HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 16 83 PC MinutesAugust 16, 1983
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting
on Tuesday, August 16, 1983, 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room #5/6, Second
Floor, County Office Building, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David Bowerman, Chariman,
Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman, Mrs. Norma Diehl, Mr. James R. Skove,
Mr. Tim Michel and Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr. Other officials present
were Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, Ms. Ellen V. Nash,
ex-officio, Mr. Maynard Elrod, County Engineer, Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff,
Senior Planner and Mrs. Joan Davenport, Planner.
Afer establishing that a quorum was present, Mr. Bowerman called the
meeting to order.
William Coughlin Final Plat - located off the west side of Route 676,
in the Whispering Pines Subdivision, approximately 20 miles west of
Ivy; proposal to divide approximately 11.11 acres into two lots with
an average lot size of 5.5 acres. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
(Tax Map 57B, Parcel A. APPLICANT REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO SEPTEMBER
27, 1983.
Mrs. Diehl moved to accept the applicants request for deferral to
September 27, 1983.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
SP-83-47 Cecil or Doris Gardner - Request to locate a mobile home on 16
acres zoned Rural Areas, County Tax Map 65, Parcel 20, Rivanna Magisterial
District. Located on the east side of Route 600, approximately 1/2
mile southeast of the intersection of Routes 22 and 600.
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the stockade fence, required by the Deputy
zoning Administrator, had been built.
Ms. Imhoff noted that the applicant started to build this fence, but
pointed out that it is being moved because it was located within
VEPCO's power line easement.
a 97
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mrs. Gardner stated that they were informed by the Zoning Department
when they purchased the trailer, that as long as the trailer was used
for storage they would not need a special use permit.
Mr. Gardner stated that the wrecked cars on the property will be
removed.
Ms. Imhoff noted that the letter (June 27, 1983) from Mr. Evans states
"the two (2) wrecked vans and the wrecked Pontiac station wagon must
be removed from the property. All other vehicles listed above should
be enclosed with a stockade or closed type (non see through) fencing of
a minimum of 7 feet to eight feet in height. Thus, the vehicles would
not be visible from adjoining properties or the public road."
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mrs. Nash asked if the vehicles located on the property are licensed
vehicles.
Ms. Imhoff stated that she did not know if they were licensed vehicles
but pointed out that they have been .located on the property for some
time.
Mr. Payne noted that the Zoning Ordinance speaks to the storage of
inoperable vehicles, pointing out that this would be enfoced by the
Zoning Department.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the mobile home is presently used for
storage.
Mrs. Gardner stated that the mobile home will be used for storage unless
one of her children decides to live here.
Mr. Michel ascertained that the stockade fence will be approximately
20' - 30' long, located between the two storage buildings.
Mrs. Diehl asked if the vehicles would be located within this fenced
area.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the vehicles would be located directly
behind this fenced area, noting that this is a heavily wooded area.
Mrs. Diehl noted the number of complaints received from adjacent property
owners regarding the parked vehicles on the site.
Mrs. Diehl noted that if the Commission takes action to approve this
petition, she would like it conditioned that the special use permit can
be issued only after the completion of the stockade fence.
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the mobile home would not be enclosed within *at*
the stockade fence.
%Nor Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the purpose of a sketch is to show where
the mobile home will be located on the site and pointed out that if
this petition is approved, the mobile home will have to be located
as shown on the sketch. She also noted that in order to relocate
the mobile home, the applicant would have to obtain Planning Commission
approval.
Ms. Imhoff stated that she felt the applicant should understand that
this mobile home could not be utilized for storage. She noted that
Mr. Andy Evans, Deputy Zoning Administrator, while investigating a
violation on this property, discovered the mobile home and informed
the Gardner's that a special use permit was required to retain it on
the property.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that the applicant has stated that the mobile
home would continue to be used for storage. She pointed out that this
would be a violation of the special use permit.
Mrs. Nash stated her concern with the parked vehicles on the site.
