HomeMy WebLinkAbout05 14 1991 PC MinutesMay 14, 1991
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, May 14, 1991, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Phil Grimm;
Ms. Ellen Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle.
Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director
of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz,
Senior Planner; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; and Mr.
Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of April
30, 1991 were approved as amended.
SP-91-08 Crestar Bank - Request for a branch bank with
drive -through windows [31.2.4, 25.2.2.4] on 1.0 acre zoned
PD-SC, Planned Development -Shopping Center and EC, Entrance
Corridor. Property described as Tax Map 46B4, Parcel 10
(part of) is located on the east side of Rt. 29
approximately 500 feet north of Timber Wood Blvd. in the
Rivanna Magisterial district. This site is located in a
designated growth area (Community of Hollymead).
Citing a possible conflict of interests, Commissioner
Wilkerson excused himself from review of this item.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded:
"Staff opinion is that the applicant has adequately
addressed access and circulation issues and that this
request is consistent with ZMA-88-16 and Section 31.2.4.1 of
the Zoning Ordinance and therefore staff recommends approval
of SP-91-08 Crestar Bank subject to ... conditions."
Mr. Johnson expressed concern about the "entrance only" also
being used as an exit. Mr. Fritz explained that the
applicant has agreed to construct a raised median to prevent
left turns. Mr. Fritz explained the traffic circulation
pattern in some detail.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Fred Thompson. He
offered no significant additional comment.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question about Virginia
Department of Transportation comments regarding the
entrances, Mr. Fritz quoted: "The access to the property in
this request is in accordance with the previous zoning
requirements."
SA
May 14, 1991
Page 2
Mr. Grimm stated he was satisfied that the plan had "all of
its elements in place." He moved that SP-91-08 for Crestar
Bank be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval
subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval is for two drive -through windows and one
drive -through automatic teller machine only. Any additional
drive -through facilities require a separate special use
permit petition.
2. Site development shall be in general accordance with the
Crestar Bank Preliminary Site Plan included as Attachment C
initialed WDF and dated April 15, 1991.
3. Construction of one way exit road on the eastern
boundary of Tax Map 32, Parcel 36F at such time as the
exit -only access road to Route 29 is constructed.
4. Staff approval of the final site plan.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
Mr. Wilkerson returned to the meeting.
SP-91-07 Stephen R. and Karen K. Thomas - Proposal to
install a stream crossing in the floodplain of an unnamed
tributary of the Doyles River [30.3]. Property described as
Tax Map 26, Parcel 31A (part), consists of 15 acres zoned
RA, Rural Areas and is located on the south side of Rt. 672
approximately 0.2 miles west of Rt. 673 in the White Hall
Magisterial District. This site is not located within a
designated growth area (Rural Area I).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. The report concluded:
"Staff opinion is that stream crossings should be kept to a
minimum. There does not appear to be any alternative access
to this site and it does not appear that the proposed
crossing could reasonably provide access to other parcels.
Therefore staff recommends approval subject to ...
conditions."
In response to Mr. Johnson's question about standards for
stream crossings, Mr. Fritz noted that condition 1(b) had
been modified from what has typically been used in the past
in order to address concerns raised by the Commission and
the Board. Said condition [Department of Engineering
approval of crossing design to insure compliance with
Section 30.3.) will insure compliance with the Flood Hazard
Overlay District. He explained that this new wording
removes problems related to weight.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question as to how the lot had
been approved with access available only through a
floodplain. Mr. Fritz explained the history briefly and
5-3
May 14, 1991
Page 3
noted that the lot met all the minimum requirements for the
Subdivision Ordinance, e.g. frontage, building site. He
stated there had been no grounds on which a denial of the
plat could have been based.
The applicant, Mr. Thomas, was present but offered no
additional comment.
There being no further applicant or public comment the
matter was placed before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Mr. Fritz explained
that the Virginia Marine Resources Commission served as a
"clearing house" and would notify all other appropriate
agencies of the request.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-91-07 for Stephen and Karen
Thomas be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. The bridge shall not be constructed until the following
approvals have been obtained:
a. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit;
b. Department of Engineering approval of crossing
design to insure compliance with Section 30.3;
C. Approval of Virginia Marine Resources
Commission, if required.
Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
ZTA-91-1 Luck Stone Corporation - To amend the Zoning
Ordinance Section 30.4.2.2 SPECIAL USE PERMITS in the
Natural Resource Extraction Overlay District.
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report which explained that
the request had originated with the applicant and the
purpose was to "broaden uses permitted in the NR, Natural
Resources Overlay District (by special use permit)." The
proposal would permit additional processing activities and
allow the sale of material extracted on -and/or off -site.
Staff was recommending approval of only one of the proposed
amendments to Section 30.4.2.2 as follows:
118. Manufacturing, processing, fabrication, assembly,
distribution and/or storage of mineral products and
accessory materials produced or extracted on -site
and/or off -site."
SW
May 14, 1991 Page 4
Staff was not recommending that part of the amendment
[30.4.2.2(9)] which would allow the sale of mineral products
and accessory materials sales including those produced
and/or extracted off -site.
Ms. Hu6le expressed concern that the term "mineral
products" was not more precisely defined. She felt the term
was "too broad."
The applicant was represented by Mr. Joe Andrews. He
distributed photographs and brochures depicting existing
Luck Stone operations. Significant comments included the
following:
--The present NR District allows for the processing of
mineral materials, but does not allow for sales. Staff's
recommendation of approval of only that portion of the
proposed amendment related to processing is exactly the
situation which currently exists.
--The current ordinance does not allow for the proposed
sales, outdoor storage of building materials, nor the
processing within the shop.
--All the materials involved in the present request
come from off -site, but the activites proposed are the same
as those which occur at other types of NR districts within
the County.
In response to Mr. Grimm's question, Mr. Andrews confirmed
that the current business on Rt. 250 does include the sale
of materials (allowed because the use is non -conforming) but
sales activity make up only 5% to 10% of the total scope of
the business.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mrs. Robert Michie, an adjacent landowner, expressed concern
about traffic problems in a dangerous curve, particularly in
relation to truck and school bus conflicts. (Note: It was
determined Ms. Michie's comments were pertinent because
approval the ZTA could result in additional truck traffic at
the intersection of Rt. 729 and Rt. 250.) She also recalled
that the citizens of the Shadwell area had been promised by
the County (during the review of the Glenmore development)
that there would be no additional commercial development in
the area.
Ms. Eleanor Santic, representing Citizens for Albemarle,
addressed the Commission, and expressed opposition to the
proposal. (See Attachment A at the end of these minutes.)
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
i;;�
May 14, 1991 Page 5
Mr. Rittenhouse asked the applicant: "Approximately what
percentage of the manufacturing, processing, fabrication,
assembly, etc. would be generated from on -site acquisition
of materials vs. off -site importation of other mineral
products to that location for processing?" Mr. Andrews
responded: "I would estimate, considering the total site,
... of all the land that's zoned NR, the volume of
processing and fabricating would be 95% to 100% on -site.
The other part is going to be a very small part of the total
activity. ... The stone center sales will be less than 5%."
Mr. Andrews explained further: "Of the proposed site, the
one that's part of the special use permit, I would say that
5% of that material, or less, comes from on site. The
balance would come from off site. ... Looking at the whole
operation that is covered by the same NR district, the
products that are brought on site are less than 5% of that."
He confirmed.that the bulk of the operation will remain
crushed stone.
Regarding anticipated traffic, Mr. Andrews stressed that the
traffic would be much less and of a different type, than at
the main entrance of the quarry.
Mr. Rittenhouse asked how important it is to have the stone
center sales activity on the same site as the quarry
operation. Mr. Andrews explained that another site (on Rt.
29 north) had been looked at in the past, but the
Comprehensive Plan did not recommend LI in that area. He
noted that the Commercial districts (C and HC) did not allow
for the proposed use. Mr. Andrews also stressed that the
request was not being driven by the fact that public water
is now available in the area. He also pointed out that the
applicant now owns the land and it is presently being used
in a•manner very similar to what is'being requested. He did
not think the request was "unfair" because since there is no
place else in the County which currently allows for what is
being proposed a ZTA would be required in any location. Mr.
Andrews also noted that even though located in a rural area,
other existing uses are an asphalt plant and the CSX
railroad, and the existing activity on the property is
probably more intensive than what is being requested.
