HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 16 86 PC MinutesDecember 16, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
Tuesday, December 16, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building,
Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David
Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and
Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne,
Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler,
Chief of Planning; Mr. David Benish, Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson,
Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of the December 2, 1986 meeting
were approved as submitted.
Floor Fashions/Grand Piano Revised Site Plan - Proposal to revise the approved
plan to
13 more
acres.
Route 2
Tax Map
show more net usable area with the same gross floor area, served by
parking spaces and shorter loading spaces. Acreage of site is 3.45
Zoned C-1, Commercial. Property is located on the east side of
North, between Woodbrook Shopping Center and Greene Gardens.
45, Parcel 104A. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The report included the following
significant statements:
"The proposed plan will necessitate a construction and maintenance
easement on Greene Gardens' property. It is the Commission's policy
not to review a plan until easements are obtained. The applicant
has chosen to proceed without a written easement agreement."
"Circulation to and from the loading area is not in accordance with
sound engineering design or standards. ...The loading area circulation
is not sufficient.... The loading space length is not sufficient....
Based on these grounds, staff recommends denial of the revised site plan."
The revised site plan included the following changes: (1) An addition
of 400 feet of net office area; (2) An addition of 4,200 square feet of
furniture sales area; and (3) A decrease of loading space length from
40 feet to 25 feet.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Mark Osborne, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He explained that the request to reduce the size of the loading
space length from 40 feet to 25 feet is being made because 25 feet
is all that is needed for the size trucks that are used by Grand Piano.
He stated he did not feel a construction easement from Greene Gardens
would be necessary because it is possible, if necessary, to construct
a foundation system along the property line or to reduce the footprint of
the building. He also felt the circulation pattern was sufficient since
the space is twice the length of the trucks that will be used (i.e.
50 foot space for a 25 foot truck).
December 16, 1986 Page 2
Mr. John Trent, representing Grand Piano, addressed the Commission.
Mr. Trent explained the delivery system used by Grand Piano. He
stated that all merchandise (except for display items) is stored
at the warehouse on 5th Street and all deliveries are made from that
warehouse. He stressed that at no time are tractor -trailers ever
on the property and even if a customer should wish to pick up their
merchandise themselves, it is picked up from the warehouse also.
He stated that display merchandise is delivered to the store by
a "shuttle truck" approximately 4 or 5 times a week. He stated
that even at the busiest times there is seldom a need for more
than 10-15 parking spaces. Mr. Trent stressed that during the 40 years
Grand Piano has been in business, it has never moved out of, sold, or abandoned
a building. He felt this should address the Commission's concern regarding
parking being inadequate for some future use. He stated that five spaces for
tractor -trailers would be useless and "forever empty."
Mr. George Carlege, President of Grand Piano, addressed the Commission
and stressed the stability of the business. He also verified that
tractor -trailers are never used by the business.
Mr. John Trent again addressed the Commission and presented a photograph
of the shuttle truck that is used by the business.
Ms. Kathy Womack, representing Floor Fashions, addressed the Commission.
She stressed that the requirements quoted by staff are for a much
larger truck than will be used by Grand Piano. She also referred to
Section 4.12.7.4 of the Ordinance as follows: "The off-street loading
space shall be the minimum of 12 feet in length, 141-2 feet in clearance
height and a depth sufficient to accommodate the largest delivery
trucks serving the establishment." She stressed that the Ordinance
does not say "or any establishment that might follow." She asked
that the revision be approved.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
The Chairman asked if any Commissioners were concerned with the easement
issue. Mr. Payne commented: "It is historically common practice to put
buildings right on the property line. It causes many problems. I think
in many cases it would be wise to have such an easement, but I don't
know that it is required. The applicant is, pure and simply, running
the risk that if the building encroaches on his neighbor's property,
he might very well have to take it out .... I'm sure Mr. Osborne is
going to do an extremely careful job about this. If there's an error,
in this case, it is more a question between the adjoining property
owners than it is the general public."
Mr. Bowerman also pointed out that in previous cases where an easement
has been required before Commission review, it has been in instances
where the applicant would have been trespassing and needed the easement.
9
3-3 9
December 16, 1986 Page 3
Mr. Payne stated that if the building can be built without an easement,
then it isn't really necessary.
