access should be limited to Lot 11, with no access across 11A
to Lot 11.
Mrs. Diehl called for a motion.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval with the following condition:
1. Note that Lot 11 has access only from Commonwealth Drive.
Mr. Bowerman seconded this motion which carried unanimously.
TIT C!'TTC C T/lTT
Mr. Bowerman inquired of the applicant, who was tending the cemetery on Lot 11.
He also wanted to know what would happen to the cemetery site once the property
was developed.
Buddy Edwards replied the cemetery would remain undisturbed.
Kit Collins stated that another family had an easement to the cemetery.
Mr. Bowerman stated that someone should be responsible for the upkeep.
Mr. Edwards stated that all you could do was to clean up the vegetation.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne if this should be addressed at this time or at site
review.
Mr. Payne stated that there was not a great deal you can do to address it, and it has
nothing to do with the subdivision. It this lot is sold the buyer will be on notice
C—
that a cemetery exists.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if there was anything in the ordinance that pertains
to maintenance of cemeteries.
Mr. Payne replied there was nothing in the Subdivision Ordinance or the Zoning
Ordinance, and that the law of cemeteries is vague. He felt that the responsibility
is with the holder of the easement.
Mr. Tucker ascertained that this could be better addressed at site review.
SP-80-76 - Willoughby Corporation - located off the south side of Harris Road just
south of the City limits; proposal to amend 27 acres of the original Willoughby
PUD to allow 128 duplex units on 14.5 acres with 7.0 acres in open space and 5.0
acres in Roads. Tax Map 76M(2), Parcel 7, Scottsville District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if the applicant had any comments.
Mr. Parks stated that the lots are for duplexes instead of single family because
of the interest rates and inflation. Originally it was thought the duplexes shown
on the old plan would be sufficient, but these are already built and sold. This
plan is for duplexes instead of single family because this is where the demand is.
He also stated that he hoped that the Commission would not wait for the Highway
Department to endorse the concept because Harris Road is wide enough and over -
designed now. If you lengthen the road by putting in the curve you would have a
race track;(what we want to do is put in a stop sign and a U-turn which would be
consistent with the plan of 1977.) In the approved plan a condition of approval
was for a pedestrian pathway system on the North side of the street. If sidewalks
are required on both sides of the street, the street would have to be widened;
gutters would have to be installed; 6" curbs, etc.
Mr. Parks pointed out that the detention basin already built, is to accomodate
runoff for future development in accordance with the stormwater ordinance. If you
change this, a storm drainage system would have to be built.
Mr. Keeler pointed out as he understood it, sidewalks were originally required on
all roads in the development. With the last plan the argument was made about the
cost and sidewalks were not required on the road but instead a pathway system proposed
in open space areas which would carry people down to Harris Road, where sidewalks were
required on both sides. For the current plan, with the increase in density staff
recommends, consistent with the last approval, that sidewalks be on both sides of
the road.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that these were Virginia Department of Highways & Transpostation
standard sidewalks on Harris Road as opposed to asphalt sidewalks.
Mr. Parks stated if the Highway Department wanted two sidewalks, curb, gutter,
stormwater management system then in his opinion, this would be an normal
Planned Unit concept.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing.
3
Mr. Gloeckner inquired if Harris Road was the only access into Willoughby_
at this time.
Mr. Parks replied "yes."
Mrs. Diehl inquired of Mr. Parks, what plans the applicant had for the original
area where Harris Road was previously shown.
Mr. Parks replied "pedestrian and bike trails."
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there were no plans for future development off that
extension.
Mrs. Diehl stated that relating to drainage, the sidewalks would not alter drainage
into the lake already established, as it will be draining away from the lake.
Mr. Parks replied that when they built the drainage system the size was calculated
at the time, so that the rate of release was the same after development as it was
prior to development.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the basins were needed anyway.
Mr. Parks replied that in order to allow for runoff without drainage basins,
detention basins are placed where the topo dictates.
Mr. Davis asked when the plans for the drainage basin were drawn.
Mr. Parks replied nine months ago, prior to construction.
`'
Mr. Gloeckner inquired if the staff would consider the sidewalk on the north side of
the development only, until the other phase is built.
Mr. Keeler replied that they still did not know what the development will be.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he would agree with Mr. Parks on not needing sidewalks
if this were a true collector as opposed to a main thoroughfare, but this is an
extension of the main thoroughfare.
Mr. Gloeckner also stated that he thought the ]Highway Department would want the
original proposal, with smooth curve as an extension of Harris Road. He suggested that
sidewalks be required on this phase of construction, and when the other phase is
presented then sidewalks could be required for that phase.