Mr. Johnson noted that since there are already many
activities taking place on this property which are by -right,
the proposal could be considered a "satellite operation"
which is being considered as a "special use." He
interpreted that the proposed changes would allow a
"sophisticated manufacturing and supporting sales as really
contrasted to a gross blasting, excavating, etc. that's
already by -right." He felt the "relative contamination or
effect on the environment or the locality by these two
suggested changes are rather minimal." He didn't think the
0
May 14, 1991 Page 6
importation of off -site materials was a significant
consideration since saw mills are allowed in agricultural
districts and most of their materials come from off site.
He felt this type of utilization was contemplated. He
concluded: "Going along with the staff's recommendation for
amendment (8.) on the basis that it is a special use subject
to individuial consideration, I also support the sales in
(9.) being also a special use permit and recognizing that
this has many of the characteristics that we recommended and
approved for another district not too long ago in support of
the primary activity." He also noted that this amendment
was not applicable to this request only but he felt it
"constituted a reasonable and logical addition to the Zoning
Ordinance."
Mr. Rittenhouse felt the difficult aspect of the request was
the importation of off -site materials which would then be
processed and sold from the site. He felt that if all the
materials contemplated for processing were mined on the
site, "it would be a logical extension of what goes on." He
noted that "clearly the natural resource aspect of this
contemplates sales (because) no one would mine the stuff if
they couldn't sell it." He felt it seemed to be more of a
LI-type use but at the same time the proposed use had
"commercial connotations" though not the type which generate
a high volume of repeat customers. He stated he would
prefer that the imported products be brought in, processed
and sold from an LI district. He concluded that he was
reluctant to support the sale of the imported material from
this site, "but at the same time I would like to see some
zoning designation within the County which would permit that
because I see it as a low -intensity kind of commercial sales
that is somehow tied in with LI."
There was a brief discussion about the parallels of this
application with a previous application (J. Townsend).
Mr. Fritz interjected that the Zoning Administrator had
stated that the processing use would be allowed in the HI
district and sales would be permitted in the HC district.
Mr. Rittenhouse felt some re -definition was appropriate.
Referring to one of staff's listed positive aspects of the
proposal, Mr. Wilkerson questioned whether the importation
of 95% of the material was really utilizing the county's
natural resources.
Mr. Wilkerson indicated he supported the applicant's
proposal but NOT in the Rural Areas.
May 14, 1991 Page 7
Mr. Jenkins pointed out that approval of a commercial
activity in this location would make it difficult to deny
future applications for other more intensive commercial
proposals. He was concerned about the "highway situation"
and the message that would be sent to the community.
Mr. Rittenhouse noted he could support paragraph (8.) of the
amendment (as recommended by staff) with the deletion of the
words "off site." He also suggested that a Resolution of
Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow
"manufacturing, processing, fabrication, assembly and
distribution and the associated sales" might be appropriate.
He felt both paragraphs 8 and 9 could be accommodated in the
County, but not in the Rural Areas.
Mr. Johnson questioned what other logical location there
could be for this type of use other than where the material
exists in an NR district. Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the
applicant had stated very little of the material subject to
the processing under consideration would come from on -site.
There was consideration given to a deferral of the request
to allow staff to present a "more comprehensive package"
which would address the concerns of the Commission in
relation to the LI and HI zones. Regarding a deferral, Mr.
Andrews stated: "I wouldn't oppose it, but I don't want to
do it if all these other outside things that really don't
pertain to the subject that we're supposed to be talking
about right now --if all we're going to do is go through an
exercise and it still isn't the right place for it." Mr.
Cilimberg noted that unless the applicant were to pursue a
rezoning to LI or HI, alternative amendments might not
address the applicant's desire to do this type of operation
on this site.
Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Andrews if, under the existing
operation, there were any requlations against importation,
processing and sale of off -site materials. Mr. Andrews
responded: "Without a special use permit, yes, sir."
Mr. Wilkerson noted though the applicant has always been a
"good neighbor" the proposed amendment would effect more
than just this applicant and could have an effect on all the
rural areas of the County. He stated he could not support
the request for that reason.
Ms. Huckle agreed.
Mr. Grimm felt also that the type of traffic which was
contemplated was inconsistent with the rural areas. He
stated he could not support the request.
