Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 18 78 PC Minutes573 IM July 18, 1978 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, July 18, 1978, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman; Colonel William Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Layton McCann, Mrs. Morma Diehl, Mr. Kurt Gloeckner, Dr. James Moore. Absent were Mr. Charles Vest, Mrs. Joan Graves, Mr. James Huffman, and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Donald Gaston, Senior Planner; Ms. Mason Caperton, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Easter established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Mr. Easter announced the joint meeting of the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission, August 10, 1978, 5:30 p.m., Sheraton, Charlottesville, Virginia. Mr. Easter asked Mr. Tucker to have someone in the Planning Depart- ment contact all the members of the Commission concerning this meeting. It was reported that the David Spradlin Garage Site Plan was being deferred due to the applicant's request. This item will be heard July 25, 1978. Mr. "Gloeckner moved that this deferral be accepted. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann, and carried unanimously, with no discussion. Barbara Payne Preliminary Plat: Mr. Gaston noted that an error had been made in the staff report. The acreage is 118 instead of 178. He also mentioned that the bearing and distance tie is not tied down to a portion of the property that could be ascertained. Mr. Gloeckner asked if this would be considered a sixth condition. Mr. Gaston stated that it would be. Mr. Easter asked if the applicant was present and had any questions or comments. Ms. Payne said that she was not familiar with what the sixth condition meant. Mr. Tucker explained to the applicant that it is basically for the surveyor and was something that he will have to take care of. Natalie Jarsdorfer, an adjacent landowner, stated that she thought A-1 Agricultural zoning require 5 acres in order to build. Mr. Easter informed her that the Planning Commission has proposed a zoning ordinance that would have required 5 acres that was not adapted. 574 Mr. Keeler stated that the applicant did not intend to build on the residue of the property. Since this was the case he felt that the private road requirements should be waived. (Condition 6 states that no dwelling be located 1114� on the residue). The drive would be serving only one residence. In some cases when the owner wished to build another house on the property or the owner decided to subdivide for sell that condition could be lifted and the private road would have to comply. There was no further discussion and Mr. McCann made motion for approval subject to conditions 1,2,4,5 and 6. Mr. Gloeckner seconded that motion which carried unanimously, with no discussion. These conditions are as follows: 1. Written Health Department approval. 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance facilities. 3. Add a note to final plat: "No further division along this easement without Planning Commission approval." 4. Note on plat: "No dwelling shall be located on 116.75 acre residue without Planning Commission approval." 5. Tie a corner. Mike Williams Preliminary Plat: Mr. Easter stated that the applicant has requested indefinite deferral. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion that this be deferred. Mr. Easter seconded the motion and was carried unanimously. Manley Associates Site Plan: Mr. Gaston noted to the Commission that a very mature strand of trees was located on the property that possibly the County could do something to save. Mr. Tucker mentioned that originally it has been planned to have a joint entrance between the applicant's property and the adjoining property. Unfortunely this could not be obtained because of inadequate sight distance. The applicant then had to move the entrance to the northern end of this property. Mr. Easter was concerned about what would happen if the applicant's drive- way went on the northern end of his property if Mr. Stowe decided to build on his property and needed an entrance. What affect this would have on Mr. Stowe's property. Mr. Tucker stated that something would have to be worked out at that time. He stated that it would be difficult. Mr. Roosevelt said that the minimum sight distance for that section of 29 is 600 feet. At the present entrance(northern side) the sight distance is a little over 600 feet. He believes about 603 feet. The area at the line has a sight distance of about 573 feet. As you move on down toward Woodbrook Drive the sight distance becomes as much as over 700 feet within a 100 feet of the 's-7s interesection. The Department would like to see one entrance serve both properties. He also mentioned the fact that Caleb Stowe had applied to the department for an entrance to his property. Mr. Easter asked Mr. Roosevelt whether one joint entrance or two separate entrances would be the safest. Mr. Roosevelt feels that the single entrance would be the best if they could come close to the 600 feet sight distance. If there were two entrances the entrance on the Stowe property would be too close to the intersection. Mr. Bain gave some of the history concerning this particular piece of property. Mr. Manley originally began work on the entrance to this property in March. The piece of property that is owned by Mr. Manley acquired an easement from the Highway Department where Mr. Roosevelt indicated that it had the 700 foot sight distance. At that time a site plan was filed showing this easement. The County staff did not approve of this plan. This caused a con- flict between