Regarding the design of the wall which would be on the property line,
Mr. Osborne stated, "I would guess that it would be a three-hour fire
wall."
There was some discussion as to why Floor Fashions requires only one
loading bay and Grand Piano requires 5. Ms. Patterson explained that
the requirement was based on the gross leasable retail area. Mr.
Cogan asked why the loading area for Floor Fashions was 25 feet.
Ms. Patterson explained that "it appeared that the trucks that would be
used would not be as large and they would have more manuevering area."
Mr. Cogan pointed out that the trucks would block the entrance to the
parking area. Mr. Stark was also concerned about this issue, but
it was pointed oit that this plan had already been approved so if a
mistake had been made, it was too late to do anything about it.
Mr. Bowerman stated that, based on the applicant's representation and
the reading of the Ordinance, he did not have any problems with the
revision.
Responding to Ms. Diehl's question about the reading of Section
4.12.7.4, Mr. Payne stated, "Frankly, I think the Ordinance is designed
to accommodate the proposed use rather than future uses." Though
Mr. Payne acknowledged the stability of the Grand Piano Business,
he pointed out that is not the typical case, i.e. many businesses do
not have the same kind of track record and thus the use changes at
some future date. He stated that he felt staff's concern was
farsighted, but that it, perhaps, might be a little too farsighted.
Mr. Stark indicated he was concerned about the inadequacy of the
loading area for Floor Fashions also, and he would not support
the request for the revision.
In response to Mr. Cogan's question as to why the applicant had
originally shown 40-foot spaces, Mr. Osborne explained that the
applicant had originally submitted a plan similar to the current
revised one, but out of deferrence to staff had changed to
40-foot spaces with the idea of coming back at a later time
on this one specific point.
Ms. Diehl acknowledged that the current use could be accommodated with
the small spaces, but because of concern about future uses and the
"public health, safety and welfare," she stated she could not support
the revision.
Mr. Gould indicated he was uncomfortable with
use and asked if it were possible to restrict
from using the site. It was determined this
to enforce.
the intensity of the
tractor -trailers
would be very difficult
j'/ 0
December 16, 1986 Page 4
Mr. Bowerman shared Mr. Gould's concerns but stated that the request
does meet the requirements of the Ordinance.
*00
Mr. Wilkerson stated that he understood the concerns of the Commission,
but based on the applicant's representation and the fact that the
proposal meets the requirements of the Ordinance, he moved for
approval of the Floor Fashions/Grand Piano Revised Site Plan.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt this was a very intense use of the property,
but because all the parking would not be used at once and because
it meets the requirements of the Ordinance, he would not oppose the
request.
Mr. Stark stated that "since we are stuck with Floor Fashions, I
would have to agree with it."
Both Commissioners Diehl and Gould stated they could not support the
revision and Ms. Diehl pointed out that there is leasable office
space on the second floor of the Grand Piano building and thus it
could be possible that all the parking spaces could be used at once.
The motion for approval passed (5:2) with Commissioners Gould and Diehl
casting the dissenting votes.
It was determined the original conditions of approval "stand."
Harmony Final Plat - This is a proposal to create 20 lots with an average
lot size of 3.56 acres. The development is to be served by internal
public roads. The total area of the site is 81.4 acres. The property is
zoned RA, Rural Areas. The property is located on the south side of Rt. 614,
adjacent to Olivet Presbyterian Church, near Owensville. Tax Map 42, parcels
46C, D, E, F and Tax Map 43, parcels 4J, K, L, m, and N. White Hall
Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bill Roudabush. Mr. Roudabush
stated that the final plat addressed all the Commission's concerns.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Gould moved that the Harmony Final Plat be approved subject to the
following conditions:
The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions are
met:
a. County Engineer approval of road design and site grading and
drainage plans and computations;
b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
road and drainage plans and computations, commercial entrance, and a
left turn lane;
,3�1/
December 16, 1986
Page 5
C. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. County Attorney approval of homeowners documents, including
restrictive covenant for 50 foot buffer area on Lots 14-18 and Lot 20.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
South Pantops Office Site Plan - This is a proposal to locate two (2)
office buildings with a gross floor area of 21,909 square feet, served by
91 parking spaces. Total area of the site is 1.73 acres. Zoned HC, Highway
Commercial. The property is located on the north side of South Pantops
Drive, (across from Bressan's Caterers) ±300 feet east of Riverbend Drive.