Mr. Payne read the following section from the Zoning ordinance in
response to Ms. Nash's concern:
11Section 4.13.2 - no inoperable vehicle shall be so located on any
agricultural or residential district as to be visible from a
public road or adjoining property. No more than two such vehicles
shall be located on any such lot regardless of location. Any
vehicle not displaying current license plates and inspection valida-
tion certificate as required by Virginia law shall be construed
as an inoperable vehicle."
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the storage of abondoned vehicles could
be subject to "grandfather" clause or considered to be "non -conforming.
Mr. Payne explained that the Commission has the authority to require
fencing for the mobile home itself. He noted that it also could be
required by the Zoning Administrator to screen inoperable vehicles,
up to two (2). over two (2) abondoned vehicles on the site would be
a violation of the ordinance.
Mr. Davis noted that the Commission is reviewing the request for a
mobile home at this time and asked if they could consider the violations
of the Zoning ordinance regarding the wrecked vehicles.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission could take into account the
violations as they regard to this application. He noted that the
Commission should consider that because of these violations, compliance
with the conditions of approval for the mobile home may not be
complied with.
Mr. Bowerman noted that the applicant has stated that the mobile home
would continue to be used for storage until such a time as any relative
might want to live here. He noted that previous mobile home requests
have been reviewed by the Commission with the intended purpose of the
mobile home for habitation. He noted that the mobile home has been
in existence for approximately seven year, reiterating that he felt
the main concern is that it would be used for storaae not habitation.
Mr. Bowerman asked when the requirements for mobile homeswas established
as part of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Payne stated that the requirements for mobile homes was established
in the 1968 Zoning Ordinance, noting that the laws regarding mobile homes
have been liberalized within the past ten years.
Mr. Michel pointed out that the letters of objection from the adjacent
property owners address a concern (wrecked vehicles, etc.) which has
existed for approximately seven years.
Mr. Skove stated that the stockade fence would sufficiently block the
cars from the adjacent property.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he has no objection to condition #3 as outlined
in the staff report (completeion of stockade type fence to satisfaction
of Zoning Administrator) because it .realtes to the letter from Mr.
Evans, dated June 27, 1983. He pointed out that mobile homes have
been reviewed in the past with the intended purpose for either
temporary or permanent residences.
Mr. Cogan noted that this request could be approved with the following
condition:
• mobile home to be used as a residence, not for storage.
He noted that this should be made clear to the applicant.
Mr. Cogan stated that if the Commission chooses to approve this petition
as submitted, he felt the mobile home should be located within the
stockade fence.
Ms. Imhoff noted that the applicant would need to submit a sketch
showing the location of the storage sheds, the present home, and location
of the mobile home, as sketch submitted does not reflect what exists
at this time.
Mr. Bowerman suggested adding the following condition to the conditions
of approval:
• Staff approval of location and position of mobile home, mobile
home to be enclosed within the stockade fence.
**NW Mr. Davis stated that the expressed intent of this mobile home is not
for a primary residence, therefore he questions whether this would
set a precedent for future requests.
Mr. Cogan noted the need for storage space, pointing out that if this
mobile home were to continue to be used for storage space he felt it
should be located within the stockade fence. He also noted that the
intent of the ordinances relating to mobile homes is that said mobile
home is to be used for permanent residence by the applicant or a relative.
Mr. Skove moved for approval of this petition subject to the following
conditions:
1. Compliance with 0 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Mobile home to be located as described on sketch submitted
with special use permit.
3. Completion of stockade type fence to satisfaction of Zoning
Administrator.
4. Staff approval of location and position of mobile home, mobile home
to be enclosed within the stockade fence.
Mr. Bowerman explained for the benefit of the public and Commission
that the Commission is recommending that the mobile home be located
within the stockade fence, noting that they are not speaking to the
issue of wrecked cars as this will be taken care of by the Zoning
Department.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Davis asked if a parcel of land is non -conforming, must it
brought into compliance before a special use permit is issued.