Mr. Parks agreed with this.
Mr. Payne stated that as he understood it, sidewalks would only be required on the
north side consistent with the development of this plat, and sidewalks on the
southerly side when this property is developed,. He suggested that as a condition
of this amendment. sidewalks be required on both sides, making clear in the language
of the condition that the construction of sidewalks on the south side could be
delayed until final plat is presented on that section.
Mrs. Diehl called for a motion.
Mr. Davis moved for approval with the conditions as outlined by the staff with
a change of wording on condition #5 to read: Sidewalks shall be provided on both
a
sides of Harris Road (provided sidewalks on southern side may be deferred until
the development on the south side is approved.)
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1. Approval is for a maximum of 128 duplex units on 26 acres. Location and
acreages shall remain substantially the same as the approved plan.
2. Amend the overall PUD master plan to reflect recent changes and submit
(3) three copies prior to final plat submittal.
3. Note proposed access into furture development area on the plan, prior to
final plat approval, and abandonment of temporary turnaround.
4. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation
approval of road plans, including sidewalks, for acceptance into the State
Highway System.
5. Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of Harris Road (provides sidewalks
on southern side may be deferred until the development on the south side is
approved.)
6. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention requirements prior to final plat
approval;
7. Dedication of water and sewer lines to the Albemarle County Service
Authority;
8. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreement;
9. No grading shall occur prior to final plat approval;
10. Only those areas where roads, utilities, or other improvements are located
shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state.
11. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans.
12. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and fire flow.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
SP-80-70 - Ralph A. Taylor - to locate a permanent mobile home on 6.43 acres
zoned RA; located on south side of Route 688 approximately 1,200 feet east of
the intersection of Routes 688/689. Tax Map 71, Parcel 33D1, Samuel Miller
District.
Mr. Mabe presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if Mr. Taylor had any comments.
Mr. Taylor stated that due to the cost of construction he was unable to
continue building. He also stated that it would present an unbearable
financial burden on his family if they had to vacate the property.
Mrs. Diehl called for public comments.
Mr. Purcell Tomlin, an adjacent owner, stated that when he sold the property to
Mr. Taylor, he was planning on building a home,and has dug the basement, but
nothing else has been done. He is not opposed to a trailer, but is opposed to
a permanent special use permit.
Mr. Roger J. Rogers stated that the applicant has not acted in good faith and
noted that a trailez would cause property values to decrease, etc. He stated
that if the special use permit was granted Mr. Taylor could keep the trailer per-
manently and is opposed to this. s
Mr. Don Wright stated that he objected to a permanent mobile home because his
property value would decrease, due to the social stigma attached to mobile homes.
He was in favor- of an extension of the temporary permit.
Mr. Joey Cryder stated that he was against the permanent permit.
Sara Rogers stated that she favored extension of the temporary permit, but not
a permanent mobile home. She also presented a petition which was against the
special use permit.
Steve Glime stated that he was in favor of temporary housing for a period of two
years, and with future aspects a permanent trailer is not best for the community.
Mr. Taylor stated that the property acquired is for A-1 farming and that he
has recently constructed a building. Moving the trailer out would be a burden
and a financial hardship on his family. He also noted that the skirting and
everything was done to make the trailer attractive.
With no further comments from the public Mrs., Diehl closed the hearing.
Mrs. Diehl inquired of Mr. Payne the Commission's position on condition #4 as
outlined in the staff report, regarding the issuance of a temporary permit.
Mr. Payne replied that the Commission could recommend that the permit be re -issued but
that is all, the alternative would be condition #3 which would accomplish the
same thing. Ordinarily you could not condition a mobile home on removal
after a certain time, but in this case where the applicants intent is to
build a permanent home, and has been to build a permanent home, this is not
an inappropriate condition.
Mrs. Diehl inquired as to the reason for five (5) years in Condition #3.
Mr. Payne replied that it is the maximum time! permitted under the temporary permit
procedure.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he favored a two (2) year limit extension.
Mr. Davis inquired how enforceable a two-year limit is, could it be bought
back to the Commission as unreasonable.
Mr. Payne replied it could be bought back, but not in this case, because you
would be justified in not considering this for any kind of permit, in light of
the fact that an pre-existing condition of the permit was not fulfilled and the
permit expired as the ordinance contemplated it would.
Mrs. Diehl called for a motion.
Mr. Davis moved for approval with the following conditions:
1. Complaince with Section 5.6.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance;
2. Expiration of special use permit two years from date of issuance;
3. Mobile home to be removed when new home occupied.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion which carried unanimously. rl
61
SP-80-75 - Roger Fuller - to locate a permanent mobile home on 4 acres zoned
RA, located on north side of Route 53 approximately 2 miles from Simeon. Tax
Map 93, parcel 15C, Scottsville District.
