Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 20 78 PC Minutes535 June 20, 1978 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, June 20, 1978, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman; Col. William R. Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Huffman; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Layton McCann; Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Norma Diehl; Mrs. Joan Graves; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Absent was Mr. Kurt M. Gloeckner. Other officials present were Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mrs. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Easter established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. He announced for the benefit of those present that the Manley Assoc. Site Plan will be deferred when the Commission reaches that point in the agenda. SP-78-27. Frank Shumaker and the Scottsville Volunteer Fire Department have petitioned the Board of Supervisors to locate a fire station, pursuant to Sections 4-1-12(4.1) and 7-1-42(2.1) of the Zoning Ordinance on approximately 1.5 acres zoned B-1 Business and R-1 Residential. Property is located on Route 6 adjacent to W. F. Paulett and Son, Inc., and across from Payne Paving Company. County Tax Map 130A(l), Parcel 64, part thereof. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report and noted the memo from the fire department stating reasons for this request. He also gave the comments from the Highway Department. Mr. Shumaker stated that this is an important request for the fire department and the community. Mr. Keeler noted for the record that the fire department has received the setback variance. Mrs. Graves established that the applicant can meet the setback from adjoining properties. Mr. Edward Payne objected to the request, and said that he does not agree that part of the property is zoned B-1. He objected to the use next to his house, especially all the social activities and bingo parties that he felt would disturb him. He also felt that septic facilities on this property would be questionable. Mr. Keeler stated that this is an existing parcel and noted that the special permit is in order and is a use by special permit in these zones. Mr. Payne again stated that he feels a residential area is being destroyed with this use. Frederick When questioned by Mrs. Graves, Mr.A Payne said that bingo games are accessory to the primary use, and are used for fundraising. He did note that these accessory uses could be limited. Mr. Shumaker said that when the offer to purchase the land was first discussed, Mr. Payne was aware of it and supported it. He noted that the fire department has been working over 2 years to do this and have only one dance per year. He felt that proper soundproofing would handle any noise that Mr. Payne might be concerned about. I!SL_X_ Mr. Easter closed the public hearing at this point. Mr. Huffman said that there are four single-family units to the south of the property in question and single-family units for approximately 1 mile to the west. Mr. McCann established that the fire department building would be approximately 300 feet from the Payne house and that white pine screening is proposed. Mr. Shumaker said that the bingo games that are held every Saturday night are over at 10:00 p.m. The windows will be closed summer and winter since the building is air-conditioned. Mrs. Diehl said that she would like to curtail any nuisance the bingo games might cause. Mr. McCann moved approval of the special permit subject to the following conditions: 1. One parking space per two bingo seats plus adequate parking for firemen. Bingo and firemen parking should be separate and marked appropriately; 2. Screening from residences to south and west; 3. Site plan approval; 4. Approval of appropriate state and local agencies; 5. Social affairs, including bingo but excluding private parties of the volunteer firemen, limited to 1 night per week until 10:30 p.m. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. Discussion: Col. Washington suggested addressing the words social affairs. Mr. McCann responded by saying that he does not mean to suggest that all activities be limited to 10:30 p.m. The motion to approve with the five conditions carried unanimously. Albert McGee Final Plat - located west side Route 665 near Hickory Ridge Farm: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, reading the recommended conditions of approva There were no comments from Mr. McGee or the public. Mrs. Graves moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Notes on plat: "No further division along this easement without Planning Commission approval." "No more than one dwelling per parcel without Planning Commission approval." 2. Maintenance agreement for road to be approved by County Attorney and recorded; 3. Dedication of 25' from centerline of Route 665; 4. County Engineer must approve ''road. The motion seconded by Mr. McCann, carried unanimously, with no discussion. 537 J. S. Barnett Final Plat - East side Route 20 South just North of "Campviewmont" Mrs. Scala presented the staff report and read the recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Clifton McClure, on behalf of the applicant, stated that the purpose of this is strictly financing. He explained that there will be no subdivision for seven years and this is for financing Mr. Barnett's house. Mr. McCann moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Health Department approval; 2. 