Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 06 77 PC MinutesIz3 IM September 6, 1977 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, September 6, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members in attendance were Mr. David W. Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Leslie Jones; Mrs. Joan Graves; Col. William Washignton; Mr. Paul Peatross; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Other officials in attendance were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Carlos M. Montenegro, Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. present. Mr. Carr called the meeting to order, after establishing that a quorum was ZMA-77-06. Daniel and Lorene Robinson - Vuelund RPN: Mr. Keeler reported to the Commission that the staff was in receipt of a letter from the applicant's attorney requesting deferral until November, 1977, and an acknowledge- ment in the letter that all rights to a public hearing within 90 days of filing have been previously waived. The staff recommended deferral until November 22, 1977, in view of ' this request. Mr. Gloeckner moved deferral until November 22, 1977. This motion was seconded by Mr. Barksdale. Mr. Donald Holden asked that the Commission consider this request on the basis that deferral had been originally granted in order to obtain more information. He stated that this supporting data has not been presented. Mr. Carr said that he is unaware of the applicant's position on the additional information requested, though he thought Mr. Holden's remark was reasonable. Mr. Holden noted that for those interested adjoining property owners and also for those other citizens living in the area, deferral after deferral is a nuisance and a bother. He stated that he is not aware that the applicant has taken any action to clear up the questions faised by the Commission in May, 1977. When asked if the staff has received any data, Mr. Tucker replied that the only information he has received is something about the right-of-way out to the road. Mr. Holden stated that the applicant, Mr. Batchelor, and several interested citizens from Montvue had met in July, however only an exchange of ideas took place and those residents of Montvue have heard nothing from Mr. Robinson since. Mr. Easter noted that in the past the Commission has always considered an applicant's request for deferral. Mr. Jones recommended that perhaps this should be the last deferral granted. fzf Mr. Carr advised that perhaps this was a good idea, since there are many people interested in this matter, one way or the other. Mr. Gloeckner amended his motion to state that this is the last deferral the Commission will grant at the request of the applicant, since this deferral will give him an additional 2' months. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion. Mr. Carr asked the staff if there were any problems with this motion. Messrs. Payne and Tucker advised the Commission that this motion is perfectly proper. The motion to defer further discussion and action until November 22, 1977 carried unanimously. ZMA-77-15. Request to rezone 14.68 acres from R-2 to RPN/R-1: Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, noting that action had been deferred in order that the staff, the applicant, and the Charlottesville Planning Staff could have the opportunity to discuss the possible imporvement of Wilder Drive between Cutler and North Avenue. He read to the Commission the letter from Mr. S. Huja to Mr. Rob Tucker, dated August 8, 1977. The letter stated that he had met with Mr. Montenegro and Mr. Cotten to discuss the rezoning as its relates to the City of Charlottesville. Mr. Huja stated in his letter that the subdivision as drawn seems to be reasonable except that it will generate traffic which will have a signifi- cant impact on city streets, especially Wilder Drive. The pavement of Wilder Drive from Cutler to North Avenue varies between 15 to 20 feet which is not sufficient for safe two-way movement. He also specified what improvements would be necessary to make it sufficent. Mr. Montenegro also read a letter from Mr. W. F. Bowman which addressed the inadequacies of Wilder Drive as access to the property. He also read Mrs. C. D. O'Dell's letter of opposition to the access through Wilder Drive, and to the proposal in general. ( Mrs. David arrived at the meeting. ) Dr. Moore expressed surprise that the city feels the traffic will go to Wilder as opposed to Cutler Lane, which is wider and has a better entrance to Park Street. Mr. Peatross questioned if the bike and pedestrian strip proposed to be built will be maintained by the County. Mr. Barksdale asked the length of Wilder that would have to be improved, and the approximate cost. Mr. Montenegro stated that approximately 500 feet would have to be improved; the County Engineer has estimated that this will cost approximately $10,670; however, the developer's consultant has stated that it will cost approximately $6,000 to $7,000. Mr. Easter asked if the developer is willing to absorb this expense. Mr. Montenegro replied that he does not have the responsibility one way or the other. Mr. Montenegro also stated that there would be a lot of trees disturbed if the road were widened to 30 feet. tz5 Mr. Easter asked what the road will connect to at either end if it is