HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 17 81 PC MinutesDecember 17, 1981
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on Tuesday,
December 17, 1981, at 7:30 p.m., Second Floor, Meeting Room #5/6, County Office
Building, 401 McIntire Road. Those members present were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman;
Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, Mr. James R. Skove, Mr. Allen Kindrick, Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.;
and Mr. David Bowerman, Vice Chairman. Other members present were Mr. Frederick
W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney and Ms. Mason Caperton, Senior Planner. Absent
from the meeting was Mr. Richard Cogan.
After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to
order.
The minutes of June 16, 1981 were deferred until the January 1982 meeting.
Mrs. Diehl noted for the benefit of the public that the applicant for the Michael
E. Bowles Final Plat has requested a deferral.
RGB Partnership Preliminary Plat - DEFERRED FROM NOVEMBER 17, 1981.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
George McCallum, representing the applicant, stated that the request before the
Commission at this time is in keeping with the pattern of development for this
area, essentially lots of fifteen to twenty-five acres.
He pointed out that this is an old public road which carries forty-two vehicle
trips per day and is listed as non -tolerable. He noted that he has researched the
chain of title for this road and it is listed as an old County road, which was not
taken into the State system when the system was created.
Mr. McCallum noted that they want to divide the 86+ acre parcel into 3 parcels of 22.2
acres, 24.0 acres., and 40.0 acres. He noted that they are presenting their request
as a preliminary plat because of their concern regarding the roads. He noted that
the pattern of development was begun at a time when you could divide land on a
public road even though it was not state maintained. He noted that the mainteance
of the roads was expressed in a Declaration of Restriction dated December 1, 1973,
and read the following from this agreement:
•
"Owners of tracts, regardless of size, fronting on the old public road
running through the property from St. Rt. 668, including that old portion
of the old public road between Rt. 666 and the property subject to these
restrictions, shall share equally in the maintenance of said road according
0V to the following specifications: minimum 12' width road surface, 4" depth
crushed stone;all pipes clear for adequate drainage of water, road graded
free of potholes in low area where standing water may accumulate.
73 Z
The cost of construction of the initial upgrading of the aforesaid old public
road shall be borne by Ellington & Reynolds. The maintenance agreement shall
become effective upon completion of the upgrading. Road maintenance shall be
done at such intervals as may be determined by the majority vote of those owners
responsible for the cost of maintenance but not less often than annually."
Mr. McCallum noted that there are twenty-two parcels being served by the road,
stating that a state maintained road is not required for lots of twenty or less.
He noted that the highway department has stated that a private commercial entrance
should be required at the point where the old County road meets the State road.
He pointed out that they do not own this land, therefore they cannot dedicate
the right-of-way, therefore they are requesting a waiver of this requirement.
Mr. McCallum noted that they are requesting a waiver from Section 18-36(c)(1),
Table 1, concerning improvements to the road, rioting the expense involved. He
also read the following insert from a letter dated December 15, 1981 from J.
Ashley Williams:
• "It appears the existing road has been properly maintained over the years.
There are wide shoulders except for approximately the first 1000 feet where either
fencing or embankments cause the road to be somewhat restrictive to one car passing.
From our conversation with one of the first owners, Jim Faulconer, there does not
seem to be any possibility of getting the needed right-of-way to make the impro-
vements on the first 1000 feet. From my observation, there exists a very good
roadway for the use of these residents."
Mr. McCallum noted that any further division of these parcels would have to be
approved by the Planning Commission. He asked that the Commission act favorably
on the requested waivers. He stated that they would respond to any questions
or concerns the Commission may have.
Jim Faulconer, an adjacent owner, noted that he is the real estate boker for
RGB and workd for Reynolds & Ellington when they purchased the six hundred
acres. He explained that the landowners formed what is known as "Peavine Hollow
Landowners Association" and began to maintain the roads. He noted that according
to the convenants the roads were not built to ;standard, so they petioned Reynolds
& Ellington to upgrade the roads to the proper standards. He noted that they
have had no problem in collecting money from the adjacent landowners for the
maintenance of this road. He stated that he is in favor of this subdivision
because it would give them three more shares in their maintenance agreement.
Mr. Faulconer stated that he would respond to any questions or concerns the
Commission may have.
Chris Halstead, an adjacent property cawner, stated that there has been no
problem maintaining the road. He noted that he did not agree with the
recommendation of the highway department requiring this road to be upgraded
to state standards pointing out the condition of the state roads. He stated
that he does support this subdivsion.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
r
��3
Mr. Payne stated that the statute presumes the right-of-way to be thirty feet
on a public road. He noted that he would review the maintenance agreement
stating that it seems to be satisfactory.
Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. McCallum if he had any information pertaining to the
status of the old county road.
Mr. McCallum stated that this road is referred to in a number of deeds as the
old public road or old county road with unspecified width and no restriction
on width.
Mr. Payne stated that if the record does not show the right-of-way to be less than
thirty feet then it is considered to be thirty feet.
Mr. Skove asked if the Commission is being asked to waive the requirement that
this road be build to state standards.
Mr. McCallum noted that the gravel portion of this road is not built to the
standards outlined in the private road ordinance.
Ms. Caperton noted that this is noted in the recommended conditions of approval
condition d.l. (CONDITION D.l. - County Engineer approval of road plans for the
improvement of the old road in compliance with Section 18-36).
Mrs. Diehl ascertined that waivers are being requested on Sections 18-36(c)(1),
18-36(d), and 18-36(c)(2).
Ms. Caperton noted that the recommended standard for this road is 16' wide,
6" of base and prime and double seal.
Mr. Faulconer stated that he felt this road has 6" of base as they have added
gravel for the past four years.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the right-of-way width for this road except for the
first portion of the old county road is fifty feet.
Mr. Gloeckner noted that this subdivision is following the pattern of large
lot divisions, stating that he favors granting the waivers. He also pointed out
that any further subidivision would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Diehl noted the portion of the old county road which is wide enough for only
one car to travel and stated that if this should be a thirty foot right-of-way she
felt this should be explored so that this portion of the road could be widened.
Mr. Skove ascertained that the addition of two lots created the need for the road
to be built to state standards.
Mr. Davis noted his concern regarding the entrance to the property.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that the area that needs to be improved for the entrance
is on adjacent parcel(TM 16, parcel #6) which is not within the possible thirty
foot right-of-way. She noted that the bank could be cut for the sight distance
to the east.
7#X
Ms. Caperton pointed out that there is no turn lane into the existing entrance,
However, coming out the entrance onto the state road there is adequate sight
distance in both directions.
Mr. Davis stated that he could support the waiver requests.
Mr. Kindrick stated that he also could support the requested waivers, but noted
that the question regarding the thirty foot.right-of-way should be investigated.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she could support the waiver requests for Section 18-36
(c)(1), Table 1 and Section 18-36(d), but noted that she felt that condition
d.3 should remain as this would give the applicant leverage in obtaining the
thirty foot right-of-way. (CONDITION B.3 - right-of-way width from the southern
boundary of parcels 15C and 15B, Tax Map 16, shall be a minimum of 30 feet in width).
Mr. McCallum stated that they would make an attempt to acknowledge the thirty
foot right-of-way and report the results of this investigation when the
final plat is submitted.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she would like the maintenance agreement reviewed by the
County Attorney.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that County Engineer approval of the road plans for
the proposed thirty foot right-of-way is not necessary.
Mr. Davis stated that he felt condition d.l should remain in the conditions
of approval noting that this is a preliminary plat.
Mr. Payne pointed out that if condition d.l. is required then the Commission
is requiring state roads. (CONDITION D.1. - County Engineer approval of the
road plans for the improvement of the old road in compliance with Section 18-36).
Mr. Payne suggested the following condition:
• County Engineer review of existing road to insure that same shall be
reasonably: adequate to carry the traffic of the subdivision.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this preliminary plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The following conditions will be recommended for final approval:
a. Written Health Department approval prior to Planning Commission
review of the final plat;
b. The assignment of development rights may be amended on the final
plat since none have been used;
C. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
1) County Engineer approval of the private road to ensure the
adequacy of the road to carry the traffic volume which may be
reasonabley expected to be generated by such subdivision;
2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement (in compliance
with Sections 18-36(d) and 18-7) for all users of the road, if
possible;
7Y5
3) Right-of-way width from the southern boundary of Parcels 15C and 15B,
Tax Map 16, shall be a minimum of 30 feet in width.
The above motion also granted relief from the private street commercial entrance
requirements recommended by the Virginia Department of Highways & Transpotation
Department.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Frank Milton Miles Final Plat - DEFERRED FROM OCTOBER 27, 1981.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked what the changes were in this plat from the special use permit
previously approved by the Commission.
Ms. Caperton noted that the change is the addition of an entrance and that the Board
of Supervisors added condition 2.d to the conditions of approval. (CONDITION 2.d.:
Grading to be done pursuant to a plan approved by Watershed Management Official with
respect to the grading and vegetation removal).