Mr. Payne stated that this in not necessarily the case, as the two
uses may not be related.
Ms. Nash asked why the mobile home could not be used for storage.
Mr. Payne explained that the mobile home would have to be hooked to
water and septic. He also pointed out that mobile homes are defined
in terms of construction, and noted that they are not permitted to be
used as storage.
Mr. Davis noted that the State views mobile homes as motor vehicles,
therefore storage in -not permitted.
Mr. Cogan stated that if this mobile home was approved for storage
it would set a precedent for future requests.
Mr. Skove explained for the benefit of the Commision why they are
suggesting that a conditon be added requiring the applicant to submit
another sketch showing the location of the mobile home and other
buildings on the property.
Ms. Imhoff stated that if the applicant does not intend to relocate
the mobile home a condition could be added to read:
• mobile home is to stay at present location."
Mr. Skove and Mr. Michel withdrew their recommendation for approval
cf this request.
Mr. Cogan stated that it appears that the Commission would be giving
relief from the section of the Zoning Ordinance which prohibits
mobile homes to be used for storage.
Ms. Imhoff suggested the following condition to be added to the
conditions of approval:
• mobile home to be retained in existing location and a sketch
to be submitted noting current location and dimensions.
Mrs. Diehl moved for approval of this petition subject to the
following conditions:
1. Compliance with S 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance
2. Mobile home to be located as described on sketch submitted with
special use permit.
3. Completion of stockade fence to satisfaction of Zoning Administrator.
4. Mobile home to be retained in existing location and a sketch to
be submitted noting current location and dimensions.
Mrs. Diehl also included in this motion that the stockade fence is to
be completed to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator before the
special use permit is issued.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Bowerman stated that he could not support the motion, noting that
the primary use is for storage not habitation, therefore it does not
comply with the intent of the ordinance.
The motion made by Mrs. Diehl was a tie vote with Mr. Bowerman,
Mr. Cogan and Mr. Davis voting against the motion.
Mr. Payne explained that a tie vote is a recommendation for denial.
,29a
Dawson Final Plat - located on the east side of Route 727, north of
Blenheim and south of Route 627; proposal to divide 10.687 acres into
4 lots with an average lot size of 2.672 acres. Scottsville Magisterial
District. (Tax Map 102, Parcel 39G). REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO SEPTEMBER
20, 1983.
Mr. Davis moved to accept the request for deferral of this plat to
September 20, 1983.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Western Albemarle Site Plan - located on the south side of U.S.Route 250,
adjacent to the east of Western Albemarle High School property and west
of Brownsville; proposal to locate a 35,120 square foot shopping and
professional center on 7.75 acres for a major grocery store, restaurant,
retail, bank and professional offices. White Hall Magisterial District.
(Tax Map 56, Parcel 17. REQUESTS DEFERRAL TO SEPTEMBER 20, 1983.
Mrs. Diehl moved to accept the request for deferral of this site plan
to September 20, 1983.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Rio Woods Site Plan - located off the north side of Route 631, east of Route
Route 29 North and west of Old Brook Road; proposal to locate 72 town-
house units on a 9.99 acre parcel. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
(Tax Map 61, Parcels 124B and 124C).
Mrs. Davenport presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. W. S. Roudabush, representing the applicant, stated that they are
willing to meet the requirements ,as suggested by the Virginia Department
of Highways & Transportation, relating to improvements to Rt. 631
and the entrance off of Rt. 631. He asked the Commission to consider
the landscape plan, noting that they have submitted a plan which they
feel is adequate for a project of this nature, size and caliber. He
pointed out that no extensive planting was done along the entrance road
because the adjacent property might be developed which would cause the
removal of trees,etc.
Mr. Roudabush stated that the recreation plan submitted provides for
a horseshoe pitch, a log climb, a play court, swing, etc., but pointed
out that they are willing to include a trail as suggested by staff.
Mr. Roudabush stated that he would respond to any questions or concerns
the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
C293
was before the Commission.