75' setback shown from 50' right-of-way; 3. Notes on plat: "No further division along this easement without Planning Commission approval." "No more than one dwelling per parcel without Planning Commission approval." 4. Waiver of maintenance agreement requirement. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Lawrance Quarles Final Plat - West side Route 649 - Proffit Road - adjacent North Fork Rivanna River: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report. There was no comment from either the applicant or the public. Dr. Moore moved that the plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Flood plain of North Fork to be shown on the plat; 2. 75' setback line from rights -of -way to be shown on Parcel B; 3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance; 4. Note on plat: No more than one dwelling per parcel without Planning Commission approval" 5. Indicated width of proposed right-of-way; 6. Maintenance agreement for the road to be approved by the County Attorney and recorded; 7. Dedication of 25' from the centerline of Route 649; 8. County Engineer must approved road. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Mario Scarpa ( Terrence O'Donnell ) Final Plat - north side of Route 810 near Boonesville: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report, noting that the applicant is unable to obtain a maintenance agreement or to improve the existing road to private road standards. A commercial entrance is required at Route 810, however sight distance is not available. She read the recommended conditions of approval. Mrs. Scala also noted the two letters received regarding the old existing right-of-way. -�0 Mr. O'Donnell stated that he applied for a building permit and at that time was not told that he needed to do all the things or that a subdivision plat was necessary. He felt that this was after the fact and that since the house is almost completed, he should not have to do all this. He stated that Mr. Scarpa would not be able to participate in any road maintenance and others would not be able to either. He said that he does not intend to use Mr. Shiflett's right-of-way. Mr. Shifflett, after establishing that the subdivision applies only to the 6.2 acres, noted that he had not objection to the request that is before the Commission. Mr. Ellis Walton said that he hopes Mr. O'Donnell will be able to assist in the road maintenance, since it seems that no one wants to do that. Mr. O'Donnell said that he will be happy to work with others in the road maintenance however, he does not feel an agreement can be achieved. Col. Washington said that this situation does present some difficulties, however he noted that there is potential for future development here. He felt that the main- tenance agreement is in the interest of all parties. Mr. Walton said that he will be happy to assist Mr. O'Donnell in securing a maintenance agreement with all the neighbors. Col. Washington moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Notes on plat: "No further division along this easement without Planning Commission approval." "No more than one dwelling per parcel without Planning Commission approval." 2. Waiver of commercial entrance requirements on Route 810; 3. Maintenance agreement to cover a portion of the outlet road to Route 810 to be approved. Mr. Easter said that if not all parties are able to contribute to the road's maintenance, perhaps the Commission could waive these requirements. Dr. Moore seconded the motion made by Col. Washington. Mr. McCann said that he hates to see a maintenance agreement required by the County when it might not be attainable, and therefore he will abstain from the vote. He noted that the road has existed for years. He said that in the future if the agreement cannot be attained, he will support the subdivision. Col. Washington determined that the title to the property has passed from Mr. Scarpa to Mr. O'Donnell. Mr. Payne pointed out that at this time it is an unlawful subdivision and if things do not proceed as stated by the County, the CO can be withheld. is. Mr. Huffman wondered if all those involved understand what a maintenance agreement The motion carried by a vote of 4-2-2, with Mr. Huffman and Mrs. Graves dissenting, and Mr. McCann and Mrs. Diehl abstaining. Mr. Payne advised the Commission after the vote that at least the subdivider and the purchaser should participate in the agreement and he feels the minimum requirement would be to require the purchaser to participate. Usually the way an agreement of this sort works is that the majority determine when and what is to be done to upgrade a road. J3`l M Col. Washington stated that at this time he feels negotiations should be made with the lien provision. There was a consensus that the normal maintenance agreement be required by the County Attorney. H. E. McClenahan Final Plat - located west side of private access easement, north of Route 250 in Ivy: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report. Mr. McClenahan said that there is a maintenance agreement through the deeds to the property. There was no public comment and no further comment from the Commission. Mr. McCann moved approval subject to the following condition: 1. Notes on plat: "No further division without Planning Commission approval." "No more than one dwelling per parcel without Planning Commission approval." Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. John and Martha Johnson Final Plat - west side Route 689 near Yancey Mill: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report and noted that the staff recommends either deferral or denial of the plat. She noted that the entrance will be a problem and that the surveyor and the attorney have submitted incomplete information. Mr. Morris Foster, stated that the property was surveyed five years agao, Hestated that he had done no field survey and when Mackie Engineering went out of business they burned all their records. Rather than do a new field survey, he took the old plat and proceeded from there, to avoid the Johnsons as little expense as possible. Mr. Johnson advised the Commission that deferring the matter a couple of weeks would be be no problem. Col. Washington stated that he is aware that this private road is in better condition than most state roads in the county, though it would probably not meet County criteria. He said that he knows of no streams on the property and would like to expedite this if possible. Mrs. Scala said that the tax maps of the county show stremas on the property. Mr. Johnson agreed that there is a stream on what is shown as parcel A. Mrs. Scala then stated that it is necessary to know the number of dwelling units to meet the zoning requirements. 5fo Mr. Johnson said that they know too many dwellings are on one parcel, however he does not know what can be done about it since it is family living in them. Mr. McCann pointed out that this is not a new situation and by denying or approving the plat the county is not moving anything from the property. Col. Washington said that if the Commission denies the plat it only denies an estate settlement. Mr. Keeler said that he does not see how the Commission can approve the plat if it violates the zoning ordinance. Mr. Payne said that when the building permit was issued it was shown as one large parcel, and thus the zoning ordinance was not being violated. Mrs. Graves suggested that the applicant seek relief through the BZA with a variance. plat. Mr. Foster asked if a variance is obtained would the Commission approve the Mr. Easter responded by saying that too many questions were unanswered to comment on this. Mr. Vest moved action on the plat be deferred. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion for deferral, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. Hatfield Farm Final Plat - south side Route 810 in Nortonsville: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report. met. Mr. Pratt said that conditions #1 and 2 as recommended by the staff have been Col. Washington questioned the ownership of the automobile graveyard. Mr. Praff said that Mr. Shifflett has owned and operated that for the past 20 years. Mr. McCann moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance; 2. All prviate roads requirements must be met, including maintenance agreement and County Engineer approval of road construction; 3. Word "approval" is misspelled. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion for approval, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. 19 -5*1 Cismont Trash Container Site Plan - South side Route 22 near intersection with Route 231: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report and noted that she has received 10 letters of opposition to this site plan from area residents. Mr. Ashley Williams of the Engineering Department stated that he was present to answer any questions the Commission and public might have. Mr. Easter said that this has been a concern to him and he has attempted to reach Mr. Roudabush, the Supervisor from the Rivanna District. He asked if there were any residents of the area who favored this use in Cismont. Mr. Williams said that he himself knows of no one, however this was a remote area a good distance from the landfill and it was felt that the pilot program might be desirable for the area. Mr. Williams then reviewed the history of the trash collection program to the Commission and said that the Board of Supervisors had designated this as one of the locations of the pilot program. Mrs. Diehl questioned the number of sites that had been evaluated prior to choosing this location. Mr. Williams said that this was the only site that had been evaluated. He stated that this particular site is the geographical center of Cismont. However, he noted that there were no neighborhood meetings on the location. Mr. Lindstrom said that he feels closer cooperation among the various departments of the county government would be advisable to choose possible sites for such projects as this. Mr. McCann siad that he feels that prior to making any sort of preliminary location of this type of use that the Board of Supervisors should consult with area residents. He felt that the site plan should be referred to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. He said that personally he does not agree with the idea of little dumps over the county. Mr. Payne said that this site plan should be reviewed by the Commission only in terms of its conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mrs. Scala said that she does not know if it complies with the scenic highway ordinance; as far as the Comprehensive