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
George McCallum, representing the applicant, stated that there is not sufficient
sight distance for for a joint entrance to serve lots 2, 3, and 4, noting that this
is why separate entrances are provided. He noted that with regard to condition 2.c.
and 2.d. of the staff report, he felt these should be listed as individual conditions
as these are outside the deed restrictions and should be listed as requirements to be
complied with. (CONDITION 2.C. - Any area that is graded or disturbed is to be
stabilized and seeded as soon as work is completed. CONDITION 2.D. - Grading to be
done pursuant to a plan approved by Watershed Management Official with respect to the
grading and vegetation removal.)
Morris Foster, representing the applicant, noted that lots 6, 5, 7, and 4 front on
State Route 660, which is required to have a seventy-five foot building line. He
noted that Mr. Payne has determined by the new wording of the amendment to the
ordinance that any other road would be 80% of the front setback, which would be
60% and asked if this would apply in this case.
Mr. Payne stated that the ordinance speaks in terms of a front yard in the RA district,
to be 75' from a raod, any other yard adjacent to a street or other access is to have
80% of the required front yard, or in this case 60%.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the
Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner 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. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of private
street commercial entrance;
b. Note all setback lines on the plat;
c. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
,. 1) County Attorney approval of maintenance agreements for the three
easements;
7�
d. Complaance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
e. Compliance with conditions of SP-81-58 listed below:
1) Subdivision shall be limited to 8 parcels and shall be in
general accord with the plat by William Morris Foster, File *00
Number 638, dated September 15, 1981;
2) County Attorney approval of deed restrictions limiting tree
removal to the following areas:
a) Designated building sites as required by 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
b) Access easements as shown on referenced plat dated December 16, 1981;
3) Any area that is graded or disturbed is to be stabilized and seeded
as soon as work is completed;
4) Grading to be done pursuant to a plan approved by Watershed
Management Official with respect to the grading and vegetation removal.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Creek, Phase 1, Section A, Final Plat - DEFERRED FROM NOVEMBER 17, 1981.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
i4ax Evaiis, representing riie applicant, stated t"aat they would respond to any
questions or concerns the Commission may have.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment.
Betty Peters, an adjacent property owner, asked what the status is of the access
road.
Mr. Evans stated that they have no intention of building the access road in the
future, noting that it has been removed and is no longer a violation of ZMA-80-16.
Mrs. Diehl read the letter from the Zoning Administrator to Mrs. Peters concerning
this access road.
Mrs. Peters stated that she felt it should be part of the public record that there
should be no access at this point.
Mrs. Diehl stated that with no further comment from the public, this matter was
before the Commission.
Mr. Davis asked if a condtion could be added to the conditions of approval for
this plat to read:
• no connection should be made between internal roads.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that this is stated in the rezoning request and noted that
condition #A of the recommended conditions for this plat reads:
• Compliance with conditions of ZMA-80-16.
7Y/
Pq
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was another access which could be used by fire trucks, etc.
other than across the bridge.
Mr. Cortez stated that Roger Baber, Fire Chief for Crozet, has indicated that
they plan to use Old Ballard Road when responding to calls in this area.
Mr. Bowerman noted that there are two bridges on Rt. 677 which are small and
concrete, He ascertained that these bridges are adequate for fire department
equipment.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the fire official has requested a pressurized
hydrant on the property,if possible.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that County Engineer approval has been given for the
road plans.
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 by the
applicant:
a. Compliance with conditions of ZMA-80-16;
b. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Runoff Control Ordinance;
C. County Attorney approval of homeowners agreements to include the
maintenance of Broomley Road and interior roads, existing and potential
lakes, pathways, drainage and appurtenant structures, open space, etc.
This agreement should specify that the open space is subject to an
ingress and egress driveway easement to each lot;
d. County Engineer approval of final road plans for the Broomley Road
improvements and interior road plans after the maintenance agreement
is approved;
e. Fire Official approval of a dry hydrant in the existing or potential
lake or a hydrant on a pressurized system;
f. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of the
commercial entrance at the intersection of Broomley Road and Route 677;
h. Delete the term "extended" from Broomley Road;
i. Staff approval of the pathway surfacing.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Michael E. Bowles Final Plat - located off the northwest side of Route 20 South,
north of Route 720; proposal to divide a 2.0 acre parcel, leaving 23+ acres
residue. Scottsville District. (TM 112, portion of parcel 18J). REQUESTS
DEFERRAL TO JANUARY 19, 1982.