upgraded. Mr. Montenegro replied that the right -of --way along the entire length is 60 feet, though "there is 20 to 22 feet of roadway at the ends. Mr. William Bowman said that the new residences would use Wilder Drive, since it is a more direct route. He suggested the developer go directly onto Rio Road. Mr. Bowman also suggested that the bike trail be deleted from the plan. Mr. Bowman felt that any road construction should include curbing. Mrs. Lois Douglas stated that she is opposed to any removal or trees along Wilder Drive. Ms. Ann Carothers suggested an exit at Cottonwood Road. Mr. Montenegro stated that this has been considered, with the city having input on this. He said that this would work only if Cottonwood Road is the only access; he said that if both Cottonwood Road and Wilder Drive are used as accesses, all the traffic will neverless be generated through Wilder, according to the city planning department. Mr. Montenegro said that the County concurs in this. Dr. Moore suggested using Wilder Drive as a one-way route. Mr. Montenegro said that when this was suggested that the city traffic engineer said that this would penalize the residents of Wilder Drive. Mr. James Collier, stating that he had not been notified of this meeting, suggested that if the road is realigned, he will have only a half -lot once the right-of-way is used. Mrs. O'Dell asked how much of her front yard will be taken if Wilder is used. Mr. Carr explained to her that the city owns sixty feet of right-of-way somewhere in there, and that probably some of it is in her yard. He suggested that some engineer in the city could tell her how her property will be affected if Wilder Drive is used as the access. Mr. Cotten said that he wants the subdivision to be harmonious to the neighborhood. Mr. Easter suggested that the RPN should be engineered to have Cottonwood Road the sole access. He stated that during the course of the discussion the Commission has heard that this is the only good road, and perhaps it should be used for the access. Mr. Cotten said that he is not prepared to speak to this suggestion. Mr. Montenegro said that the developer's engineer had stated at one time that if Cottonwood is used, the expense will be far greater than if Wilder is used. Mr. Gloeckner asked if the city has ever expressed opposition to the use of Cottonwood. Mr. Montenegro said that when this was briefly discussed, the city saw no problem; however, if this is to be the recommendation of the Commission, perhaps there should be further input from the city planning office. Mr. Easter said that he certainly feels that Cottonwood is the best access. Mr. Peatross asked if any trees will be removed if the road is 24 feet in width. 1 Mr. Montenegro said that using Cottonwood would entail moving only six trees. Mr. Carr closed the public hearing. 126 Mr. Peatross asked if the developer is willing to widen a road to 24 feet with curb and gutter. Mr. Cotten said that some of the problems of drainage have not been answered by his engineer, and he is not prepared to answer this question. Mr. Peatross noted that there has been one estimate of 410,670 for widening the road from Cutler to North Avenue along Wilder Drive. Mr. Montenegro said that this is correct. Mr. Gloeckner asked if the developer is opposed to entering only Cottonwood Road with something like a "Y" intersection. Mr. Cotton said that he and his engineer would have to see if this can be done. Mr. Gloeckner said that he favors the RPN because of the configuration of the land, and feels that perhaps the Cottonwood Road access should be further studied, since it is likely the best solution for the access. Besides, he stated that it will be cheaper to cross the ravine than to build curb and gutter all around. Mrs. Graves asked how many lots have slopes of 25% or greater. Mr. Montenegro said that if this is worked over it might change, however four lots are now shown that have 25% slope or greater. Mr. Carr said that he hopes this plan does not at a later date commit the County to building the bicycle trail. 114 Mr. Tucker said that if the developer does not build the bike trail, he does not who will. He did note that the County is on record that it does not intend to build bicycle trails. He noted that if the developers are to build the bicycle trails as subdivisions, etc. take place, the bike trail can occur only on a piecemeal basis. Mr. Easter said that he will favor the bike trail as long as the County Attorney assures the Commission at a later date the County will not have to assume the cost for construction. Mr. Gloeckner said that he favors a reservation for the bike trail. Mrs. Graves said that if the happens, she is going to be concerned about the recreational areas in other developments. Mr. Easter moved that any further discussion and action be deferred in order the discuss the possibility of Cottonwood Road as the sole access to the property. He asked that the county staff receive input from the city staff regarding this and also have the developer present. He moved that this again be considered on September 13. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. 