Mr. Mabe presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked for any public comment.
Mr. Robert Good stated that when he bought the land adjacent to Mr. Fuller, he
was under the impression that he was going to build. He favors a temporary
extension but ask that the Commission deny a permit for a permanent mobile home.
Mr. Roberts, an adjacent owner, stated that he is against a permanent mobile home
because of the decrease in property values. He also stated that he was in favor
of a extension for a temporary mobile home.
Mr. Fuller pointed out that when he purchased the land a permanent mobile home
was already established.
Mr. Roberts replied that this mobile home was an eyesore to the communtiy. The
windows are broken out, there are no sanitary facilities, etc.
Joan Graves stated that the Commission might have a precedent with the previous
application, but couldn't this special permit be limited to the applicant,
because in two (2) or five (5) years it could be sold.
Kathy Good stated that as far as she could determine Mr. Fuller has no intention
of building.
Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing.
Mr. Davis stated that since this follows a temporary permit the Commission should
be consistent, and favors a limit of two (2) years as in the previous case.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if the condition of the existing mobile home was without
sanitary facilities.
Mr. Gloeckner explained that this was on the adjacent tract.
Mr. Davis inquired if this mobile home was covered by a special use permit and
if this permit is still valid.
Mr. Payne replied not necessarily because it is in violation of the conditions
which is now 8.6.2, which requires compliance with the building code.
Mrs. Diehl established that there was a motion for approval with compliance
with Section 5.6.2 and an expiration of special use permit two (2) years from the
date of issuance.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded this motion, which carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION:
Mrs. Diehl inquired if the two years was from the time of approval even
if the ownership changes.
Mr. Payne replied "yes."
Mr. Davis inquired if the two years is from the date of issuance which could
be some time after initial approval.
Mr. Payne stated that the permit is issued after the Board acts.
Mr. Davis stated then that the conditions. on this periciit are temporary and
that these conditions must be met.
Mr. Payne replied "yes."
SP-80-73 - Glenwood Shifflett - to locate a permanent mobile home on 2.0 acres
zoned RA; located south of Route 810 near Nortonsville in Hatfield Farm
Subdivision. Tax Map 8, Parcel 35K, White Hall District. APPEALED BY
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that this could not be
administratively approved because of a subdivision violation.
Mr. Davis inquired if the reason why the plat could not be administratively
approved was because the plat was not recorded.
Mr. Keeler replied that this was approved by the Planning Commission in 1978 and
recorded, and that a subdivision violation was recently discovered.
Mr. Tucker stated that the violation has not. been cleared yet, as they have
not complied with the Planning Commission's latest review of this, in terms
of the violation.
Mr. Payne explained that when the plat is signed and recorded, the violation
would cease to exist.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that if this has been approved then the subdivision would
stand on its own.
Mr. Payne stated that in his opinion, no permit can be issued for any lot, on
any of the subdivision, as long as there is a violation.
Mr. Davis asked Mr. Payne if it was his opinion that the Commission could not
issue a Special Use Permit.
Mr. Payne replied that the Commission could take the action recommended by the
staff, because the staff has recommended that this permit be conditioned on the
approval of the plat.
Mr. Bowerman inquired if there was any indication as to when the Parrish Estate
would be recorded.
Mr. Keeler replied it would be at least a month.
With no comment from the public Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing.
Mr. Davis made a motion for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
2. Compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
ZMA-80-25 - James Reilly, ETAL - located at the intersection of Routes 22/231
at Cismont. Request C-1 Commercial on 2.8 acres of a 7.02 acre tract zoned
RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 65, parcel 12C part thereof, Rivanna District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there were any comments from the public.
Tom Spicer, Sr., an adjacent owner, asked what type of business the owner
planned to operate. He also stated his concern with the acreage in back of the
store.
Mr. Reilly stated that the back portion will be used as a home site. He also
explained that he only wanted to rezone that portion of the property where the
store is.
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the parcel on which the store is located is 2.8
acres with an additional 7.2 acres zoned RA.
Mrs. Diehl asked how much of the 2.8 acres is used by the parking lot and the
store.
Mr. Reilly replied the entire area.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if a second business is established in this store area, will
it come before the Planning Commission for site plan approval.
Mr. Keeler stated that it would if additional parking is required. He also
stated that he was under the impression that there was an intent to locate a
second business, and on that basis he recommended 2.8 acres which would permit
a second business.
Mrs. Diehl asked what the area would be if the depth were 200'.