Mr. Bowerman moved to accept the applicant's request for deferral until January
19, 1982.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
7 ro
Thomas H. Bain Final Plat - located on the north side of Route 691, west of
Route 240, in the Crozet community; proposal to divide 4.73 acres into two
(2) lots of .96 acres and 3.77 acres. White Hall District. (TM 55, Parcel
67A and portion of parcel 68).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Roger Ray, representing the applicant, noted the letter dated December 7, 1981,
from Thomas H. Bain, (by R. W.Ray) requesting that an.acess easement over parcel
B be deleted, compliance with the private road provision and county attorney approval
of a maintenance agreement be deleted. He noted that when you create a private road
you in effect create an easement with a specified width and from this easement a
setback line is required. He pointed out that if the easement is required it ,,!ould be
impossible to expand for future growth.
Mr. Payne stated that he felt this request was reasonable noting that there
are two different uses which makes it impractical to require them to share the
same entrance. He noted that the creation of the easement doesn't serve any
function in this case, noting that there is no problem with the topography, etc.
He also explained to the Commission that if they did not speak to exclusion of the
easement this could cause a problem with the parcel if it were sold. He noted that
the following note should be added to the plat as it would eliminate a potential
title problem:
• any change in ownership the residential lot has to enter off the
public road rather than from the parking lot.
Mr. Ray noted the following language which could be put on the plat:
• upon the transfer of ownership of either Parcel A or B, the driveway
from parcel A into Parcel B shall be terminated and access to Parcel A
be from St. Rt. 691.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner noted that the two parcels could stand by themselves without
mentioning the easement as they have sufficient frontage and is a by right
division.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of this plat subject to the following condition:
1. The plat will be signed when the following condition has been met:
a. Note on the plat: "Upon the transfer of ownership of either Parcel A
or B, the driveway from Parcel A into :Parcel B shall be terminated and
access to Parcel A be from State Route 691."
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
c
71
Eastview Farm Preliminary Plat - located on the south side of Route 664, west of
Route 743, north of Earlysville; proposal to divide 39.74 acres into 5 lots of 2+
acres and one 26.20 acre parcel in open space. White Hall District. (TM 19,
Parcel 29).
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Will Rieley, representing the applicant, presented a slide presentation showing
the existing boundaries, adjacent parcels, roads, and an aerial view of the parcel.
He noted that they are trying to develop the property to be consistent with the
rural aspect and located the houses so that open space can be retained. He
also noted the existing barns and ponds on the property. He noted that the five
lots are each greater than two acres and pointed out that the remainder of
the property will be for common open space. He stated that he would respond
to any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
Mr. Davis ascertained that the interest in the open space will be transferred
to the owners of the lots.
Mr. Payne stated that this should be considered as a subdivision of five lots with
an additional lot rather than as a PRN (Planned Residential Neighborhood).
Ms. Caperton noted that this division is allowed by right, therefore, it does
not need to be an PRN (Planned Residential Neighborhood).
Mr. Davis stated that this should, in his opinion, have a public road rather
than a private road unless it is a self contained community.
Mr. Rieley stated that they meet all the criteria listed in the subdivision
ordinance for private roads.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was public comment concerning this plat.
Neil Borden, an adjacent owner, noted the following questions relating to the
roads in this area:
1) Is there any plan to improve Rt. 664, noting the amount of traffic using
this road?
2) Is there any plan to improve Rt. 743 from Earlysville, noting that this
road is exceedingly dangerous.
Ms. Caperton stated that she was not aware of any improvements planned for
these roads unless they are spoken to in the six year plan.
Mr. Borden noted the term "non -tolerable" referred to in the staff report under
condition of roads serving the proposed property.
Ms. Caperton stated that the term "non -tolerable road" applies to the level of
maintenance on the road, not to the safety of the road.
Mr. Borden noted that Rt. 743 is a gravel road which is not properly maintained,
pointing out that there is not a stop sign at the intersection, etc. He also
stated that there are two one-way bridges on this road with inadequate sight
distance and stated that he felt the additional traffic would create a hazard.
Mr. Borden also noted that he did not feel this subdivision was adequately
750
controlled with respect to access to the lots and that the common area
might in fact become more buildable lots.
With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mr. Rieley stated that they have no objection to the recommended access to the residue,
common land, and lot number one being limited. He pointed out the denisty of the
development is less than that which is allowed by right, noting that the projected
traffic increase is approximately thirty-five additional vehicle trips per day.
Mr. Davis ascertained that there are no further development rights on this
property.
Mr. Davis asked if the common area could be divided as a by right division of
twenty-one acres.
Mr. Payne stated that this would leave a four acre parcel, therefore it could
not be divided.