the staff and the Highway Department because the entrance was too close to Woodbrook Drive. There is a decelaration lane at Woodbrook Drive and good potential for an accident at that location. At that point a deferral was requested until we could go back and meet with the Highway Department again. We then agreed on the northern entrance. I got in touch with Mr. Stowe who said that he did not own this property. He said Mr. Oscar Smith owned the property. Two days after the meeting with the Highway Department Mr. Montenegro called to say that the Highway Department had approved the northern entrance to the property. Mr. Coburn also called our office and confirmed this approval. Mr. Montenegro then said that what the County wanted in return for this was an access way for traffic from the adjoining property. Mr. Boggs explained the site plan to the Commission. The Woodbrook Associa- tion have seen the plans and discussed them with Mr. Manley and were very pleased. Mr. Manley stated that he meet with the Highway Department and asked about the entrance. They then submitted their site plan to the Planning Department who did not approve of this entrance. They told us where they wanted the en- trance and we complied. He also stated that he had met with the members of the Woodbrook Association and they liked his plans. Mr. Lambert commented that since the joint entrance does not seem likely in the future this has affected the sale of the Smith -Stowe property and its value. He stated that Mr. Stowe has this property under contract with Mr. Smith and they had that day filed for an entrance with the Highway Department. The implications of this site plan review is that the entrance is not going to be granted and we just wanted to be here tonight to say that we have not been an active participant in this matter nor or we agreeable with any such conclusion. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Boggs what he planned to do about the trees. Mr. Boggs stated that all trees that are located on the property line will be saved. Some of the trees however will have to be cut. Mr. Gaston informed the Commission that condition #9 could be deleted. The handicap spaces had been taken care of. Dr. Moore asked about the lights shining away from°'.the highway. He also asked Mr. Roosevelt if he approved of this entrance as it was at this time. 1574a Mr. Roosevelt said that this entrance has adequate sight distance and the turn lane is standard. Mr. Easter asked Mr. Boggs if he looked into a joint entrance with the south lot would that be beneficial to them. Mr. Boggs said that financially it would be fine, but he does not feel that it can be designed to have adequate sight distance. Mr. Easter asked Mr. Lambert if the joint entrance would be of any assis- tance to them or more of a problem. Mr. Lambert said that the joint entrance would be of tremendous benefit to them. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion that the site plan be approved. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann, with no further discussion. The site plan was approved unanimously with the following conditions: 1. Provide a travelway and access easement to adjacent B-1 property at the eastern travelway. 2. Written Fire Official approval of fire prevention facilities. 3. County Engineering Department written approval of pavement specifications. 4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation written approval of entrance facilities. 5. County Attorney's written approval of access easements and maintenance agreements. 6. Staff approval of Landscape Plan. 7. Grading Permit. 8. Grading Plan approved. 9. Lights directed away from highway and adjacent properties. State Farm Temporary Claims Office Site Plan: Dr. Moore questioned the zoning. Mr. Tucker informed him that originally this site had been a single family dwelling. Later on it had been used as a business. Mr. Easter mentioned the fact that for years it had a sign that said Guest Home. Mr. Kincannon informed the Commission that he is joint owner of Heritage Land Company who intend to occupy the 2nd floor of the dwelling. State Farm is now occupying the 1st floor. They do not wish to change the property what- soever as far as its physical appearance goes. He stated that he was concerned with the 500 foot sight distance that is required. He feels that this can only be achieved by grading the whole top of the mountain. He stated that he had some solutions that might work. He feels that instead of having the traffic passing coming up the moutain maybe having turning lanes would be a temporary solution. Mr. Kincannon did not feel that a decelaration lane of 400 feet from s7-7 a safety standpoint would solve anything since the real problem is coming from the eastbound direction. He is also concerned with the widened of the drive 20 feet. He said that this would destory some of the shrubbery. He feels that they could live with 16 feet. He explained that Heritage Land Company is a farm and land company with eight employees and they have a very small volumne of traffic. Dr. Moore asked if there were any plans for making the center lane a left turn lane. Mr. Roosevelt stated that they were not planning to do this and certainly not from Free Bridge. Mr. McCann stated that left turn lanes are badly needed in that area of 250. Mr. Roosevelt stated that he feels the problem with people turning into the property can be resolved. The problem lies with people moving out into the main flow of traffic. Col. Washington asked why the Commission had never had a site plan for this property before. Mr. Keeler explained that a site plan was not originally required