Mr. Keeler replied the store and the parking lot.
Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant if he had any intent to locate a second
business.
Mr. Reilly replied that this was the reason he wants the rezoning, so he could
establish a second business at a later date.
Mrs. Diehl inquired what would the area requirements be for several business
located within the same building.
Mr. Keeler replied that the ordinance is vague; it is stated on a per establishment
basis.
Mr. Spicer stated his concern with the type of business to be established.
1
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he thought that all existing general stores should
automatically be zoned so that they would conform.
Mr. Keeler stated that this was changed by a. policy change by the Board of
Supervisors.
Mr. Tucker explained that the reason for the change was so that any use that is
non -conforming to the Zoning that is adopted could be rebuilt if destroyed.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there had been rezonings before where the Planning Commission
had reduced the acreage.
Mr. Keeler replied "yes."
Mrs. Diehl stated that she favors the idea of rezoning 200' in depth as shown
before, and she did not understand how three: acres could be used for a
store and parking lot.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he would revert back to 200' except the staff
recommendations are based on 2.8 acres so he could use the entire building.
Mr. Bowerman inquired of the applicant if he had any idea as to the type of
business he would establish.
Mr. Reilly replied something on the order of a small restaurant, realtors
office, small dry cleaning business, etc.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of the rezoning'.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
SP-80-79 - Inisfree Village, Inc. - located on Route 765, north of White Hall.
Requests approval as a group home for the developmentally disabled to bring
existing development into conformance with the zoning ordiance and permit
expansion. Tax Map 14, parcels 2, 3A, 10A, 10B, 10C, and 10, White Hall District.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Dr. Krump, the applicant, stated that basica.11� their plan called for four (4)
small housing units centered by a staff-supportea house. He also stated that
ultimately he would hope to house a total of sixty-five (65) people in addition to
the existing staff.
With no public comment Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing.
MRs. Diehl inquired if the application that the Commission has was for the
special use permit as well as the site elan.
Mr. Keeler replied that the staff has not recommended any limitation on the
Special Use Permit other than the parcels outlined. Referring to a memo
from Ray Jones, he explained that due to taxiing the special use permit
should not apply to the entire parcel.
16
Mrs. Diehl inquired if the Planning Commission needed to consider primary
or pre -nursery care on this property.
Mr. Keeler replied that this would come under day care centers in the
Zoning Ordinance and would require a separate application at a later date.
Mr. Payne stated that the density is covered by the statute, and is supposed
to be rural.
Mrs. Diehl inquire6 if, given the acreage, this is still conforming to the
present density.
Mr. Payne replied that you could not exceed the present density.
Mr. Gloeckner inquired if the Staff recommends approval of the special use
permit, limited to the four parcels rather than the entire tract, and if so,
was the applicant aware of this.
Mr. Keeler replied "yes."
Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for approval subject to the following condition:
1. Special Use Permit limited to Tax Map 14, Parcels 3A, 10A, 10B, and 10C.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Inisfree Independent Living Facility Site Plan - located off the end of Route
668, north of Route 765, north of White Hall; proposal to locate an independent
living facility in the Innisfree Village. Tax Map 14, Parcel 10C, White
Hall District. (Deferred from December 18, 1980.)
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that adequate building area does exist for the units
in question.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl closed the public hearing.
Mr. Davis asked if there was a lake on the property for fire protection.
Mr. Keeler replied there was a pond on the property.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Building permits will be issued when the following conditions have been
met:
a. Fire Official approval of dry hydrant;
b. Written Health Department approval;
C. Note Route 765 on the plan;
d. County Engineer approval of internal road specifications;
e. Note a building setback line and the acreage of the site.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Review for Compliance with Comprehensive Plan - Commuter Parking Lot
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the plan does comply
with the comprehensive plan.
Mrs. Diehl asked how the patrolling of this area would be accomplished.
Mr. Roosvelt stated that the airport has indicated that they do not want any
airport passengers using the lot for overnight parking, therefore, their
security guards will patrol the parking lot.
Mr. Roosvelt also noted that the lease is for a five (5) year period which
could be broken by either party with a six (6) month notice. This is a
stipulation of the airport.
Mrs. Diehl inquired when the actual operation would begin.
Mr. Roosvelt replied as soon as the various clearances are obtained.
Mrs. Diehl called for a motion for approval of the staff report concerning
compliance of the proposed commuter parking lot with the comprehensive
plan, and to permit the staff to administratively approve the initial
plans.
Mr. Davis moved for approval.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION:
Mrs. Graves asked if this was a public hearing and would this go to the
Board of Supervisors for their review.
Mr. Keeler replied that this would not be heard by the Board unless the Board
directed the staff to present it to them., and that this was not a public hearing.
