HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 21 81 PC MinutesJuly 21, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday,
July 21, 1981, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, Third Floor, County Office Building, Court
Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma Diehl,
Chairman, Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman, Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, Mr. Corwith Davis,
Jr., and Mr. Richard Cogan. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne,
Deputy County Attorney and Ms. Mason Caperton, Senior Planner and Ms. Katherine
L. Imhoff, Planner. Absent from the meeting was Mr. Allen Kindrick and Mr. James
R. Skove.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order.
The minutes of February 10, 1981, February 24, 1981, and March 3, 1981 were
approved as submitted.
Wynridge, Phase II - Requests withdrawal.
Mr. Bowerman moved to accept the request for withdrawal of this plat.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Twin Group PRD, Lot 6, Final Plat - located on the southwest side of Route 654,
approximately 2 miles northwest of the Barracks Road Shopping Center; a proposal
to divide a 1.062 acre parcel leaving 13.938 acres in residue. Jack Jouett District
(Tax Map 60, portion of parcel 68).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl inquired if the applicant had any comment at this time.
Mr. Max Evans, representing the applicant, pointed out to the Commission the
existing house, swimming pool and the entrance to this property. He noted that
the reason they are before the Commission at this time is that they have a
potential buyer for this property. He also stated that there is an agreement
with the buyer that this road will be constructed within a year and the existing
access will be abandoned. He also noted that there are 40,000 square feet
building space per lot.
With no comment from the public concerning this plat, Mrs. Diehl stated that
this matter was before the Commission.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this lot is not exempt from the condition concerning
r public water as required in ZMA-79-31. (CONDITION: All units shall be served
by a public water supply system and approved by appropriate agencies prior to
final subdivision approval).
"T77
Mr. Gloeckner ascertained that the applicant is proposing to use the existing
driveway as a temporary easement to the property.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that once the road is built, this driveway will no longer
be used for access to the property.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt it should be stated in the conditions of approval
that the driveway will be used as a temporary easement.
Mr. Payne stated that this was not necessary because the maintenance agreement
would be described in terms of the existing road.
Mr. Evans stated that they are due to close on this lot in August and they plan
to develop the plans for the road and water line and obtain the necessary approvals
at this time. He noted the condition of approval in the rezoning request and
asked if this could be bonded. (CONDITION #12 - All units shall be served by a
public water supply system and approved by the appropriate agencies prior to final
subdivision approval).
Ms. Caperton reiterated the condition as outlined in ZMA-79-31 and stated that
the approved plans or a bond posted for this would satisfy this condition.
Mr. Payne stated that a bond could be posted to cover the water system but the
plans would still need to be approved.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that this condition was made by the Board of Supervisors and
he did not understand how the Commission could give relief to this condition.
Ms. Caperton stated that the applicant would have to submit a request for this
amendment which would be presented to the Commission in September and then to
the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Evans stated that they would prepare the necessary plans for the road and the
water line.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Written Health Department approval of two septic drainfields on each lot;
b. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans as required
in ZMA-79-31;
c. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement for the existing
driveway between the owners of lot 6 and the residue;
d. County Engineer approval of driveway for this lot;
e. Fire Official approval of fire flow and hydrant location to serve this lot;
f. Compliance with conditions of ZMA-79-31.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt the following condition should be added:
g. Provide a note on the plat to designate the existing driveway as a
temporary access easement.
M
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion for approval, with conditions a-g, which
carried unanimously.
Bickers Gasoline Pumps Addition Site Plan - located on the northeast corner of
the intersection of Route 635 and Route 250 West, south of Crozet; a proposal to
locate gasoline pumps and storage tanks at an existing country store. White Hall
District (Tax Map 56, parcel 32A).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment at this time.
Mr. Benjamin Dick, representing the applicant, stated that they agree with
the recommended conditions of approval as outlined by Staff. He noted that
they would respond to any concerns the Commission may have.
Morris Foster, the surveyor for the applicant, stated that he would respond to
any concerns the Commission may have.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment concerning this site plan.
Mr. Alexander, an adjacent owner, stated that he favors this site plan request
and noted that it will be an asset to the community.