because State Farm said there would be no public involved. Later on an ad appeared in the paper stating that the State Farm Claim Office was at this location. Mr. Dick called the representative of Heritage Land Company and gave him a reasonable lenght of time to prove that a site plan was not necessary which he could not do. A site plan was then required. Mr. McCann asked if anyone know how much traffic was generated by State Farm. Mr. Keeler stated that they will have the largest amount of traffic when the weather is at its worst. The Fire Official was out there during last winter's snow and the claimants were parked down the driveway. Mr. Gloeckner said he feels that the entrance is sufficient for Mr. Kincannon, but his concern is with State Farm and how long they remain at this location. Mr. Easter asked Mr. Kincannon if once State Farm leaves the building would they have a new tenant. Mr. Kincannon said that they would take over the whole building at that time. Mr. Tucker stated that possibly their entrance could be at the crest of the moutain and running a service road parallel with the highway. Mr. Easter asked Mr. Roosevelt that in order for them to get the commerical entrance required they would need 500 feet sight distance and a decel lane. He also asked if something else could be done about the 30 foot entrance. Mr. Roosevelt stated nothing could be done that would not be at great cost. Dr. Moore asked if State Farm was eliminated would the entrance have to be the same for Heritage Land. 5-70 Mr. Roosevelt stated that the requirements would be basically the same regardless of the size of the business. He also stated that if the County did not require Heritage Land to meet all of these requirements it is not in the Highway Department's power to make them compl- with these things. If a number of accidents occur at this location the Highway Department can close this entrance and not allow them to use it as a commerical entrance. Mr. Easter asked the members of the Commission if they felt it would be best to defer this for a week or so in order to think it over. He stated that it may not be able to be resolved. Mr. Kincannon stated that he is aware of the danger of that location, but the whole mountain is that way. Mr. McCann said that some caution lights should be located at the crest of the mountain and the speed limits reduced. Mr. Kincannon stated the traffic count for State Farm is very low. They do most of their business on appointment. Mr. Gloeckner asked if cross hatching the middle lane would help solve the problem. He also asked if widened the entrance would help. Mr. Kincannon stated that he would be willing to do that and also to clear growth off of the banks. He also said that a turning lane would improve the entrance. Mr. Roosevelt asked Mr. Kincannon if they would be willing to restrict 1104) outgoing traffice to right turn only, construct a right turn lane and widen the entrance on highway right-of-way they might be able to work out an entrance. Mr. Kincannon stated that 200 feet decel lane would be economically feasible. 400 feet would be too long and would cause a problem with parking. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion that the site plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The entrance must meet present day Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation commerical entrance requirements including a decelaration lane. 2. Widen driveway to maximum width without major distrubance of drainage or shrubbery and to a width of at least 16 feet. 3. Fire Official approval of turnaround radius. 4. County Engineering Department approval of existing septic system. 5. Written Health Department approval of existing septic system. 6. Technical requirements of Article 17 Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance must be met. 7. Restrict exit to right turn only as approved by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. 8. Provide a decel lane west bound of at least 200 feet as approved by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. 9. Provide a left turn lane eastbound as approved by Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Mr. Diehl seconded the motion. Mr. Roosevelt suggested thati f the traffic is restricted to right turn only it may not be thirty feet wide by the will nee some sor of physical barrier to Sid keep people from turning left. He said that the 30 foot entrance was not necessary unless you were making left and right turns. Col. Washington stated that he felt that safety was more important than shrubbery. He thought that the entrance should be widened with as little major distrubance to shrubbery as was necessary. The motion was approved unanimously. Planned Industrial District: Most of the changes were in context. The first change is found under general information a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet was originally required. Added to this is for larger tracts a scale which may be accomodated on two 36" X 42" matchline sheets. The 5 foot contour intervals will be changed to minimum available USGS contour intervals. There was some changes of wording under (3) General Layout of What is Proposed and (b) Transportation Analysis. In Section 20-2-5 some words were deleted. Under Uses Permitted it was decided to make the catergories cumulative. Under Catergory OS the wording "exclusive of such open space as may occur in individual lots." was deleted. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion that these changes be recommended to the Board of Supervisors. Mr. McCann seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. (see attached sheets). Robert M. Byrom Final Plat: Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for approval with the following conditions of approval: 1. Written Health Department approval. 