9 /z Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Five Year Plan: Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, stating that the staff still has the same recommendation regarding the five year plan after reading the capital improvements plan of the Parks Commission. Mr. Easter said that he does not want to be accused of having a conflict of interests, however, he does not feel that existing commercial facilities have been considered. Dr. Gamble responded that the reason for this is that the Parks Commission sought not to develop a competitive relationship with the private recreational facilities such as the putt -putt golf courses and the ice rink. Mr. Easter questioned if the existing commercial facilities had even been included in the inventory of available facilities. Mr. Clark, former President of the Greenwood Community Center, stated that there is a continuing problem of raising funds for this facility. He presented the budget for the 1977-1978 year, stating that only $8,000 is earned through the two main projects, and this is less than half that needed. Mr. Carr noted that there are some things that need to be addressed in this plan, however, the Commission does not have the time nor the know-how to endorse this plan as presented. However, he pointed our that there are many good points to the plan. Dr. Moore asked what happens with additional study groups. Mr. Keeler replied that the Parks Commission will then consider their recommendations and in turn this plan would return to the Commission. Col. Washington questioned who the citizen task forces would be. Mr. Tucker stated that they would be the same neighborhood task forces as those reviewing the Comprehensive Plan in relation to their particular neighborhood. As yet, only two Neighborhood Groups have been formed, however, the Comprehensive Plan recommends 28 citizen task forces to work on detailed plans of each area. Mr. Peatross asked.if any of this would be repetitious to what has already been done. Mr. Gamble said that a random sampling of opinion was taken from the public at the time of development of this plan. He said that the Parks Commission also invites interested citizens to attend their meetings for input. Mr. Tucker stated that the staff is not opposed to some action that the Commission might take, however, he pointed out that the Board of Supervisors has not yet acted on the Comprehensive Plan Update. He said that the staff is willing for the Commission to make amendments to the Parks Plan and forward it to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Peatross asked if this could be incorporated into the updated plan and then be amended after the 28 citizen task forces are formed. Mr. Tucker stated that the staff has some problems with neighborhood parks. Woodbrook, for instance , is not accessible. The staff favors the Whitewood Road site over this. 126 Mr. Peatross said that he hates to see the plan shelved after a lot of work. Mrs. David stated that in her opinion such things as this have a bearing on the Comprehensive Plan, as do the Betz Study, the Transportation Re -Study, `v11 and feels they should be appendices to the Plan. Mr. Barksdale suggested passing the Parks Plan along with a general endorsement with notification of specific areas of concern. Mrs. David felt this would be a good idea. She also pointed out that she has been concerned about the fashion in which the Parks Commission has been going along with its work without closer contact and work with the Planning Commission. Mrs. Graves said that she would like to pass the Parks Plan along as a guideline or a planning tool for future development of recreational facilities. Mr. Barksdale said that in some cases he favors taking existing facilities in the county and funding those. Dr. Moore pointed out that in :his opinion the Woodbrook site would not conflict with or be in competition with the Whitewood Road site. Mr. Easter said that he has a general concern about the monies being considered to be spent. He said that there are many opportunities here in the county, in addition to the existing recreational areas, for recreation. Mr. Gloeckner said that he too is concerned about the capital outlay in the programs and positions to be created .if this plan is approved by the Board. Mrs. Graves moved that the Parks and Recreation Master Plan be adopted as NWF a guide only for capital improvements programming. She then asked that the Commission note that the following issues should be addressed: be 1. Consideration in terms of future development and funding should/given to existing local community recreation areas, e.g., Claudius Crozet Park, Greenwood Community Center, and other similar facilities; 2. Strongly urge the further investigation of the 23-acre parcel located on Whitewood Road and owned by the Albemarle County School Board, for use as a neighborhood park; 3. Commission favors the use of existing school sites and facilities for neighborhood recreation areas, however, they do feel that further study should be given to the proposed Woodbrook;Greer, and Stone Robinson neighborhood parks; 4. Closer working relationship between the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission should be established; and 5. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan should eventually be made an element of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. 