591
May 14, 1991 Page 8
Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZTA-91-1 for Luck Stone Corporation
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Mr. Johnson stated he would not support the motion as
stated. He noted that the request was for a change to the
special permit section of the ordinance "which in turn
allows each individual application to be judged on its own
merit" and therefore "he could not support a blanket denial
of the proposal."
The motion for denial passed (5:2) with Commissioners
Johnson and Andersen casting the dissenting votes.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT
Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Grimm, that a Resolution
of Intent to amend the LI and HI districts as related to
processing and sales of mineral products be adopted. The
motion passed unanimously.
ZMA-91-01 Luck Stone - Request to amend proffers of
ZMA-85-31 to allow alternative access. No change in use or
density is proposed. Property, described as Tax Map 79,
Parcel 20 is located on the west side of Route 729 in the
southwestern corner of the Rt. 250/729 intersection in the
Rivanna Magisterial District and consists of 11.393 acres
zoned RA, Rural Areas and is within the NR, Natural
Resources and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay Districts. This
site is not located within a designated growth area (Rural
area IV).
AND
SP-91-12 Luck Stone Corporation - Request to allow stoneyard
shop and sales [30.4.2.2.8 and 30.4.2.2.9] (Proposed by
ZTA-91-01) on 11.393 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas and within
the NR, Natural Resources an eC, Entrance Corridor Overlay
Districts. Property, described as Tax Map 79, Parcel 20 is
located on the west side of Rt. 729 in the southwestern
corner of the Rt. 250-729 intersection in the Rivanna
Magisterial District. This site is not located within a
designated growth area (Rural Area IV).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff did not support
ZMA-91-01 which would alter a previous proffer and allow
access to Rt. 729.
59
May 14, 1991 Page 9
Mr. Johnson interpreted that the applicant currently has
access to Rt. 729, but only with "light vehicles" and the
current proposal would add approximately 4 "heavy" vehicles
per day to the current usage of the access. Mr. Fritz
confirmed this was accurate but may be in conflict with the
"spirit" of the special permit.
Mr. Johnson felt there was some confusion as to the
applicant's proposed substitute proffer, i.e. did the
proffer include both sentences, one on page 1 of Attachment
C to the staff report and the other on page 2 of the same
attachment? After some discussion, the applicant confirmed
that both sentences should be included in the proffer as
follows:
"Ingress and egress to SR 729 from Parcel 79/20
shall be used only by vehicles serving or patronizing
the applicant's proposed stone yard, shop and sales
area. No crushed stone hauling units or asphalt
hauling trucks will access SR 729 from Parcel 79/20.
They shall continue to use the entrances at U.S. 250."
Mr. Andrews again addressed the Commission. He recalled
that the reason for the original proffer had been to prevent
"quarry trucks and/or asphalt trucks from accessing 729."
He also offered to add an additional proffer which would
require that tractor trailer traffic come through the quarry
and would not have access to Rt. 729. He described the
types of trucks that were envisioned to use 729, i.e. boom
trucks, F350 truck, single -axle dump trucks. All would be
owned by the applicant. He also stated the Highway
Department (Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Kesterson) had led the
applicant to believe (several years ago and again in
September, 1990), that they would approve use of the
entrance. However, the Highway Department has recently
reversed its position. Mr. Andrews explained that he is
currently trying to negotiate with the Education Department
for the purchase (or trade) of a small piece of the school
property which would allow for a better positioning of the
entrance.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse indicated he could support a deferral to
allow time for the applicant to try to work out something
with the School Board on the acquisition of additional
property. otherwise, he stated he was swayed by the
Virginia Department of Transportation's opposition and could
not support the request.
/vO
May 14, 1991 Page 10
Mr. Wilkerson informed the applicant that he did not feel
the School Board was aware of the applicant's proposal.
(Mr. Andrews stated his letter had been directed to the
Superintendent of Schools as had been advised by Mr.
Broadbent.) Mr. Andrews also noted that though VDOT had
said they would review a proposal for a relocation of the
entrance, there was no guarantee that they would support
said relocation.
Mr. Wilkerson stated he agreed with Mr. Rittenhouse.