2. Fee of $40.00 due. 3. Note on plat to read: "No further division of property or residue may be made without Planning Commission approval." The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann. Dr. Moore mentioned the fact that there was very little road frontage. Mr. Tucker stated that the actual division being proposed would have the 20.73 feet required frontage. The motion was approved unanimously. Maxine Neitcel Final Plat: Mr. Sinclair stated that the residents living along the road were not pleased with the first 3 conditions. The residents have a verbal agreement concerning the maintenance of the road. The County Engineer has stated that the road is in very good condition. They would like to continue on a verbal basis and do not desire a maintenance agreement. Ms. Caperton said that the staff has talked with the County Engineer and he said the road was in good condition. Larry Jones, one of the residents on the road, informed the Commission that each family puts in a certain amount of money for the road. Families on fixed income put in what they can and make up the difference when they can afford it. Everyghing is moving smoothly as is. There was a general feeling among the residents of the property located on this road that they did not need a formal road maintenance agreement. They felt that a lien was not necessary in order to have the families using this road keep up their end of the maintenance. They had always gotten along very well in the past with a verbal agreement and could see no reason why this would not continue in the future. Mr. Payne felt that a maintenance agreement'is necessary to assure the main- tenance of the road. A lien provision makes the agreement easier to enforce. He stated that the maintenance agreement is recorded in the Clerk's office and binds each new property owner through chain of title. The resident's agreed that if there was nollien provision then they would not have any serious objections to a maintenance &greement. Mr. McCann made a motion for approval without conditon 1 and condition 3 having a "no lien provision." Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, it was approved unanimously with the following conditions: 1. County Attorney's Office written approval of easement and road main- tenance without the lien provision. 2. Building setback lines noted on plat. 3. Note source of title. 4. Need owners signature notarized on plat. 5. Deed book reference for 16 foot right-of-way noted on plat. Richard Cogan Final Plat: Mr. McCann moved for approval and. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with the following conditions: 1. Written Health Department approval. 58l Foxfield Stables Site Plan: The applicant requested deferral until September. They intend to obtain the services of an engineer in order to turn in an appropriate site plan. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for deferral of the site plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and approved unanimously. Riverview Farm Final Plat: Mrs. Diehl made a motion for approval. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with the following condtions: 1. County Engineering Department written approval of the private road. 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commerical entrance. 3. Minimum scale requirement for plat is hereby waived. 4. Commerical entrance permit from Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. 5. Grading permit and submittal of plans for private road construction approval. Whippoorwill Hollow Final Plat: Mr. McCann made a motion for approval. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously with the following conditions: 1. Written Health Department approval, including two septic fields for each lot. 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road specifications. 3. Grading permit. Col. Washington was concerned about road being approved at just any location. Mr. Payne stated that the only way to solve this problem is not to approve these roads. Mr. McCann stated that he does not feel that it is the Commission's place to tell developers where to put their roads. He feels the Commission should only be concerned with where the road enters the highway. Willoughby Final Plat: Mr. Tucker stated that a very small portion of the townhouse development is located in the County. He also mentioned that there was one lot upon which a dwelling will have to be located in the 'County. Mrs. Diehl asked about where the children will go to school. Mr. Easter asked if this is approved would it cause problems. Mr. Payne stated that there would be problems with school attendence and also the biggest problem will be with establishing a residence for voting. He also mentioned the problem of taxes. He stated that if the City maintained the roads they probably wouldn't be too pleased with the County receiving the taxes. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval subject to the 4 conditions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Easter. The motion was approved unanimously with the following condtions: 1. Variance be obtained in regard to the 10 acre requirement. 2. Conditions for approval of SP-534 and SP-47-76 are to be met. 3. Data requested in letter of July 23, 1978 from the Planning Department be supplied. 