9 4Z9 SP-77-49. Brenda M. Lloyd has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a gift, craft, and antique shop on 4.576 acres zoned A-1 Agriculture. Property is located on the west side of Route 713, approximately 300 yards northeast of the intersection of Routes 713 and 20 South. County Tax Map 121, Parcel 82B, Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, and read the recommended conditions of approval of the staff. Mr. Barksdale questioned the number of parking spaces required as addressed by a condition of approval. Mr. Keeler stated that the purpose of this condition is so that the BZA does not vary this provision. If it were not a condition of the special permit, they could vary under the ordinance the number of spaces required. Mr. James Murray, representing the applicant, stated that this will essentially be a home occupation. The house is hidden by the road, and if the operation is successful, it will have less than two customers per day. There will be a possible increase of traffic by only 4 vehicle trips/day, and the road currently has 21 vehicle trips/day. He stated that in his opinion the requirement of a commercial entrance is excessive. He noted that the condition of having 7 parking spaces cannot be met unless several large trees are cut and unless there is a large amount of earth moving. He further noted that the applicant proposes only one appointment at a time. On behalf of his client, he stated that the permit can address no gifts or crafts to be sold, and that the permit is limited only to her use and will not run with the land. There was no comment from the public, and Mr. Carr closed the public hearing. Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that the staff feels that three spaces will be reasonable, in view of the fact that furniture stores are required to have 2 spaces per 1000 square feet of area. Mr. Barksdale asked if the special permit can legally be limited to this applicant. Mr. Payne replied that it is part of the record that she is willing to do this. Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the special permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Business to be limited to 500 square feet; 2. Business to be operated by appointment only; 3. No employees; 4. Limited to one location sign on Route 20 South with wording "Woodhouse 5. Location sign to comply to Article 18, Scenic Highway Designation; 6. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrances; 7. Approval of appropriate State and local agencies; 8. No gifts or crafts to be sold; 9. Special permit issed to applicant only and is non-transferrable; 10. Existing parking spaces to be properly maintained. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 8-1, with Col. Washington dissenting. N 30 SP-77-50. Dr. Robert Partridge has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a veterinary clinic on 0.655 acres zoned B-1 General Business. Property is located on Route 250 East approximately 14 mile east of the intersection of Route 250 East. and New Route 20, and just east of the Sun Oil Company. County Tax Map 78, Parcel 15, part thereof ( Parcel C-3). Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report to the Commission, reading the letters from the Service Authority and Highway Department. Mr. Jones questioned the septic system and the number of parking spaces necessary. Mr. Keeler replied that there are 3 existing septic systems. The question of parking spaces will be addressed at site plan level. The Health Deparment written approval will also be addressed at site plan level. Mr. Easter asked if there were to be any boarding of animals. Dr. Partridge answered that eventually there will be. There was no public comment, and Mr. Carr closed the public hearing. Mr. Jones commented that it seems to be a small lot for boarding animals. Mr. Keeler said that the entire area is existing business zoning but the staff was not aware that the applicant prop,Dses future boarding. Mrs. Graves stated that there are single-family dwellings in the area. Dr. Partridge stated that the _plan calls for no outdoor facilities. The only existing residences will be eventually used for business offices. Mr. Barksdale suggested a condition addressing no outside housing or boarding of animals in view of the requirements placed on other such facilities. Mrs. Graves asked that there be a condition addressing sounding proofing. Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the special permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Site Plan approval; 2. Minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet as required by Subdivision Ordinance; 3. Veterinary use restricted to existing building. Expansion of use will require amendment of this special permit; 4. No outside housing or boarding of animals; 5. Soundproofing to reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator and not to be audible by motel or duplexes owned by Dr. Hurt. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. 9 131 ZMA-77-18. Liberia Development Corp. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 214.5 acres from A-1 Agriculture to RPN/RS-1. Property is located on Route 631, 3 miles south of Charlottesville, Virginia. County Tax Map 89, Parcels 95 and 95A; County Tax Map 90, Parcels 3,and 5(part thereof). Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that there is a discrepancy of up to 16 acres in what has been applied for and what is in the plan. Mr. Keeler read into the record the memo from E. E. Thompson, Executive Director of the Albemarle County Service Authority. Mr. Roy Parks, on behalf of the applicant, explained the existing conditions of the land to the Commission noting the 6 streams, and pointing out that the land is mostly wooded. He reviewed the slopes and the natural drainage on the property. He then presented the preliminary plan, including the road systems, the 40,000 and 60,000 square foot lots, and the 111 dwellings proposed to be built. He noted that all the streams and stream beds have been preserved. He explained the proposed pond recommended by the Fire Marshal. Dr. Moore asked if the Service Authority has been consulted. Mr. Parks stated that central wells will be dug. Mr. Jones questioned the wisdom of private roads with small lots. Mr. Keeler stated that a previous application on this property had indicated that the land would be used for low income housing, and thus there is a need for private roads. Mr. Carr asked that the applicant's representative address the cost of housing, if he were agreeable to do so. Mr. Parks said that the houses would be in the $40,000 range, and would be consistent with what is in the area now. When Dr. Moore questioned the success of the private road system, Mr. Tucker stated that the road plans have already been approved by the County Engineering Dept. Mr. Bruce Rasmussen opposed the request. He stated that he is representing the farmers on Route 20. He stated that his problem is with the "track -record" of the Breedens, noting that in the past they have shown no inclination to follow the conditions of approval set forth by the county. He pointed out the fact that the original intent had been to serve the proposed houses with water not legally approved by the county, and therefore questioned the water system which is proposed to serve this development. He asked that the Commission defer any action on the request until the Breedens comply with the requirements setforth by the Board of Supervisors. He asked that the system be made to be receive State Health Department approval. Otherwise he suggested wells from the western side of Route 631 or individual wells on this property. He suggested that the County require a covenant with the Breedens. Mr. Charles Yost told the Commission that he has a water problem due to some of the central wells in that area. Mr. John Falkner said that Route 631 is a dangerous road and asked that the Highway Department requirements be carefully addressed in this situation. 13Z Mr. Rasmussen stated that public water abuts the Breeden property. Mr. Payne advised the Commission of the status of the water system application He stated that an application has been filed however the County has not processed the application as yet, due to the fact that no data has yet been presented. However, he said that he feels that the application will certainly be processed in time. Mr. Carr asked if Whittington Subdivision would be served by "Oak Hill Water System." Mr. Payne said that this point is as yet not clear, due to some of the proposals that have been discussed. Dr. Moore asked if the Fire Marshal has discussed the fire hydrants. Mr. Parks replied that the Fire Marshal is requiring a pond. Mr. Parks further stated that he has been told by the Health Department that there is adequate water supply in two different areas to serve this development. Mr. Parks also advised the Commission that a central water system is proposed under Section 16-80.2 of the Ordinance. Mr. Rasmussen asked if Liberia Development Corporation is proposing to tap into Biscuit Run Water System. Mr. Parks said that at this stage he can't say, but there are two systems that can be used. Mr. Yost said that city water is closer than the two wells that have been mentioned. Mr. Rasmussen stated that the system immediately across the road can serve a maximum of 21 units. Mr. Parks stated that that particular system will definitely not be used. Mr. Jones said that his concerns are the water and the private road system proposed. Mr. Gloeckner noted that this would be setting a precedent for private roads in a large subdivision where the lots are small. Mr. Peatross asked for clarification of condition #9 as recommended by the staff. Mr. Payne replied that this condition requires that an approved system is to be used; it does not state the location. He stated that it is up to the Board of Supervisors to address the adequacy of the well, beyond the output. Mr. Easter said that he is not so concerned about the private roads, since if it lowers the costs of the houses and is good environmentally, this would be good. He said that he wishes Service Authority water could be included in this application. Dr. Moore asked who contributes to the maintenance of the roads for those unsold lots. Mr. Payne said that in this case it would probably be a Homeowner's Association. 