Mr. Rieley stated that there is no intention of using the 25+ acres as a
building site and noted that this will be entered in the homeowners agreement.
Mrs. Diehl asked if this should be addressed through the maintenance agreement.
Mr. Payne stated that the property owners could sell this free of the .restrictions,
noting that this is why he recommended that the Commission view this as a building
lot. He noted that the average lot size is in. excess of what is required
in the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Caperton stated that a note could be put on the plat notifying property
owners of the deed restrictions.
Mr. Payne stated that any further development or division of this property
would require Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Bowerman stated his concern regarding the traffic on Rt. 743, noting that
he did not feel this development would change the character of the saftey to
any substantial degree. He did point out that he felt the traffic congestion
in this area should be dealt with noting that development will continue in this
area.
Mrs. Diehl asked if there was unlimited access to this property.
Ms. Caperton pointed out that the note "one dwelling per lot without Planning
Commission approval" does not apply in this case because the lots are less than
four acres. She explained that this means that any lot served by a private
road can only have one dwelling unit.
Mr. Borden asked if lot number one would have a private driveway.
Ms. Caperton read the note on the plat "the 25•4- acre parcel and lot number one
must have access only onto the private road."
761
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that regarding condition #I (CONDITION I: Note the
approximate buildable area on each lot on an overlay) the approximate
buildable area is 30,000 square feet.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of this preliminary plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The following conditions will be recommended for final approval:
a. No building permit for a dwelling unit shall be issued on the
25.42 acre parcel without Planning Commission approval;
b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of the
private street commercial entrance;
C. Written Health Department approval prior to Planning Commission
review of the final plat;
d. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance;
e. Correct the magisterial district to White Hall;
f. Note the setback from Route 664;
g. Compliance with the private road provisions, including:
1) County Engineer approval of the road specifications;
2) County Attorney approval of a maintenance agreement;
h. The road maintenance agreement shall also include provisions for the
maintenance of the common area parcel;
i. Note the approximate buildable area on each lot on an overlay;
j. A road sign will be required.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Willoughby, Phase 2 - REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT:
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Ms. Caperton explained that the Staff is asking that they be allowed to approve
changes to the design of the lots, pointing out that this is not really a prel-
liminary plat.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that this will be presented to the Commission when
final plat approval is requested.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
Morris Foster, representing the applicant, stated that they are requesting that
the Staff be allowed to approve the changes in lot design so that they could
proceed with the preliminary plan profiles which will enable them to determine
what the development costs will be, etc.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before
the Commission.
Mr. Payne pointed out that the Staff does not feel an amendment to ZMA-81-22
is necessary.
45z
Mr. Davis questioned the type of driveway which will be used for this proposal.
Mr. Foster pointed out that the requirements of the highway department calls
for 75 feet of curb line instead of 65 feet which would allow for 50 feet
of straight curb between the entrances.
Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval to allow the Staff to review the revisions up
to the final plat stage where it will come back to the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Marshall's Garage Amended Site Plan:
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
John Greene, representing the applicant, stated that they would respond
to any questions or concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was
before the Commission.
Mr. Skove moved to approve the amendment to the above -noted site plan for the
additional area for the food store and the additional parking, subject to the
following condition to be added to the Commission's action of November 17, 1981:
3. The applicant is put on notice that the 11_5 parking spaces and the land-
scaping within the reserved right-of-way shall be relocated in the event
that road improvements are made to Route 649.
Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Fieldbrook Final Plat - REQUEST TO AMEND PHASING OF FINAL PLAT:
Mr. Bowerman disqualified himself by leaving the room.
Ms. Caperton presented the staff report.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment.
John Greene, representing the applicant, showed a composite of the original plan
and an overlay of the proposed change to the Commission.
Mr. Gloeckner moved to approve the request of the applicant to revise the
phasing on this plat.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION:
The Commission agreed that they would like to see any other similar revisions
but noted that it would not be necessary for the applicant to be present at the
meeting unless the revision is of a controversial nature.
763
Hardee's Site Plan (Tax Map 78, portion of Parcel 17G, Rivanna) Amendment:
Mr. Payne read the memorandum from Robert W. Tucker, Jr. requesting authority
to amend the previously approved site plan.
Mr. Skove moved to allow Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning to
approve the amendments to the previously approved site plan.
Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS: WORK SESSION - REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Commission agreeded to have a work session on the comprehensive plan, on
January 14, 1982 at 4:00 p.m.
The meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Ro ert W. Tucker, Jr. - Se ret
v'
7S