4. Structures to be located whooly within the County or wholly vthin the City. No structures are to be located on City -County line. Old Business - Mel Dixon Office Site Plan: Mr. Keeler explained that on the revised plan the 10 inch maple is now shown. The 15 inch walnut in the parking island has been removed. He also stated that the revised plan showed a DI7 Standard Drop which it is not, but it is standard and would serve the same function as a DI7. The sidewalk has been reworked so a handicap ramp could be provided. Not stated on this plat is a 10 to 12 foot dogwood mislocation. When they paved the area they moved the dumpster. In order to move it back on the paved area they will have to have the driver relocate it. One of the flood lights will be moved since the light already .located in that area is adequate. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion ofr approval. Colonel Washington seconded that approval. The motion was approved unanimously. New Business The Planning Staff requested that the Commission adopt a resolution of intent to amend the R-2 and R-3 zone to provide for the subdivision of duplexes. Col. Washington moved the Commission take this request to public hearing, the motion, seconded by Mrs. Diehl carried unanimously, with no discussion The meeting adjourned with no further di.,9pussion at 11:00 p.m. rt W. Tucker, Jr. -� Secritary July 25, 1978 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, July 25, 1978, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Col. William Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Charles Vest; Mrs. Norma Diehl; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Layton McCann; and Mr. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-officio. Absent were Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman; Mr. James Huffman; and Mrs. Joan Graves. Other Officials present were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Donald Gaston, Senior Planner; Miss Mason Caperton, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Col. Washington established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. The minutes of June 6 and July 11 were approved as written. A change of wording was made in the June 13 minutes. ZMA-78-10 Harley C. Easter and Ashby R. Kennon Mr. Keeler stated that this item has been previously deferred. The re- zoning would allow for the extension of the road and adding a cul-d-sac. He stated that it was his understanding that the remaining property would be sub- divided. Dr. Moore asked Mr. Keeler if he knew how many lots would result from the subdivision. Mr. Keeler stated that he thought possibly six with access to the cul- de-sac. The staff recommends approval even though this re -zoning is contrary to the comprehensive plan. Mr. Easter, the applicant, stated that he felt that if the Commission went along with the re -zoning this would be a good solution to the problems at Westover Hills. Mr. Spence, an adjacent landowner, was concerned about what affect this will have on the landowners already residing there. Mr. Keeler stated that re -zoning would change the acreage for building from 2 acres to 60,000 square feet. Mr. Spence said that if this re -zoning was allowed there was no guarantee that the problems at Westover Hills will be solved. Mrs. Spence stated that she feels the people of Westover Hills want something more than a verbal agreement with the developer that the road will be taken care of. s o� Mr. Keeler told her that the re -zoning does not guarantee that their problems will be solved. It will mean that when the land is subdivided the road will have to come up to state standards or be bonded for final approval, or the plat can not be recorded. One of the adjacent landowners asked why the road can not be improved before the re -zoning is allowed. Mr. Keeler stated that the purpose behind the re -zoning was to allow for the extension of the road and a cul-de-sac. Mrs. Diehl asked the developer to explain to the Commission why he was requesting the re -zoning. Mr. Easter explained to the Commission that in order to extend the road and add the cul-de-sac he would need the re -zoning. He stated that he felt it would be a waster of time to hire an engineer assuming that the re -zoning would be approved, when this might never happen. Col. Washington asked Mr. Easter why he was not planning on taking the road all the way through the property. Mr. Easter stated that the terrain was not favorable. A lady, one of the adjacent landowners, told the Commission that when they brought their house they understood that the road was to be state maintained. Last winter the roads were never plowed. She stated that the road should be state maintained. Col. Washington explained to the lady that if this re -zoning is adapted this will solve her problems. Mr. Easter stated that originally it was intended to have a temporary turnaround. The re -zoning will allow for fixing the temporary turnaround and extend the street for state maintenance. Mr. McCann stated that he favors the re -zoning now and working on the road when the subdivision plat is submitted. Mr. McCann moved for approval and Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. Col. Washingto stated that the representation of the public would do alot toward seeing that the problems at Westover Hills are taken care of. The motion was voted on and approved unanimously. There was no further discussion. Resolution of Intent to Ammend Section 17-6-6 Mr. Keeler requested that this item be deferred to August 22, 1978. Mrs. Diehl made a motion for deferral. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The deferral was approved unanimously. 