Brian Sweeney, an adjacent owner, also stated that he felt this request would
be an asset to the community.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the applicant has met all the necessary requirements
and moved for approval subject to the following:
1. Permits will be processed when the following conditions have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of pavement specifications over the gas tanks
and drainage facilities, if required;
b. Staff approval of landscaping in islands on Rt. 250 West;
C. Fire Official approval to include the location of fire hydrant (note
on plan), dumpster location (note on plan), gas tanks and ventilation
system;
d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial
entrances and islands on Rt. 250 West;
e. Parking spaces on pavement shall be painted or marked with some type
bumper blocks and parking spaces over storage tanks shall be marked with
bumper blocks. Staff approval of these revisions to the plan.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
9�y
Reed Rubin Final Plat - located off the end of Route 684, east of Route 680
and west of Albemarle Lake; a proposal to divide 424.67 acres into 3 parcels
with an average size of 119.5 acres leaving 65.59 acres in residue. White
Hall District (Tax Map 41, parcel 72).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mr. Skove entered the meeting.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment at this time.
Morris Foster, representing the applicant, stated that this is a large tract of
land currently operated as a farm. He noted that the existing right-of-way
has been used by the farm for years, pointing out that the right-of-way is addressed
in the deeds but nothing is stated concerning the width of this right-of-way.
He noted that the width varies from 12' to 16' at different intervals. He noted
that they are asking for waivers based on this road width. He stated that he
would respond to any concerns the Commission may have.
Forbes Reback, attorney for the applicant, stated that the applicant has no
plans to subdivide this tract into small parcels, noting that they do have a
purchaser for this tract. He stated that the right-of-way from St. Route 680
to this property is a prescriptive right-of-way over which they have no control
concerning the width. He pointed out that the applicant tried to obtain from
adjacent owners, a fifty foot strip to widen the easement, but the adjacent
owners would not agree to sell at a reasonable price.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment concerning this plat.
*40
Mr. Foster stated that the County Engineer has indicated that the road is
adequate for this use.
Mr. Foster stated that any further division of this property would have to
be presented to the Commission for their approval.
Mrs. Diehl stated that with no further comment from the public, the matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Davis asked if the right-of-way was on the property controlled by the
applicant.
Mr. Foster stated that this is an existing farm road and a 20' right-of-way
has been established at this point.
Ms. Caperton stated that the right-of-way for this parcel would not necessarily
have to be 30' because it is less than six lots.
Mrs. Diehl asked what the length of the road is from St. Rt. 684 to this parcel.
Mr. Foster stated that it is .4 of a mile.
Mrs. Diehl asked how the road width varies.
Mr. Foster stated that the width of the road varies. from 10-fl` to 17'.
Mr. Bowerman asked what the potential use is for this road.
Ms. Caperton stated that if the waivers are granted then the potential is for six
units, plus the existing home on the adjacent property.
/ 'o
Mr. Davis stated that the maintenance agreement should note that the maintenance
is to be shared by the users of this road.
Mr. Payne stated that the waiver request is a means of insuring that
the Commission has control over the number of parcels that are built on a given
parcel. He stated that the Commission should decide if this waiver request
is appropriate to the purposes of the ordinance.
Mr. Payne stated that any further division of this property would have to
be presented to the Commission for their review.
Mr. Foster stated that the waiver requested at this time is because this
is a large farm tract which entails only the main residence and a tenant
residence.
Mr. Cogan asked how condition 3.a. of the Staff's recommended conditions of
approval should read.
Ms. Caperton stated that this should read as follows: County Engineer approval
of road specifications. She noted that if the Commission has no problem with
the waiver of the 30' right-of-way and the road width, then approval would be
for the dwelling units approved for this plat.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she is relculant to grant a waiver because there is
access from another portion of the property.
Mr. Reback stated that they are using an existing road, therefore, no road
construction is necessary. He pointed out that it would be detrimental to
the overall scheme of this property if they were required to build a new road.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she did not understand how the size of the parcel is
involved noting that the Commission is speaking to the number of dwelling units
using the right-of-way.
Mr. Bowerman asked if this waiver could be extended in the future.
Mr. Payne stated that this waiver is for two dwelling units per parcel for
a total of five dwelling units.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
1. Waiver of the one dwelling per parcel requirement for parcels 2 and 3 (portion
of Sectionl8-36(a));
2. Waiver of the private street commercial entrance requirements as proposed
by the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation; however, the entrance
shall be improved to the easement line, subject to County Engineer approval
prior to signing the plat;
3. The plat will be signed when the following condition's have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of road specifications, for the number of lots
using the road, if possible;
b. County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
c. Owner's notarized signature(s);
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
e. Note on Plat: "Only one dwelling is allowed on parcel 1 without
Planning Commission approval;"
4. Waiver of the thirty (30) foot right-of-way width and the road width, where
needed. L/G
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
Mrs. Diehl stated that she could not support this motion as she felt the
question of the roads into a parcel should be reviewed.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt this should be reviewed for future purposes, but
he felt that any further use of this property would have to be presented to the
Commission so he could therefore vote in favor of this motion.