Tax Map 78, Parcels 15C and 15C2. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. A significant issue in the plan was
drainage structures serving the site. The County Engineer commented:
"...Before any additional development beyond this site is approved,
including the vacant parcel between Parcel C-1 and Parcel C-3, a master
drainage study for the area will have to be submitted by the
developer and approved by this office. ...Our recommendation for
approval is based on the assumption the existing 36 inch RCP this site
outfalls to is sized adequate to convey the flow."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Buddy Edwards. He stated there
was no objection to any of the recommended conditions of approval. Regarding
the drainage issue, he explained that the applicant had submitted
a study on the drainage to the previous County Engineer, whose concerns
had been satisfied by the report. However, since it appears that
information has been lost, the applicant has no objections to
presenting that information again. In response to Mr. Michel's
question about the road, Mr. Edwards stated that it was not the
applicant's intent to build a state road connecting South Pantops,
along the easement, to Rt. 250. He explained that the applicant does not
control the land nor the easement that leads to Rt. 250. He also
pointed out that the easement which will be required will present no
problem, since the applicant also owns the property from which the
easement is required.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Michel moved that the South Pantops Office Site Plan be approved
subject to the following conditions, including staff approval of the sub-
division plat:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions
are met:
a. County Engineering approval of revised site development plan and
drainage calculations;
b. Acquisition of a drainage easement from the owner of Tax Map 78,
Parcel 17F (same ownership);
December 16, 1986
Page 6
C. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
commercial entrance;
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and
sewer plans;
f. Planning staff approval of revised plan to include one loading
space on Parcel 15C-1;
g. Planning staff approval of landscape plan;
2. Planning staff approval of subdivision plat.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Flameless Specialities Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 3,320 square foot
warehouse addition to the existing 2,500 square foot building. The site will
be served by 17 parking spaces. Total area of the site is .528 acres.
The property is zoned C-1, Commercial. The property is located on the north
side of Brook -way Drive adjacent to Taylor's Auto Body Shop. Tax Map 61,
Parcel 168F. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report stated that a waiver of
Section 21.7.3 was being requested to allow for grading within the 20-foot
buffer area adjacent to residentially zoned property. Since the amount
of grading would be minimal, staff recommended approval of the waiver.
The applicant, Mr. Ted Denvy, addressed the Commission. He explained
there is no stream behind the property (as stated by staff). He
stated that there would be no increase in business since the building
will be used for storage.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Stark moved that the Flameless Specialities Site Plan be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following
conditions are met:
a. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and
computations;
b. Issuance of an erosion control permit if more than 10,000 square
feet of earth is disturbed;
c. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final sewer and
water plans;
d. County Fire Officer final approval;
e. Planning staff approval of landscape plan.
2. Waiver of Section 21.7.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
R
December 16, 1986
Page 7
Robert Brown Site Plan Waiver Request - Proposal to locate a third dwelling unit
on a parcel of land. The applicant is requesting a waiver of the site plan
'err requirements pursuant to Section 32.2.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. The total
area of the site is 376.5 acres. The property is zoned RA, Rural Areas.
The property is located off of Rt. 697, approximately two miles southwest
of North Garden. The property is located approximately 3/4 of a mile
from the end of state maintenance on Route 697. Tax Map 98, Parcel 14.
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report included the following
statements:
"The review of a site plan waiver for this type of proposal is concerned
with verifying that the proposal could allow for the future subdivision
of the property consistent with the requirements of the County Zoning
Ordinance and (Subdivision Ordinance)."
"The applicant wishes to request relief from the road,requirements
of the Subdivision Ordinance. The applicant contends that his parents
are elderly and do not drive often, therefore the level of traffic
on the road will not increase. There is no provision for the waiver
of road requirements either within the Zoning Ordinance or
Subdivision Ordinance.... Therefore, staff is of the opinion that
the Commission cannot grant a waiver of this request."
"The applicant has also requested a waiver of the minimum right of
way requirement for a road pursuant to Section 18-36(g) of the
Subdivision. It is staff's and the County Engineer's opinion that the
required roadway cannot be constructed within the existing right-of-way."