58S David Spradlin Garage Site Plan Mr. Gaston stated that this item was deferred from July 18, 1978. He also stated that he feels it is unreasonable to expect a garage site to always remain in an orderly fashion. He said that the road is actually 17 feet wide and that he has had many letters and calls from adjacent landowners who are not pleased with the garage site plan. Mr. Philips represented the applicant. Mr. Philips stated that the property is mostly wilderness. There is a 50 foot dedicated right-of-way on the subdivision plat. He also stated that the entrance has been approved by the Highway Department. Mr. Philips also said that the applicant will need an easement from Mr. Winckel to allow for the 12 foot curving and the 450 feet of sight distance. This will also allow for the 30 foot entrance necessary for a commerical entrance. Ms. Rogers, and adjacent property owner, told the Commission that she owns land located behind the garage. She also stated that the applicant has cut down alot of the trees surrounding the garage and has cuased an eyesore. Mr. Gaston stated that for this very reason a fence was so important and necessary. Mr. Keeler stated that one of the conditions of the special permit was that the wooded area should remain untouched. Ms. Rogers stated that the garage has lowered the value of her property that she is trying to sell at this time. Ms. Rogers also stated that cars were being repaired at the garage at this time. Mr. Keeler said that the building permit was issued as a private barn. Not long afterwards the special permit was applied for. Mr. McCann stated that he was not aware that a business was going on at this time. He thought that the site plan had to be approved before Mr. Spradlin could begin operation. Mr. Tucker informed the Commission that he would have Ben Dick, Zoning Administrator; check for violations of the special permit. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Gaston how close this garage site was to being an auto graveyard. Mr. Gaston told her that all of the vehicles seem to be in good shape, they were just scattered. Col. Washington said that he feels that there were enough reasons to check for violations. Mr. McCann felt that the Commission should go with all the current condi- tions of approval and add a 6th condition stating that all the trees that have been cut should be replaced. Mr. Lindstrom asked if the special permit has been violated can the site plan be approved? 5t-�_ (4-- Mr. Payne stated that once the site plan has been approved all the conditions will have to be met. The Commission could defer or deny as they wish. He also stated that the ordinance provides for rejection of a site plan due to non-compliance to a special permit. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion that the site plan be deferred for several weeks. Mr. Lindstrom informed the Commission that the Board of Supervisors voted 5 to 1 to approve the site plan because it was so heavily wooded. Dr. Moore seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously for deferral. W. B. Mawyer Final Plat Mr. Gaston stated that he believes condition 1 (Provide Health Department approval of septic system) has been met. Nothing has been received in the office as of this time. Mr. Sinclair, the applicant's representative, stated that there were no objections to the conditions. Mr. Vest stated that he is very familiar with this property and everything looks in order. Mrs. Diehl moved for approval. Mr. Vest seconded the motion and approval was unanimous with the following conditions: 1146) 1. Provide Health Department approval of septic system. 2. Road maintenance agreement approved by County Attorney. Gregory Quinn Final Plat The applicant requested deferral until the August 22 meeting of the Planning Commission. Mr. Gloeckner moved for deferral and Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The motion for deferral was approved unanimously. Boyd Tavern Preliminary Plat Ms. Hollowinski represented the applicant, she stated that they are currently working with the Highway Department on the sight distance. She also stated that the easement should be for lots 1,2, and 3. Col. Washington said that he feels the road should follow the contours. Mr. Keeler stated that the County Engineer could be instructed to inspect the road with respect to contours. Ms. Hollowinski said that having the road follow the contours was not very pratical. She stated that this would leave a lot of unmaintained land. She feels that except for lot 5 the current plan is the best one. Col. Washington said that the plan looked mechanical and was not taking advantage of the contours. Mr. Keeler stated that one of the conditions could be to have the County Engineer check the road for following contours on the final plat. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. All lots to be served by 50 foot access easement with lot #2 served across lot #1. 2. Grading permit approved. 3. Road plan specifications to construct private road approved by County Engineer. 4. Health Department approval for all lots. 5. Site clearance arranged with adjacent property owner(s) to comply with Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation require- ments. 6. Redraw 50 foot access easement to follow contours. 7. Note: "Easement to serve these six lots only." Mr. Payne stated that he thought condition #7 might be a little strong. He doesn't see why the easement will be used by an adjacent subdivision. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Gaston how large the cementary located near the property was. Mr. Gaston stated that the cementary was not on the Boyd Tavern site plan vftoll and was privately owned. He estimated the size at 20' X 30'. The motion was approved unanimously. Wildwood Final Plat Dr. Moore asked if this was the same plat that had been before the Commission previously. Mr. Tucker stated that it was. There were some changes, two lots had been knocked off and there were private roads. Mr. Payne, the applicant, stated that these changes were made because of a problem with sight distance. He stated that they could have made the changes on the previous plat but they would have ruined the appearance of the property. Mr. Tucker stated that someone from the City had been in touch with him concerning turning around on Cottonwood Road. He told them that legally they could be prevented from using this road as a turnaround, but he doubted that it would be prohibited. Mr. Payne mentioned that the plat can not be finally approved because the plat has been signed as contract purchasers. Also he stated that the plat shows the lots running up to the edge of the right-of-way. This would mean that the development will be committed to having an association to take care to road maintenance. jo�/ Mr. Rudnick was concerned about changing to a private road. He felt that this could make adversaries of the City and County residents. He also stated that he did not like the idea of keeping the cul-de-sac. He feels that this could be dangerous. Mr. Tucker noted that this plat will have to go the City for approval. Mr. Cotton stated that the City wants the cul-de-sac removed because of the possibility of accidents. Col. Washington asked if it would be possible to have as one of the conditions that the private road be used as public access. Mr. Payne stated that an easement could be dedicated to the public. He stated thatth e maintenance agreement could provide for this. Mr. Gloeckner made a motion for approval. Mr. Vest seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with the following conditions: 1. All conditions of ZMA-78-08 listed below: a) No dwelling untis are to be built on slo f 25o pes o 0 or greater without County Engineering Department approval of site work; b) Water and sewer facilities to be approved by, and dedicated to the Albemarle County Service Authority; c) County Engineering Department approval of private road specifi- cations and inspection to insure specifications are met; d) County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for common spaces; recreational facilities and privat roads to include public access; e) Grading permit required prior to subdivision approval; f) Dedication to Albemarle County of 15-foot wide strip for future construction of a bicycle and pedestrian trail as shown on plan received September 12, 1977; g) Uses in the flood plain of Meadow Creek shall comply to Article 9A of the Zoning Ordinance; h) Removal of cul-de-sac at Cottonwood Road and restoration of dis- trubed areas; i) Wildwood Court and Cottonwood Road shall have street light similar to those on the existing Cottonwood Road; j) All utilites are to be located underground; k) Connection of roadways and sidewalks to Cottonwood Road as well as removal of the existing cul-de-sac shall be done at the ap- plicant's expense; 1) Staff approval of tot lot location and equipment; m) Roads to be constructed to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards as to width, pavement depth and curve requirements. 2. Lot 22 must have Engineering Department approval of site work prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. County Engineering Department approval of drainage facilities. 4. Health Department approval. 5. Requirements of Article 17 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance must be satisfied. 6. Fire Offical approval of fire prevention facilities. 6Y7 Lewis Hill Section Three Preliminary & Final Plat Ms. Hollowinski represented the applicant. She stated that condition #3 had already been taken care of. (comments 2,4,5,7 & 11 from Site Review Committee must be satisfied.) Mr. Gloeckner asked why the 30 foot acess needed to be deleted. Mr. Tucker stated that the staff could not find a purpose for this access. Originally there were several lots having an easement on this access. Mr. Cushman stated that the reason for the access was that the felt some- time in the future someone might wish to use this access. He said that he had no plans for doing so himself. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously with the following conditions: 1. Health Department written approval. 2. County Attorney's Office written approval of road maintenance agreement. 3. Comments 2,4,5,7 & 11 from Site Review Committee must be satisfied. 4. Delete 20 foot access from lots 28 & 29 shown on final plat dated July 11, 1978. 5. County Engineer approval of private road specifications. Solomon Court III Site Plan The applicant requested deferral of this site plan. Dr. Moore made a motion of deferral. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. The motion was approved unanimously. New Business - Albemarle Bank & Trust Amendments to the Site Plan Mr. Keeler noted that some changes had been made to the site plan. These included: concrete islands deleted from parking area; handicap parking moved; two parking spaces added behind the bank; and the planter was removed and the wall moved back. He stated that the Highway Department recommended: realignment of the exit; relocating the 24 inch storm sewer; and curve and guttering around the parking area. He added that the staff recommends that the applicant be bonded for these improvements over a reasonable period of time. Mr. McCann moved for approval with a one year time limit. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously. There was no further business and the Commission meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.