Ms. Huckle felt this was a difficult situation given the
short distance from Rt. 250 to the school. She questioned
whether any entrance location between 250 and the school
would be acceptable, given the possible conflicts between
school buses and trucks. She stated she could not support
an entrance onto Rt. 729.
Mr. Rittenhouse quoted VDOT's comments and stated he felt
this was the pertinent issue. He concluded he supported
staff's position which was based on VDOT comments.
Commissioners Grimm and Andersen agreed.
Mr. Johnson stated he could not support the request as
presented though he would be willing to reconsider if an
alternative location was proposed. He noted also that the
applicant can allow heavy truck traffic to enter through the
existing entrance on Rt. 250.
Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-91-01 for Luck Stone be denied.
The motion passed unanimously.
The Commission then discussed SP-91-12 for Luck Stone (as
described previously in this record).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. in the event that
both ZTA-91-01 and ZMA-91-01 should receive approval, staff
was recommending approval of SP-91-12 subject to conditions.
Given the fact that the Commission had recommended denial on
the ZTA and ZMA, Mr. Rittenhouse was in favor of deferring
action on the special permit until after the Board's action
on those two requests. He felt it would be difficult to
give a "comprehensive, clear cut recommendation on the
special permit" given all the variables.
Mr. Wilkerson agreed.
Mr. Johnson questioned the statement in the staff report
which said that if the ZMA were denied (ultimately by the
Board), then "all access would be through the existing
6/
May 14, 1991 Page 11
quarry entrance on Rt. 250." He questioned if this was a
factual statement. Mr. Fritz explained: "That's what you
would need to determine --assuming all those other
variables --that the intent of that proffer was to provide
for access of this sort and that was consistent. That's our
recommendation."
Mr. Johnson concluded: "We don't really have a positive
answer to that. That statement is not supported by fact at
this time., There are other determinations to be made. So
from that standpoint, it is conceivable, without too much
stretch of the imagination --in accordance with the proffers
available to us at this time --that the applicant, if he is
allowed to put his processing plant on here, could have an
access to 729 with automobiles and pick-ups only --not medium
or large trucks. I see no place here where it is absolutely
precluded."
Mr. Fritz responded: "If you are going to review under that
scenario I would have to state that the Virginia Department
of Transportation has not recommended that entrance location
for the use. They haven't reviewed it for only passenger
vehicle traffic, but they have stated that the entrance
location is not the best."
Ms. Huckle indicated she would not be opposed to a deferral;
however, "regardless of what anybody else says it isn't
going to change the facts on which we made our previous
determinations."
Mr. Andrews again addressed the Commission. He asked that
the Commission take action on the request. He noted that
there is an existing proffer which allows light vehicle
usage of the entrance on 729.
Mr. Fritz noted: "If you're considering it without the
amendment of the existing proffer which says 'autos and
light pick-ups,' there may be a difficulty in insuring that
no trucks associated with the processing or fabrication, or
delivery trucks, or contractors... won't be using that
entrance on 729, so you should take that into
consideration."
Mr. Keeler added: "In short, I think there is a difference
because I believe when that proffer was made that was quarry
traffic. That was traffic that Mr. Andrews and Luck Stone
has control over. If there are retail sales there they are
not going to have control over the type of vehicles that
come. ... So I don't see that they are guaranteed the use of
this entrance under that prior proffer. obviously, the
62
May 14, 1991
Page 12
Zoning Administrator and Planning Staff have taken a pretty
conservative reading of that proffer, but it wasn't there to
serve a MacDonalds. ... So we view that as a change in the
character of the tract even if it remains a very low
volume."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Rittenhouse again stated he was in favor of deferral.
Mr. Johnson noted: "We are viewing this on the assumption
that ZTA-91-01 has been approved. That means this is
appropriate for consideration as a special use in this area.
We are also assuming that ZMA-91-01 has been approved and
that gives them the access. so this is following the
time-honored procedure of applying for a special permit to
put this facility on this piece of property. I really don't
see the problem if these others have been approved, and
we're stating those as assumptions and that is the way our
action here will be predicated."
Mr. Rittenhouse responded: "We have to qualify those
recommendations because there is a possibility the Board
could approve the ZTA but not approve the ZMA." He felt
without a clear-cut recommendation from the Board, the
Commission risks sending a "muddled" recommendation to the
Board because of the possible different combinations.