"It is staff's opinion that this proposal cannot meet the minimum
road requirements for this proposal and could not meet the road
requirements from the potential subdivision of the property in the
future. Therefore, staff recommends denial of this request."
Mr. Keeler added that there might be a procedural problem with this
request. He explained that the Ordinance requires that the applicant
make a good -faith effort to obtain additional right-of-way and a
letter received from Mr. James Fairchild, a neighboring property owner,
indicates he had no knowledge of the Brown's intention to construct
an additional dwelling.
Mr. Payne confirmed Mr. Keeler was correct in respect to the right-of-way
question.
Mr. Benish stressed that the applicant was requesting a waiver of all
road requirements and the waiver for the right-of-way requirement
ties in with the applicant's plans for the road.
Mr. Benish confirmed that he had discussed the possibility of a
family division with the applicant.
2'7�
December 16, 1986
Page 8
Mr. Wilkerson asked Mr. Benish if Mr. Fairchild's letter was
accurate in its statement that the road "serving the existing
right-of-way is almost entirely on his property." Mr.
Benish replied that he did not know if that was true.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the application were properly before the
Commission.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission could hear the application
and could act on it. However, the issue is whether or not the
Commission can approve the application. He stated, "If the
applicant wants it heard, you can act on it; if it doesn't meet
the Ordinance, you will deny it. It's as simple as that. To the
extent the Ordinance requires a particular showing to be made by
the applicant, and the applicant can't make that showing, then it's
your duty to deny it. I think it's perfectly straightforward."
Regarding Mr., Fairchild's letter, Mr. Payne stated that if the
letter was correct, the application could not be approved because
there would not be a lawful access to this third property. He
added that he thought Mr. Fairchild was probably mistaken since it
would be very unusual if that were the case.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Provence, his attorney.
He stressed that Mr. Brown and Mr. Hambsch (a neighboring property
owner) have made numerous efforts over the years to get Mr.
Fairchild to enter into a maintenance or usage agreement for
the right-of-way; all efforts have been rejected by Mr. Fairchild.
He does not answer phone calls nor letters. He stated that the
Hambsch's have no objections to Mr. Brown's proposal. He explained
the reason for the third dwelling is to provide a home for the
applicant's in-laws. He explained that the applicant does not
wish to pursue a family division because he wants to retain
ownership and control of both tracts of land.
Dr. Brown addressed the Commission and indicated that he has
cooperated with Mr. Fairchild over previous matters (e.g. moving
his gate at Mr. Fairchild's request), but Mr. Fairchild has not
reciprocated this cooperation.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Ms. Diehl stated she did not feel the Commission could grant the
waivers and added that the applicant should pursue a family division.
Mr. Provence added that the applicant was willing
return for approval of this application, that the
not be subdivided into three separate residential
future time.
to proffer, in
property would
lots at any
R
�/5
December 16, 1986
Page 9
Mr. Brown added that there currently exist three deeds of trust on
the property, so "there would be no way possible to get the
`M.+1 second and third deed holders to give us a right to divide this
property." He indicated he had already pursued this approach.
Mr. Payne confirmed that he agreed with the staff report, i.e. that
there is no provision for a waiver of road requirements, therefore
the Commission cannot grant a waiver.
Mr. Benish pointed out that when a family division is granted to an
individual, "he must hold that property for one year, after which
he may do whatever he wishes with the property and could, in fact,
deed it back to Mr. Brown."
Ms. Diehl moved that the Robert Brown Site Plan Waiver Request be denied.
Mr. Gould seconded the motion for denial which passed unanimously.
Tri Ton Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 2,160 square foot convenience
store and gas station on a five (5) acre parcel to be served by eleven
(11) parking spaces. A total of 15 fuel pumps are proposed, three (3) of
which are truck fuel pumps. The property is zoned HC, Highway Commercial,
with proffers. The property is located on the east side of U.S. 29
just south of Airport Road (adjacent to Mercer Carpets). Tax Map 32, Parcel
36F. Rivanna Magisterial District.
The Chairman pointed out that it is Commission policy not to review
a site plan which has not received Health Department approval. He asked
if the Soil Scientist's report and the comments from the Health Department
were sufficient to proceed with the application.
Commissioners Diehl and Wilkerson felt there were too many unanswered
questions to proceed with the review.