91
Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the applicant is objecting only to the
requirement for additional planting along the entrance road, as suggested
by staff.
Mr. Bowerman noted that staff has suggested that the caliper of the trees
be changed from 1" to 12" to 12" to 2" and asked if the applicant had
any objection to this.
Mr. R. D. Wade, the applicant, asked what the reason is for this
suggestion, noting that 12" caliper trees, in his opinion is
adequate.
Mr. Michel stated that trees should be staggered on a development of
this size for a more aesthetically pleasing site.
Mr. Bowerman stated that the caliper of the trees could be left to the
discretion of the staff and the applicant. He noted that he has no
objection to leaving the plantings along the entrance road as shown,
based on the fact that the road could be re -designed. He also stated
that he felt a sidewalk and some additional plantings could be installed
on one side of the road, pointing out that any future improvements to
the road could be done on the opposite side.
Mr. Roudabush noted the problems that would occur (pavement specifica14000
-
tions, base and prime,) in designing a pavement that would allow for
improvements at a future date.
Mr. Cogan asked if the pathway could be extended to the road, noting
the children in the area.
Mrs. Diehl pointed out that she felt an asphalt foothpath should be
required, noting that this proposal is in the urban area.
Mrs. Davenport pointed out that it is the recommendation of the Planning
staff that an asphalt foothpath be installed along the road. She also
pointed out that the request for extra landscaping and increased caliber
of the trees is because the center on some of the trees is 40 to 70'
across.
Mr. Michel asked if the Highway Department had prepared a plan showing
improvements to Rt. 631.
Mrs. Davenport stated that a rural cross section, showing improvements
has been done, pointing out that an urban cross section will be done
some time in the future which will allow for improved long term planning.
Mr. Michel questioned the locations of the crossovers in this area.
Mr. Roudabush stated that the Highway Department has stated that they
will allow crossovers at the following locations:
• At the present Fashion Square light opposite Albemarle Square
Shopping Center; and possibly one at the exit adjacent to
the telephone company and opposite Bonanza
The crossovers would be spaced 600 feet apart, therefore the
next crossover would be at Raintree. A crossover would be
allowed at the Northfields Road across from Squire Hill Apartments.
Mr. Roudabush pointed out that a stop light would be installed
at this intersection.
Mr. Roudabush pointed out that the ultimate cross section of the road
would be 24' of pavement on the west side with a 12' medium and a
24' lane on the east side of Rio Road.
Mrs. Davenport stated that the Highway Department has indicated that
the locations of the crossovers will be determined "at the point of
traffic which generates the most vehicle trips."
Mr. Elrod noted that the Highway Department has indicated that they
would allow one more crossover in this area, location of said crossover
to be determined by the development generating the most vehicle trips.
Mrs. Davenport noted that the private road serves only this develop-
ment, pointing out that the future intent is for a collector road to
serve the C1 and R-15 property.
Mr. Elrod stated that if a sidewalk were required it should be
more of a temporary nature such as asphalt, pointing out that this
could be done at a minimual cost.
Mr. Bowerman noted the children in the area who would be waiting for
school buses, etc., and stated that he felt it was necessary to have
a sidewalk in this area.
Mr. Elrod stated that preliminary approval has been given for the
detention basin.
Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the recreation plan as submitted by the
applicant, with the addition of the trail as suggested by staff, will
meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mrs. Diehl stated her concern with the horseshoe pitch (500 square feet)
as proposed by the applicant, noting that she did not feel this would
be safe because of the children in the area.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt the horseshoe pitch should be removed
01 yam'
from the recreation plan, the trees should be 12" to 2" caliber and
stated that she felt the conditions as outlined by staff are reasonable.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following
conditions:
1. A building permit can be issued when the applicant has met the
following conditions:
a. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control
Ordinance for Phase I and/or Phase II, Phase I to be approved
first in any case;
b. County Engineer approval of drainage plans for Phase I and/or
Phase II, Phase I to be approved first in any case;
C. Compliance with the Stormwater Control Provisions;
d. County Engineer approval of fencing requirements for storm -
water detention pond and fencing specifications to be noted
on the site plan;
e. County Engineer approval that all pertinent easements have
been obtained from adjacent owners for off -site work;
f. County Engineer approval of road plans;
g. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
road plans, profiles and calculations for improvements to
Rt. 631 and the entrance off of Rt. 631;
h. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water
and sewer plans and profiles (see memo dated August 2, 1983
from Albemarle County Service Authority to Joan Davenport); *40
i. Planning staff approval of the landscape plan to reflect comments
made at the Planning Commission meeting;
j. Planning staff approvalof recreation plan, including location
of pathways;
k. County Engineer approval of all sidewalk, pathway and roadway
pavement specifications, these are also to be noted on the site
plan;
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Fire Official approval of handicap facilities and access;
b. All improvments, as outlined by building phases, to be
planted, constructed or bonded;
C. Planning staff approval of additional landscape materials
or plans, if existing wooded areas are disturbed in construction.
3. The applicant is put on notice that at the time of subdivision
of any portion of this property, dedication of sufficient right-
of-way and construction of the entrance road to state standards
for acceptance into the state secondary system will be required.
This may require extensive improvements and realignment of the
roadway. With the upgrading of the road, sidewalks may be required
on both sides of the roadway.
�9-
4. The applicant is put on notice that with future development of the
residue acreage of Parcels 124B and 124C, deletion of the existing
private entrance serving the R. D. Wade office will be recommended.
The staff wishes to encourage all properties to have access through
the main entrance road with no direct access to Rt. 631.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Cogan ascertained that the Planning staff is aware of the concerns
of the Commission regarding the recreation area, landscaping and
sidewalks.
Mr. Michel stated that he would like some input from the Highway
Department regarding improvements to Rt. 631.
THE ABOVE NOTED MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Berkmar Drive Final Plat - located on the western side of Berkmar
Drive, approximately 1/4 mile from its intersection with U.S. Rt. 29.
Proposal to create a 27,882 square foot lot, leaving a residue of
61,599 square feet. Charlottesville Magisterial District. (Tax Map
61, Parcel 12-1).
Mrs. Davenport presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mr. David Wood, the applicant, stated that he would respond to any
questions or concerns the Commission may have.
Mr. Bowerman asked if there was any public comment regarding this
final plat.
Mrs. Joan Graves asked if the setback requirements as outlined in
the Zoning Ordinance would be complied with.
Mr. Bowerman noted that there is a 30' setback in the front of the
property and 50' in the rear, which is in compliance with the
requirements of the ordinance.
With no further comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that
this matter was before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt condition l.a. of the recommended
conditions of approval is beneficial, noting that this is a sensitive
.297
area in terms of runoff and flooding. (CONDITION l.a. - County
Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans for the entire parcel *604
61M-12-1 as outlined by the County Engineer in August 11, memo).
Mr. Michel moved for approval of this plat subject to the following
conditions:
1. The plat can be signed when the following conditions have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans for
the entire parcel 61M-12-1 as outlined by the County Engineer
in August 11, memo;
b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
a commercial entrance;
C. Fire Official approval of fireflow;
d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer
plans;
e. Note on plat all drainage easements to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION•
Mr. Skove noted the concern of the Planning staff and the County
Engineer that a site plan could be submitted with less than 20,000
square feet of impervious area which would therefore make it exempt Iwo
from the stormwater detention ordinance.
Mr. Payne stated that Section 18-22, Article 2 of the Subdivision
Ordinance contains what he refers to as a "per say rule" which is
"runoff before and after the rate is the same." However, this section
provides that the Commission has the right to review the drainage and
stormwater facilities to determine whether they are adequate and to
require adequate stormwater and gutter facilities to ensure adequate
drainage.
Mr. Elrod stated that the Commission has reviewed site plans previously
with less than 20,000 square feet of impervious area, noting that he
recommended that the stormwater detention requirements be complied with.