Plan is concerned, she said that she thinks it addresses only landfills. Mrs. Diehl said that she wished to register an exception to Mr. McCann's remarks and feels this sort of program is a viable means of trash collection, especially without the high cost of private collection. Mrs. Graves agreed with Mrs. Diehl. She stated that the Board of Supervisors had thoroughly discussed this program and that something is needed where people cannot afford private collection. Mr. Keeler pointed out to the public and the Commission that the Board of Supervisors had volunteered the Cismont area as part of the pilot program. He noted that perhaps it will be difficult to find an agreeable site, since those in the immediate area of the trash container would be opposed to it. Mr. Easter said that he is concerned that the Planning Commission was not involved in the planning of such a program, other than just the approvals of the site plans. He said that he feels the hands of the Commission are tied. Mr. Lindstrom said that he feels that prior to the Board's review of the site plan, the minor problems should be worked out. Mr. Huffman pointed out that these containers are a handy way to get rid of trash, but no one wants them next door. Mrs. Graves said that perhaps the Commission should send the site plan to the Board since they might find the concept is not viable. Mr. Payne advised the Commission that this falls under the state statutes and that public hearings can be held. Plan. Col. Washington questioned if this site plan is in conformance with the Comprehensive Mr. Easter felt that the Commission should listen to comments on the site plan and then forward the matter to the Board of Supervisors for their review. Mr. Thomas Spicer said that he is concerned and his is the closest residence to it - a distance of only 250 feet. He stated that Mr. Roudabush has met with about 30 residents of the area, all of whom were opposed to the idea. He presented a petition of 120 signatures of opposition to this site. Mrs. Spicer questioned the rent to the owner of the property, which she noted does not even live in the state. Mr. Williams stated that at this point no financial agreement has been made with the owner. Mr. Roberts Coles explained the concept and noted that if the program is to end up looking like the one in Augusta County, he feels the County should take another look at it, and it just might find it is undesirable. Mrs. Withers asked if the process of site plan approval can be halted until the proper persons can meet with the residents of the area to determine if and where it should be located. Mr. Wilkerson felt that this particular location would serve the residents of Louisa just as much as it would serve Albemarle residents. Mr. Stuart Stevens said that he supports the concept and he presented pictures of discarded trash in the area. He said that the plan can be ecologically sound and suggested that an educational program on the concept would be desirable. He said that he does not, however, feel that this site has been sufficiently explored. Mrs. Diehl said that she agrees with Mr. Stevens and feels it also to be a good concept. When choosing a site she felt a great deal of community input would be desirable. Col. Washington suggested referring this back to the Engineering Department for further study prior to forwarding it to the Board. Mr. Payne advised the Commisson that this would be perfectly all right. Mr. McCann said that the County certainly needs to comply with all its own rules and regulations and there needs to be sufficient community input. Mr. Huffman noted that there will always be opposition to a use such as this; he said that when the Keene landfill was under consideration, the closest residence was 1 mile away, however residents as far as five miles away opposed it. Mr. McCann moved denial of the site plan, noting that it does not properly conform to the Comprehensive Plan, the scenic highway regulations and Pointing out that it would be impossible to meet the road requirements. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion. Col. Washington said that his vote of support for motion means that the Engineering Department should search for a more desirable location. The vote on the motion for denial was unanimous, with no further discussion. The Commission took a five minutes recess. Jarman Gap Estates Section 2 Final Plat: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report and read the recommended conditions of approval. She noted a telephone call she had received from Ms. Monty Wood who felt that the buffer is not being observed. There were no comments from the applicant or the public. Col. Washington felt that all three entrances should be constructed the same. Mr. Vest moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions: 1. Revised grading plan to be approved; 2. All conditions of ZMA-77-12 to be met; 3. All three entrances are to be constructed the same. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Bishop Hill Final Plat - North side Route 734 near Ash Lawn: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report and noted the letter from Mr. Chamberlain which requested deferral on the plat until the Board reviews and acts on'the Historic Ordinance. Mr. Morris Foster said that at this point he had no comments. Mr. David Wood.on behalf of Ash Lawn and Morven,stated that this is the most historic area in the county. Most of the estates in the area are in excess of 1,000 acres. He noted that the area is currently under consideration for historic designation, and a subdivision would almost destroy the historical significance. He urged that the Commission deny the plat. Mrs. Nash, representing the owner of Colby, and on behalf of herself as owner of Kenwood, said that the existing traffic problem on Routes 53 and 795 will be very disruptive. 51+4 Mr. Frederick Schmidt, an historian, expressed concern over the subdivision adjoining Ash Lawn, since it would be a contemporary development near an historic area. He urged the Commission to consider the point that once houses are there, they will be there for many years. He felt that the item should be deferred until the Historic District is established. Mr. Easter advised the Commission and the public that the historic ordinance being addressed does not just speak to the subdivision of land near an historic area. Mr. Payne agreed that it apeaks to the architectural style of the building as well as other points. Mr. David Holmes, speaking on behalf of Mr. W. Bishop, felt that the subdivision of this land would have far-reaching ramifications. Mrs. Carolyn Holmes, representing Ash Lawn, spoke of the need for protection of historic sites. She said that one of her concerns is the effect individual wells will have on the public water supply installed at Ash Lawn. She also noted concern for traffic on Route 734 and felt that any subdivision would be out of character with the neighborhood. She said that she is aware of vast opposition to this subdivision. When Ash Lawn attempted to purchase this property from the current owner, the price had tripled from his purchase price. She asked that the County plan for the welfare of the county now and in the future. Mr. Morris Foster said that the point remains that the land is zoned A-1 and that this subdivision is done within the framework of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. He felt that the peace and tranquility of the area was destroyed when Ash Lawn and Monticello were opened to the public. Mrs. Graves questioned the work of the Historic Committee appointed by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Payne said that one thing the ordinance does not speak to is subdivision of land. The draft ordinance is to be presented to the Board on July 11. He felt that no action will be taken, since the ordinance is in preliminary form and the topic of discussion will most likely be textual matters. Mrs. Graves questioned if there were anything in the ordinance that precludes cutting down trees. Mr. Payne responded "no." Mr. McCann said that he does not see how the plat can be denied since it has been presented within the confines of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Joe Cobb, one of the current owners of the property, said that the Bishops were afforded the opportunity to purchase the property at the same price which he had paid, and had turned down the opportunity. Mr. McCann moved approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road improvements; 2. Grading permit; 3. Engineering Department approval of both the private road and driveway for lots 2 and 3; 4. Maintenance agreement for both private road and driveway for lots 2 and 3; 5. Waiver granted for double frontage on lot 7; 6. Waiver granted to permit lot 7 to enter onto state road rather than private road; 5AP5 Mr. Foster agreed, upon questioning from Mrs. Graves, to look into possible entry to lot 7 entering from the private road. Mrs. Graves suggested a buffer from Ash Lawn be the existing residence on lot #1. Mr. Foster said that it is probably possible to have a 50' setback from Ash Lawn property line and is willing to have that as a condition on the plat. He pointed out that probably no one will ever see the houses from Ash Lawn. The lots are to be sold individually with joint driveways. The private access road will be put in by the developer. Mr. Foster also agreed to considering a 75' setback from the state road. Mr. McCann agreed to adding a 7th condition to read as follows: 7. 50' building setback from Ash Lawn to be shown on the plat. Mr. Huffman seconded the approval subject to the seven conditions. The motion carried unanimously, with no further discussion. Ashmere Preliminary Plat - west side Route 729: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report and read the recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Lafferty agreed to all the conditions imposed. Since there was no public comment, Mr. Vest moved approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Grading permit; 2. All private roads requirements to be met, including road constructed to proper standards and a maintenance agreement; 3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance; 4. Health Department approval; 5. Notes on final plat: "No further division along private road without Planning Commission approval." "No more than one dwelling per parcel on prviate road without Planning Commission approval." Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. Manley Assoc. Site plan: At the request of the applicant, Mrs. Diehl moved deferral until July 18, 1978. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. EM 5q4:�, Grassmere Preliminary Plat - end of Route 679 near Ivy: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report and read the recommended conditions of approval. Mr. Jay Swett, one of the owners of the property, noted that the property is now used for a farm with cattle grazing; he stated that he will be living on the property and will also sell some of the larger lots. He felt that the cost of improving the road is prohibitive in cost and would like to improve it only within the confines of the existing road bed and add 4" of gravel. He said that physically there is no way to upgrade the width. Mr. Tom Sinclair said that 14 feet in width will be no problem with the existing road bed, in most places. Mr. Frank O'Neill said that the average lot size will be a 10-acre parcel, and he asked that the Commission approve the preliminary. Mr. Swett felt that 14' the entire distance of the road could be a problem. Mr. Easter felt that 14 feet of roadway where possible is desirable. This is a preliminary plat, he pointed out, and the exact width can be shown at the final plat stage. Mrs. Graves said that she is not prepared to waive the road width past 14 feet. Mr. McCann said that since it is a preliminary, he would move for approval and suggested the applicant and the staff look at the road together prior to the Commission's reviewing the final plat. He suggested the following conditions be placed on the preliminary: 1. Appropriate private or state standards for proposed internal roads; 2. Improvement of existing state road from railroad tracks to end state maintenance to the private road standard for 11-20 lots where possible, but minimum 14 feet wide surface. Subject to County Engineer's approval; 3. Grading permit; 4. Health Department approval; 5. If private internal roads, then a maintenance agreement and notes on final plat regarding no further division and only one dwelling per parcel unless Planning Commission approval. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion for approval with the five conditions. It carried unanimously. Warehouse Facility Site Plan - west side Route 29 North in the Northside Industrial Park, Parcels F and G: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report. Mr. Gelletly reported that this adds 6,000 square feet to the existing approval. There was no public comment and Mr. McCann moved approval subject to the following conditions: JCzJ J-T 7 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance; 2. Drainage easements must be recorded across lots F-M prior to issuance of a building permit; 3. Health Department approval; 4. Grading permit; 5. Service Authority approval, including hydrants. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. Isotemp Research, Inc. Site Plan - north side Broadway Street adjacent Coiner's Recycling Center: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report. Col. Washington determined that the subdivision plat previously approved was specifically for this use. Mrs. Graves ascertained that the parking meets the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Lloyd Tignor objected to all the buffer areas and the trees and shrubs required. Mr. Foster said that he had shown the plantings that the staff had said it would require. Mr. Easter explained that the County encourages the outside of buildings to be dressed up and that plantings add a great deal to the site appearance. He said that he does not feel this to be unreasonable. Mr. Tignor said that he is attempting to cut costs as much as possible. When Col. Washington questioned the waste product from the operation, Dr. Moore responded that it is a very clean industrial use. Mrs. Graves moved approval subject to the following five conditions: 1. Subdivision plat conditions must be met 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance; 3. Service Authority approval; 4. Grading permit; 5. Landscaping to be approved by the staff. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Middle Branch Farm Preliminary Plat - north side Route 696 and west side Route 710: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report. Mr. Sinclair stated on behalf of the applicant that the conditions of approval are agreeable. Mrs. Diehl moved approval subject to the following: 54-0 1. Grading permit for private road; adequacy of proposed bridge to be checked under grading permit; 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance 3. Health Department approval; 4. All private roads requirements must be met, including road constructed to appropriate standard and maintenance agrement; 5. Dedication of 25' from centerline of Route 696; 6. Notes on final plat: "No further division without Planning Commission approval" "No more than one dwelling per parcel without Planning Commission approval." Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Rives Gentry Site Plan - east side Route 742 Avon Street Extended: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report. Ms. Vera Holowinski, representing the applicant, stated that the conditions are agreeable. Mr. McCann moved approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commercial entrance; 2. Storage yard to be screened from adjacent agricultural property to the satis- faction of the Planning Staff; 3. Health Department approval; 4. Grading permit. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. With no new business or old business, the Commission adjourned at 11:40 p.m. 9