Mr. Landess, attorney for the applicant, pointed out that the hearing
date had been moved up, from December 23 to December 16, and he seemed
to feel this had not been sufficient time to get the approval back from
the Health Department, through no fault of the applicant. He stated
the applicant had no objection to the plan being approved "subject to
Health Department approval." He indicated he had not been aware of
this requirement.
Mr. Bowerman explained this had been a Commission policy for many years.
Mr. Keeler stated that applicants are given a list of requirements with
those items which must be addressed before Commission review being "starred."
He recalled that, in this case, Health Department Approval had not been
"starred."
j ��
December 16, 1986 Page 10
Mr. Keeler cautioned that if the Commission proceeded with the review
and approval is given for the entire five acres (if that is what the
Soil Scientist's Report and Health Department comments referred to), then
the applicant would be committed to purchasing the entire five acres.
Staff was uncertain about the content of the Soil Scientist's
Report since it had been received only shortly before the meeting.
A representative of the applicant stated that the study was done on
the entire five acres but there is a provision for the applicant to
have an easement for a drainfield on the property if necessary.
The Chairman explained that though the Commission was sympathetic
to the fact that the date of the hearing was moved and the applicant
had come from out of town to attend the hearing, there were still
too many unaswered questions for the Commission to act on the
application.
Mr. Stark moved that the Tri Ton Site Plan be indefinitely deferred.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Mr. Landess strongly urged the Commission to at least hear the
comments from the out-of-town representatives, in view of the
fact that the date change was through no fault of the applicant
and also because the Health Department issue is not the major
issue in this proposal, and in consideration of all previous delays
in this application.
It was determined the motion for indefinite deferral would remain
on the floor and the Commission would allow comments from the
applicant's representatives, particularly in relation to the
cross -over question. Mr. Bowerman stressed this deviation from
usual procedure was totally without precedent.
Mr. Benish outlined the following access issue: "At issue is the request
to put an entrance location across from an existing crossover. It has
been indicated in previous rezonings that the crossover may be closed
based on the 29 North Corridor Study. The applicant was made aware
of this situation, that any possible commercial entrance to this location
may require the closure of this crossover. The current site plan
recommends a modification of this crossover, to essentially enlarge
it. The Highway Department has responded that they will not approve
any modification to this crossover since it will ultimately be closed.
The only thing (the Highway Department) would accept at this location
would be the existing entrance and a joint access between Mercer
Carpet and the Tri-Ton site. The applicant has determined that that
is not an option since Mercer Carpet is not interested in entering
into a joint access easement. As this site plan is submitted to us
right now, we feel there is no alternative other than to require
that this crossover be closed as a condition of obtaining an
entrance permit for this location, the reason being the Highway
Department will not allow a modification and with no modification
an awkward traffic pattern would be created because it would be
serving two individual entrances. Since a joint entrance doesn't
appear to be an option, we don't see how the site plan, as submitted
can go forward unless this crossover is required to be closed."
2�17
December 16, 1986 Page 11
Mr. Keeler recalled that at the time of the original rezoning, "We had
worked up a scheme where certain crossovers would be closed at the time
of establishment of new entrances. Mr. Roosevelt (Highway Department)
believed it would require a public hearing to close a crossover. Staff
was concerned about subjecting the development of a property to the
outcome of a public hearing. We modified the terms under which we
would support the rezoning and clearly underlined is that the Highway
Department, as a requirement for the issuance of a commercial entrance
at this location, may require closing of that crossover. Under the
prior recommendation it was simply flat to be closed. We backed
off that for the purpose of the public hearing and also to possibly take
into consideration some changes in circumstance if the Highway
Department determined to change the speed limit or whatever. You also
need to bear in mind the disposition of this crossover is not only
subject to this site plan, but to two other property owners, Dr. Charles
Hurt and Joe Wright. In both of their rezonings their access to
Rt. 29 is predicated on the construction of a new crossover south of
this location and the Highway Department has again confirmed that they
will not permit that new crossover to be constructed unless this one
is closed. So there are situations under which that crossover can be
closed: (1) You require it as part of this site plan; (2) If Dr.