Briarwood PRD- review of alignment of Austin Drive and Briarwood Drive for
compliance with preliminary plan. Plat of dedication of right-of-way for portions
of Austin and Briarwood Drive.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Commission was approving the realignment of the
road so work could begin on Phase 2, and at: a later date the Commission would
consider the remaining lots and the side roade in this area.
Mr. Davis questioned if the Commission had amended the Comprehensive Plan to
provide for the northern entrance.
Mr. Keeler replied that the entrance is not: changing, and that the
Comprehensive Plan states that these roads are primarily for residential use.
iz
Mr. Bob McKee stated that the way the new alignment was platted, was
done at the Highway Department's recommendation.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that this was correct and it was a better alternative
to directing traffic thru Briarwood.
Mr. Gene Maynard, a representative of General Electric, stated that they used the
new layout for their traffic counts.
Mr. Wood stated that in regard to grading, no grading was done without a permit.
Mr. Bowerman stated that as he understood it, Section 2 was approved and a
grading permit issued, but as there had been no access to Section 2, Mr. Wood
had graded an access.
Mr. McKee stated that he understood the grading permit included all of Rt. 606,
as well as what was internal for Section 2.
Mr. Keeler stated that the grading permit was issued contary to the zoning
of the property.
Mr. Davis stated that he was concerned with the additional traffic in the area.
Mr. Keeler stated that the commission could take two (2) actions:
1. Determine if this is in compliance with the intent of the original plan
if so the applicant could amend the original plans;
2. If not the applicant would have to apply for a rezoning and amend the original
plan.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt it was in compliance with the original plan
subject to the changes that have been made.
Mrs. Diehl called for a motion.
Mr. Gloeckner moved that the commission find the change in Briarwood alignment
substantially in compliance with the intent of the original plan.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
Dedication of Briarwood and G.E. Roads:
Mr. Keeler recommended approval subject to the following conditions: - -------It
1. Modification of the alignment required by Virginia Department 9�
Highways & Transportation ,
2. Plats are to include all technical requirements shown in the Subdivision
Ordinance.
Mr. Kindrick moved for approval of the Briarwood and General Electric -plats
of dedication subject to the staff recommendations.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 4-1, with
Mr. Gloeckne.r abstaining.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Bowerman stated that he is concerned about the issuance of the grading permit.
Mr. Payne stated that the grading permit was issued improperly.
Mr. Bowerman questioned how this occurred, and stated that it was difficult to
accept as a mistake.
Mr. Payne stated that technically the permit is void. Any permit issued in
violation of law is issued without authority, therefore, it is void.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant was notified of the issuance of error
in the grading permit.
Mr. Wood rep. -Lied "no."
Mr. Bowerman asked if grading was stopped when the problem of the grading
permit being in error was discovered.
Mr. Keeler replied that when the Planning Department became aware of the
error, grading had already occurred. He also stated that the Zoning
Administrator was aware of the problem.
Mrs. Diehl stated that the problem of the grading permit should be pursued.
Peacock Hill PUD - Redivision of Lots 52-59 - combining 8 lots into 4 lots.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the Planning Commission had to approve the
redivision.
Mr. Davis moved that the Planning Commission accept redivision of lots 52-59
with staff approval of the final plat.
:Ir. Bowerman seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
General Electric (Rt. 606 - formerly Milodon: Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that the only change would be
the additional 72 car parking lot.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if the proposed parking lot was an established buffer area.
Mr. Keeler replied that on the original Milodon plans landscaping was shown
in this area.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if there was public sewer.
Mr. Keeler replied "no."
Mr. Payne explained to the Commission that Mr. Keeler was asking for their
endorsement for the staff to consider this administratively.
Mrs. Graves stated that the extra employees would make a differecne to the
septic facilities and that she felt that the Health Department should be
notified.
A representative of General Electric stated that this was a temporary
arrangement and that when the facilities are completed north of town all
General Electric sites would be consolidated at one point.
Mrs. Diehl inquired to the number of people at this location.
Thr representative of General Electric replied that their projection was for
ninety-five people, and that the septic system was adequate.
Mr. Keeler stated that the Zoning Ordinance permits the Commission to allow
this plan to be approved administratively, or they could require a site plan.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt this needed Health Department approval.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if the turn lane had been established, and if so, could it
accomodate the extra traffic.
Mr. Keeler replied "yes."
Mr. Davis moved for approval subject to the following:
1. Staff approval of the landscaping;
2. Health Department approval of adequacy of septic system for increased
number of employees;
3. Fire Official approval.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion which carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m.
Bobo c e ,