19 /33 Dr. Moore asekd if the developer will pay a pro rata share for the lots that have not been sold, or if he will vote down any maintenance until over 50% of the lots have been sold. Mr. Carr stated that he does not know if this is a good project to branch out into with private roads, however in the fair utilization of property, private roads are very desirable. He said that he feels it can be done even in subdivisions where the lots are smaller than 2-5 acres. However, he pointed out that in this particular case, he does have some reservations. Mr. Gloeckner pointed out that one of the purposes of the RPN was to cut down road building to accommodate the clustering of units. Mr. Carr asked if the Commission were ready to grant a general approval of the RPN concept for this property. He suggested that the Commission review the conditions one by one. After this discussion Mr. Easter moved approval of the request subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is for a maximum potential of 111 single-family residential lots, however the number of lots finally approved shall be governed by conditions of approval established in this petition. Open space is to be dedicated in proportion to the number of lots platted. In the event a proposed lot shall not be approved for building development, such lot may be combined with another lot, or may be added to common open space upon a finding by the Planning Commission that such action is compatible with the overall development plan; 2. County Attorney approval of homeowners' agreements for maintenance of open space and private roads; 3. Lots are to be 40,000 square feet or greater in area; 4. All lots shall use internal roads as the sole means of ingress/egress. Direct access from lots to Route 631 will not be permitted; 5. Health Department certification that each lot is adequate for two septic systems ( one main system and one back-up field ) prior to final plat approvals; a. No dwelling is to be located on slopes of 25% or greater without County Engineering Department approval of site work. Septic tank drainfields may be located on steep slopes only upon written approval of the Health Department which specifically acknowledges the previous statement by Edwin S. Roseberry to David Breeden concerning Whittington Subdivision; b. In the event that either a main septic system or back-up drainfield shall require pumping to adequately service a dwelling, such requirement shall be stated on the plat and in the contract of sale for such lot; 6. Impacts from this development ( i.e., school enrollment impact, traffic ) will be considered in future approvals for other properties and requirements for improvements will be made accordingly; 7. Subject to Highway Department approval of public roads and Engineering Department approval of private roads; 8. Fire Marshal approval to include approval of water line sizes and locations, emergency access provisions, locations of dwellings and provision of fire protection facilities and fire hydrants; 9. All lots are to be served by a public water supply ( as defined by Section 16-70 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance ) if the same shall be reasonably available. Otherwise, all lots are to be served by a central water supply ( as defined by Section 16-80.2 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance ) approved in accordance with the Code of Albemarle County, the Code of Virginia, and all other applicable law. No further approvals or reviews, including grading plan, drainage, and road plan reviews, by any department of Albemarle County shall be given until said public water system or central water system shall have been approved as setforth in this condition; /3� 10. Only those areas where a structure, streets, utilities, pedestrian trails and other improvements are proposed shall be disturbed; all other land shall remain in its natural state; 11. The minimum setback from all interior roads shall be 30 feet; 12. Dedication of 55 feet from the centerline of Route 631 in accordance with recommendations of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. All dwellings shall be setback 75 feet from the resulting right-of-way line. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Peatross said that he does not feel that the County can legally require Service Authority water. Mr. Jones said that he is concerned about private roads tying in with state roads. He did not feel an RPN is a place for private roads. He also noted his concern for the water. The motion carried by a vote of 8-1, with Mr. Jones dissenting. Mr. Carr advised the applicant's representative that he could not do anything until the water system is worked out. ROADWAY EXPRESS SITE PLAN: Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. He noted that the applicant is requesting staff approval of the landscape plan. Mr. Carr advised the staff to investigate what is there and what will be appropriate prior to any approval they might give. Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with the original site plan dated January 14, 1974, including installation of landscape items; 2. Property owner to work with Planning Staff in providing a landscape plan, preferably evergreen trees and shrubs; 3. Fire Marshal approval of fire access; 4. County Engineering Department approval of parking area and driveway surface speci- fications; 5. Landscape items are to be replaced by owner if they should die; 6. Site plan approval shall expire September 6, 1979. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Since there was no further business, t e meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m. Rob t W. Tucker, Jr. - Secret ry%