VOTE:
The vote was 5-1, with Mrs. Diehl voting against the motion. Mr. Skove
abstained from voting.
Carrie Lou Lamb Final Plat - located off the end of Route 769, southeast of Route
20 North; a proposal to divide 10.22 acres into two lots having 2.00 acres and
8.22 acres respectively. Rivanna District (Tax Map 62, Parcel 37).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment at this time.
Mr. Foster stated that he would respond to any concerns the Commission
may have.
l4r. Davis stated that all the necessary requirements have been met and moved
for approval subject to the following:
The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Compliance with the private road provisions will be required and
includes:
1) County Engineer approval of road specifications;
2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a private
street commercial entrance.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Ednam Village Section II Preliminary Plat - located off the south side of
Route 250 West, east of Ednam and west of Birdwood; a proposal to divide
2.735 acres into 10 lots with a density of 3.66 dwelling units per acre.
Samuel Miller District. (Tay: Map 59D-2, Parcel 1-10).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl noted the covenant which dealt with right-of-way limitations and
restrictions on the development of the residue, and asked Mr. Payne to
respond to this.
Mr. Payne stated that the County does not have the authority to enforce deed
restrictions. He noted that when the Board of Supervisors heard the rezoning
request this condition would in effect be binding on the applicant with the
Board's approval of the rezoning. He stated that this could be construed as
consideration for the Board's granting their approval. He also stated that if
the Board or the Commission were to take the position that this is in the nature
of a third party beneficary to this covenant, this would be a defensible position.
He stated that the Commission could consider the existence of this convenant
in determining whether or not they will or will not approve this subdivision.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment at this time.
Bill Roudabush, representing the applicant, stated that restrictive covenants
were placed on this property at the time of the rezoning request, and noted that
the owners are negotiating in accordance with these covenants. He noted that
the design of the buildings will depend on the architect and the homeowners
association. He stated that one of the conditions of the rezoning request is
that the buildings be approved by the homeowners association and that an attempt be
made not to duplicate the buildings in Phase 1. He noted that the convenants
require the roads in Phase 2 to be deeded to the homeowners association.
Mr. Roudabush stated that they would meet with the homeowners association and
the homeowners to discuss the quality of the road, the location of sewer and
water lines, etc. He stated that he would respond to any concerns the
Commission may have.
Ms. Imhoff stated that this property is located in urban area neighborhood six and
is recommended for commercial office and medium density residential.
Mr. Browne, the architect for this development, stated that the reason for dividing
the 2.735 acre parcel into 10 lots is because there is more space between the
buildings and the overall effect is that of a subdivision rather than a cluster.
He pointed out to the Commission the architectual design of the buildings
stating that they are in keeping with the overall design of Ednam Village. He
presented to the Commission a drawing showing the elevation of the road, stating
that this was based on the center line of the road. He stated that he would
respond to any concerns the Commission may have.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment concerning this plat.
Dr. James Twyman, an adjacent owner, noted the location of the stormwater
detention pond shown on the plan between the commercial buildings and the
residential area. He stated that members of the Ednam Board of Directors
are opposed to having the detention pond in this area.
Mr. Roudabush stated that the location of the detention pond has to be
approved by the County Engineer, noting that this is not before the Commission
at this time. He pointed out that they are working with alternate plans for the
location of this pond which would benefit all involved.
Mrs. Highbee, an adjacent owner, stated her concern with the drainage problem
noting the slopes in this area.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the reason the covenant was bought to the attention of
the Commission is becuase it states "accepted by the Board of Supervisors of
Albemarle CounOIand it is signed by the Planning Director.
Mr. Payne stated that this covenant was not formally accepted by the Board.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he did not feel the Commission needs to address
the covenant as in his opinion, this is a civil matter.
Mr. Skove stated that certificates of occupancy will be issued for these
units when public sewer is available.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the stormwater detention plans would be submitted with
the final plat..
Ms. Imhoff stated that the Commission could add a condition of approval to
the preliminary plat as follows:
• stormwater detention plans to be approved by the County Engineer prior
to final plat approval.
Mrs. Diehl noted the concern of the adjacent owners concerning the stormwater
detention and stated that she felt it would be beneficial to the Commission to
have these plans submitted prior to final plat approval.
Mr. Payne stated that this condition should be worded so that the County Engineer
would not approve the location in such a way as to restrict the discretion of the
Commission in approving the lots. He noted that it would be appropriate to
require that the plans be submitted but to require the approval of these plans
would restrict the review by the Planning Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the difference between the 3.66 acre parcel and the 2.73
acre parcel is the proposed location of the stormwater detention pond.