19
fir.. Patricia Neuroth Waiver Request - located on the northwest side of
Route 717, 9/10 of a mile before Route 717 intersects with Route 6.
Request for a waiver of requirement for 250' of road frontage, to
allow only 150' of frontage for a proposed lot. Scottsville
Magisterial District. (Tax Map 127, Parcel 5, part of ).
Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant had any comment.
Mrs. Neuroth stated that she would respond to any questions or
concerns the Commission may have.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Payne pointed out that the Board of Zoning Appeals conditioned
their approval on "no further division of the parcel."
Ms. Imhoff pointed out the location of the residue (40.68 acres) for
the benefit of the Commission.
Mr. Davis asked if the requirement for 250' of road frontage applies
in this case, noting that he thought this was required for two acre lots.
Mr. Payne stated that the requirement for 250' of road frontage does
*r+w' apply, noting that the reason for this requirment was to prevent
road stripping, pipestems, etc. He pointed out that, in this case,
this could be waived noting the topography of the lot and the character
of the road.
Mr. Davis moved for approval of this request subject to the following
conditions:
Prior to the signing of the plat noting a creation of 15.312 acre parcel
with 40.68 acres in residue (TM 127, portion of parcel 5) the following
conditions must be met:
a) Note present owner's name on the plat;
b) Provide written Health Department approval;
c) Provide Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of
private entrance.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
Ms. Imhoff asked if the Planning Commission would like to establish
a policy to allow the Planning staff to administratively approve plats
where waivers of road frontage requirement is the only issue being
considered.
Mr. Payne explained that the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning
Ordinance have similiar provisions, pointing out that the Board of
Zoning Appeals will condition their approval on "Planning Commission
approval" pointing out that he did not know if Planning staff approval
would be deemed the same as Planning Commission approval.
Mr. Payne also noted that the 250' of road frontage was established
to create a more or less square two acre lot.
Ms. Imhoff ascertained that the Planning staff reviews approximately
five or ten of these applications per week.
Mr. Bowerman stated that he would like to see a history of instances
where this has occured in the past.
CONCENSUS: The Planning staff is to prepare a report giving instances
where this has occured in the past and more information.
OLD BUSINESS:
Haley, Chisholm & Morris, Inc. - applicant is requesting permission to
change the name of the Blue Ridge Forest Subdivision to Spring Lake.
In addition, they also request a change in the name of the road to
Spring Lake Drive.
Ms. Imhoff noted that the Planning Commission approved Blue Ridge
Forest Section 2 Final Plat in October of 1982. She also noted
that the staff administratively approved a request to allow lots 31 and
32 to enter on the private road because of slope considerations.
OR
19
Mr. Davis ascertained that the road that is being developed is consistent
with the number of lots to be served.
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that Planning staff discourages changes in the
names of subdivisions, etc,. because of the work (filing) involved.
Ms. Imhoff stated that staff has checked with the Post Office regarding
this name and pointed out that there is no conflict with other subdivisions.
Mr. Payne stated that it is not a good idea to change the names of
subdivisions, frequently, because of title considerations.
91
.3O o
n
Mr. Skove moved to accept the applicant's request to change the
name of the subdivision from "Blue Ridge Forest" to "Spring Lake."
Mr. Michel seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
Thacker Construction Company, Inc. requests extension of site plan
(Waring Aviation. SDP-81-33 Charlottesville Albemarle Airport Hangar
and Office Facility Site Plan).
Mrs. Davenport presented the staff report.
With no comment from the public, Mr. Bowerman stated that this matter
was before the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman noted that there Eire several conditions on the original
approval (letter dated August 19, 1981), which have not been complied
with, pointing out that if the site plan is substantially different it
would have to be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Mrs. Diehl moved to approve the request of Thacker Construction Company
to extend the expiration date of the site plan until October 31, 1983.
Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m.
� � �- z -- ;/�C: �, ,
-
>ert W. Tucker, Jr. - Sec
ry
JD/
N