Hurt constructs a new crossover; or (3) If Joe Wright constructs
a new crossover. So at best, what this plan proposes is a modification
to the crossover and the construction of a very expensive decel and
turn lane which may be good for six months, depending on when that
new crossover gets constructed. I would be concerned about complicating
the rest of the access and crossover issues."
Mr. Horne suggested that the applicant proceed with comments and that
staff not go further into the issue.
Mr. Landess explained the applicant was concerned about the staff's
recommendation that the only way they could recommend the proposal
was "subject to" the closing of the crossover since neither the Commission,
the Board, nor the Highway Department have any authority to close
the crossover. So if that is a condition of approval, "it may sit there
for ten years without anybody being able to do anything with it."
He pointed out that it has already been ten years since the CATS Study
originally recommended the closing of the crossover. He stressed that
the applicant cannot live with being put in a state of limbo. He
added, "The applicant can live with a site plan with that crossover
closed; he is willing to pay money to improve that crossover; (but) he
can't live with being subject to a condition over which none of us has
any control whatsoever." He stated the applicant had no objection
to a condition requiring Highway Department approval of entrances and
access points. He pointed out that the crossover was just resurfaced this
past summer. Mr. Landess also stated that Mr. Roosevelt has told the
applicant that he will not review the application for the curb cuts for
the entrances until the applicant has an approved site plan.
The Chairman asked Mr. Echols, representing the Highway Department, to
comment on the procedure for closing a crossover.
December 16, 1986 Page 12
Mr. Echols explained that the jurisdiction to close a crossover on
a primary route lies with the Highway Department. (A resolution
from the Board of Supervisors is not necessary as with a secondary
road.) He explained further that the local office of the Highway
Department does not have the authority to close the crossover,
but rather would start the process through the chain of command
with a recommendation to either close or retain the crossover.
The final action would be taken by either the Highway Board or
the central office in Richmond.
Mr. Echols confirmed that his office would not start this process
until they had an approved site plan calling for the crossover to
be closed. He stated, "If the County Planning Commission approved
the site plan as is, with the recommendation to the Highway Department
that the crossover be closed as part of this site plan, then for the
issuance of that permit we would also pursue the matter of the
closing of the crossover, start the procedure for that." He stated
this procedure could take from one to two months.
It was determined that it would be of great benefit to the Commission
if a definite committment regarding the closing of the crossover
could be obtained from the Highway Department before the application
is heard again.
Mr. Bowerman stressed that it is very important that solutions to
these issues be arrived at before Commission review.
Mr. Joe Conine, representing Tri-Ton, addressed the Commission. He
stressed that he had met with both the Highway Department and staff
previously and it had not been possible to reach an agreement. He
explained that the applicant does not care if the crossover is
closed, but stressed that the applicant does not have the power to
take that action. He also stressed that his company has never come
up against a situation like this during 32 years of business and
14 different locations.
Mr. Landess reminded the Commission that this application was being
made under proffered -type zoning and that proffer dealt with the
access points.
Mr. Keeler stated this was the first time he had been made aware that
closing of the crossover was acceptable to the applicant. In view of that,
he indicated it might now be possible to proceed with the Highway
Department.
The previous motion for indefinite deferral of the Tri-Ton Site Plan
passed unanimously.
South Fork Farms - Request for administrative approval of Lots 1, 2 and 3.
,_3y 9
December 16, 1986
Page 13
Mr. Benish explained that a preliminary plat had been submitted on September
9, 1986 and it is the applicant's intent to submit the final plat
,.r on time. However, the applicant has already submitted a 3-lot portion and
is requesting administrative approval for this portion. He stated the
lots were all 2 acres and would meet the requirements for administrative
approval if submitted by themselves. Mr. Keeler added that these lots
are physically separate from the rest of the development and "stand on
their own." There was some discussion as to whether or not the lots
had adequate road frontage. It was determined the frontage requirement
is measuredfrom the internal road and the joint access shared by the
lots is a private road.
Mr. Michel moved that the request for administrative approval of Lots 1, 2
and 3 of South Fork Farms be approved.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed (6:1) with Commissioner
Gould abstaining.
Miscellaneous
Commissioners Diehl and Stark were appointed to prepare the 1986
Annual Report.
Mr. Bowerman resigned his position as Chairman of the Commission.
1*r There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:55 p.m.
Im
Om
Mr. John Horne, Secretary