Ms. Imhoff stated that this is correct, noting that a 60' buffer area is proposed
for this area.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this plat subject to the following:
1. The following conditions will be required for final plat approval:
a. Compliance with the private road provisions will be required and
includes: 14111111111111
1) County Engineer approval of road plans;
2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance;
c. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Requirements;
d. County Engineer approval of drainage plans;
e. Fire Official approval of hydrant location and fire flow;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
g. Submit Stormwater Detention plans for the County Engineer review
prior to Planning Commission review of the final plat.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Lewis Estate Final Plat - located off west side of Rt. 795, north of Route
712 and south of Blenheim; a proposal to divide a 4.155 acre parcel leaving
23.25 acres in tesidue. Scottsville District. (Tax Map 122, Parcel 34).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment at this time.
Tom Gale, representing the applicant, asked if condition A deals with the
approval of a private entrance permit. (CONDITION #B - The Virginia Depart-
ment of Highways & Transportation approval of a private street commercial
entrance).
Ms. Imhoff stated that this condition does pertain to the private entrance
permit.
Mr. Gale noted that a fifty (50) foot access easment had been created so
that the property would be accessible. He noted that at this time the driveway
will follow the easement only pass the point of entrance and asked if a maintenance
agreement was necessary. He also pointed out that the entrance has been inspected
by the highway department and meets with their approval.
Mr. Payne stated that the maintenance agreement should stipulate that the
applicant has no right to use the remainder of the easement, and that he will
help maintain that portion he actually uses for entrance to his property.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that the matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that the road plans should be reviewed by the County
Engineer.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions:
1. The plat will be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. Compliance with the private road provisions will be required and
includes:
1)County Engineer approval of road plans;
2)County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
b. The Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of a
private street commercial entrance.
c. Assignment of development rights;
d. Owner's notarized signature.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Henry Javor Site Plan - located on the north side of 250 West between
Kirtley and Rothwell Distributing Companies; a proposal to locate 44
units for office and other uses totalling 79,200 square feet on a 5.02
acre parcel. Samuel Miller District. (Tax Map 59, Parcel 23B).
Ms. Imhoff stated that Mr. Javor is requesting deferral of this site plan
to the August 18, 1981 Planning Commission meeting. She read a letter from
Mr. Javor outlining his reasons for this request.
Mr. Payne stated that the Staff changed their position because of advice
given by him. He noted that this plan does not comply with the ordinance and
that in his opinion, the Commission could not legally approve this site plan
as presently submitted.
Mrs. Diehl noted that this site plan had been deferred in the past.
Ms. Imhoff stated that this particular site plan has not been deferred, but
noted that two site plans submittted for a warehouse were indefintely deferred.
Mr. Gloeckner moved to accept the request for deferral of this site plan
until August 18, 1981.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Garber's, Inc. Contractors Shop Site Plan - Request to amend a condition of
approval.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment at this time.
Mir. Garber stated that they do have a temporary certificate of occupancy
which expires December 21. He pointed out that there has been no indication
as to when the AWT Plant will go on line. He stated that they would like to
put in a septic system at this time and be required to hook up to the AWT line
when it is available. He stated that he has tried to comply with the conditions
for approval and asked that the Commission allow him to obtain a permanent
certificate of occupancy.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that water was available to the site.
Ms. Imhoff reiterated the position of the health department concerning the
porta-potti, stating that they would approve the use of a porta potti for
temporary use only.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt the applicant should be required to hook
to public sewer and that a septic tank which would be used for a short
time is not feasible.
Ms. Imhoff stated that if the Commission were to require sewer hook up
once public sewer was available, how would this condition be monitored.
Mrs. Diehl stated that with no comment from the public, the matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Payne stated that this would be difficult to enforce. He noted that the
Service Authority has the authority to require hook up to public sewer when
available.
Ms. Imhoff stated that the Service Authority does not require mandatory hook
up to public sewer.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt that in this industrial area the buildings
should be hooked up to a public sewer system and noted that she is reluctant
to give approval to a temporary facility.
Mr. Skove asked if the temporary sewage facility could be approved with
a time limitation, at the end of which they would have to hook up to public
sewer.
Mr. Payne stated that the building code will not allow installation of plumbing
fixtures unless they are hookd up to an appropriate means of sewage. He noted
that this is why Mr. Garber could not get the building inspector to inspect
the building.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the building inspectors would not approve the plumbing
fixtures with a porta potti.
Mr. Cogan stated that he favors having temporary sewage facilities available
until the AWT Plant goes on line at which time the applicant is required to
hook up to these facilities.