Ms. Huckle stated she hoped the applicant would be able to
find a suitable, appropriately zoned site ; however,
regardless of the action taken by the Board, the physical
constraints of this site would not change.
Mr. Grimm stated: "It's my feeling that it's not zoned
properly for the type of use that they want and there is a
safety issue involved."
Mr. Wilkerson brought up the issue of discussions about the
size of the public water line which had taken place during
consideration of the Glenmore development and whether or not
promises had be made by either the Commission or the Board
that no further commercial development would be approved.
He quoted from minutes of one of those hearings:
"Mr. Way referred to his recommendation which states
'existing local convenience commercial uses in
combination with the proximity of urban area commercial
are sufficient to serve this proposed village.' He
asked if this meant there would be no additional
commercial development in the area. Mr. Cilimberg said
'Yes.' Mr. Bowie stated he thinks this recommendation
should be stated more definitely to make it clear that
there will be no more commercial growth in the proposed
growth area."
d3
May 14, 1991 Page 13
Mr. Johnson stated: "But this isn't a proposed growth area,
is it?"
Mr. Rittenhouse stated: "But the Board's ruling on these
zoning text amendments will make it clearer to us whether
this is perceived as a commercial activity. ... That's why I
think our deliberations on the special permit are premature
at this time...."
Mr. Jenkins asked if the Commission did not have an
obligation to act on the proposal as requested by the
applicant. Mr. Rittenhouse was uncertain because
technically, until the ZTA has been approved, there are no
grounds for the special permit request. Mr. Bowling
commented that historically the Commission has abided by the
applicant's request, unless there were special circumstances
where more information is needed. He also reminded the
Commission of its advisory capacity and added that if action
is not taken within a certain period of time the request is
deemed to have been approved.
Mr. Jenkins stated that though he would not oppose a
deferral, "after what we've been through here tonight, I
think we ought to vote."
Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-91-12 be denied.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion.
Discussion:
In response to Mr. Johnson's questions regarding setbacks
and undisturbed buffer referred to in the staff report, Mr.
Andrews confirmed those would present no problems.
Mr. Johnson stated he would not vote for the motion based on
the assumption that the Board has acted favorably on the
previous two requests.
The motion for denial passed (6:1) with Commissioner Johnson
casting the dissenting vote.
Mr. Johnson suggested that the applicant consider an access
on parcels 23D or 23E and R with an access "down on 729" and
even consider that the "total functional access to his
property be included down there with a view in mind to
getting the trucks off the entry to 250 which they are now
using...."
Wal-Mart Extension - Mr. Keeler explained that because of
delays which were beyond the control of the applicant, a
3-month extension was being requested.
6-/
May 14, 1991 Page 14
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the
Wal-Mart Preliminary Site Plan be granted a 3-month
extension. The motion passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Toys R Us Circuit City, _Food Lion_ Branchlandsl, - Mr.
Keeler asked that staff be granted administrative approval
of these site plans. He explained that the sites have
already been prepared, roads built and utilities are in
place. The stated that the site plans which have been
submitted are very similar to the layout of the prior plans.
He stated staff could determine no public purpose to be
served by Commission review.
Referring to Toys R Us, Mr. Johnson asked if any
consideration had been given, during Architectural Review
Board review, to moving the building next to 29 and the
parking behind the building. Mr. Keeler explained that the
sites are constrained by various types of easements. He
could not recall if the ARB had discussed this possibility.
Mr. Grimm moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that staff be
granted administrative approval of these site plans. The
motion passed unanimously.
Con/Agra - Mr. Keeler requested that staff be authorized
administrative approval of a "fill area and concrete apron"
in order to establish new loading areas for the freezer
warehouses. He noted two pieces of adjoining property (in
front and along side) which are zoned R-2 and a provision in
the ordinance prohibits clearing of trees or grading within
30 feet of a residential property line. He asked for
administrative approval of the fill area and concrete apron
provided "Con Agra can come to satisfactory terms with the
two property owners." He explained that the proposal would
go through the normal review of the Site Review Committee.
Mr. Keeler also noted that the ARB has already been informed
of this request.
Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Ms. Huckle, that staff be
granted administrative approval of the Con/Agra request.
The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
10:00 P.M. r ,
DB