Mr. Davis stated the he favors granting an extension of the temporary
certificate of occupancy rather than allowing the applicant to have a
septic system.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the applicant is asking permission to install
a septic system to be used only until hook up to the AWT Plant is available.
Mr. Gloeckner moved to amend the condition of approval concerning the septic
system to read as follows:
mandatory hook up to public sewer is required once the AWT plant is
in operation and public sewer is reasonably available.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Hc7
Kenneth L. Davis Subdivision - request for reconsideration of frontage improvements
located on the north side of Route 638, north of Scottsville).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment at this time.
Mr. Davis stated that he is asking the Commission to delete this condition
because of the Hylton.case.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that the matter was before
the Commission.
.Mr. Corwith Davis stated that he inspected the site with the applicant and noted that he
felt this condition wasnot necessary. He noted that this is a requirement for
Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of the entrance location.
He noted that the highway department cannot require this condition and further
stated that there will be no difficulty in obtaining permits.
Mr. Skove ascertained that the bond posted for these improvements expires
in September.
Mr. Gloeckner ascertained that the Commission could speak to the conditions
required by the Board because it is the same as the Commission's condition.
;1r. Payne explained to the Commission that the Hylton Case states that if the
applicant agrees to the requirements of the Commission, then they can be
enforced.
Mr. Gloeckner moved to waive the following condition:
a frontage improvements placing the shoulder catch point at 15 feet from
the center line and ditch at 18 feet.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Davis ascertained that highway department approval of entrances is still
required.
in
y8S
Minor Townhouses, Phase 1 Request for Reconsideration (TM 61W2,portion of parcel
5•
Ms Caperton stated that the applicant is requesting that the site plan approved
by the Commission on June 23, 1981, be amended. She noted that one of the con-
ditions of approval for this site plan states "no certificates of occupancy
will be issued until an amended plat is recorded." She pointed out that it
was not anticipated at that time that certificates of occupancy would be required
before the amended plat was put to record.
Ms. Caperton pointed out to the Commission that the plat approved for eight -two
(82) lots on April 15, 1980 is the plat which the applicant is requesting an
amendment.
Ms. Caperton reiterated that the applicant is asking for the following changes:
• Condition 2.b. of the June 23, 1981 approval which states "no certificates
of occupancy will be issued until an amended plat is recorded" be amended
to read "the amended subdivision plat for the five (5) additional lots must
be recorded."
• Requesting the Commission to allow the Staff to administratively approve
a plat for the first twenty-four (24) lots as these have not changed from
the original plat.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment at this time.
Mr. Blake Hurt stated that the only change is adding two lots to the last
section. He asked the Commission to consider this request favorably.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that nothing in this area has been changed since the
original subdivision approval.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked if a condition should be added speaking to the recording of
the remaining lots.
Ms. Caperton stated that she would recommend these be submitted in phases.
Mr. Bowerman moved to delete condition 2.b. of the original plat approval and
substitute the following condition:
2.b. Amended subdivision plat for the five (5) additional lots must be
recorded.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
W
Michael Collier - located off the south side of Route 663, west of Route 603;
request for waiver of site plan requirement; applicant is placing a third
, do
dwelling unit on property. White Hall District (Tax Map 9, Parcel 8).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment at this time.
Mr. Collier stated that he would respond to any concerns the Commission
might have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Davis stated that in his opinion, a site plan should be required for
this proposal.
Mr. Skove also stated that he felt a site plan is necessary for this proposal.
Mr. Cogan noted that there are four mobile homes presently at this location,
and asked if they were occupied.
Mr. Collier stated that only one trailer was occupied at the present time.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out to the Commission that the ordinance requires a site plan
be submitted for a third dwelling on any given parcel. She also stated that
a permit is needed for a mobile home even though it is not occupied, there-
fore the three mobile homes on this property are in violation of the ordinance.
Mr. Gloeckner ascertained that the applicanthas to obtain an application for
a mobile home permit separately from submitting a site plan for approval.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out to the Commission that an applicantion for a mobile
home is being withheld until a site plan has been approved or the requirement
for a site plan has been waived.
Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt the applicantion for a mobile home permit
should be obtained before the site plan is required.
Mr. Payne explained the purpose of a site plan to Mr. Collier.
Mr. Collier stated that the plumbing official has inspected the site and
found no problem with sewer or water facilities.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that health department approval has not been obtained.
Mr. Davis stated that the staff could approve a site plan for this proposal
and still satisfy the requirements of the ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the question of the extra trailers would be
addressed by the zoning department.
Mr. Davis moved for approval subject to the following condition:
1. Administrative Upproval of a site plan which will fulfill the requirements
of the ordinance. l 9il
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m..
Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Secretary