Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02 27 79 PC MinutesM February 27, 1979 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting Tuesday, February 27, 1979, 7:30 p.m., Third Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. Layton McCann; Col. William Washington, Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Charles Vest; Mr. Jim Skove; Dr. James Moore; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Huffman; Mrs. Joan. Graves; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, Ex-Officio. Other Officials present were Miss Mason Caperton, Planner; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; and Mr. Fred 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 January 23, 1979 were approved as corrected. HAROLD B. JOHNSON FINAL PLAT Miss Caperton noted that the applicant has requested withdrawal of the above item. She read the applicant's letter requesting withdrawal into the record (attached). Dr. Moore moved for withdrawal. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 8-0-1. Mr. Gloeckner abstained. There was no further discussion. JAHRDOERFER FINAL PLAT - located south off Route 674 about one mile east of White Hall; proposed division of 2+ acres leaving 57+ acres residue. Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mrs. Jahrsdoerfer, the applicant, and Mr. Graff, the applicant's representative, were present and had no comments. Dr. Moore suggested that the note for no further subdivision without Planning Commission approval be added to the plat, since he would like to see a maintenance agreement if that should happen. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Written Health Department approval; 2. Waiver of private road requirements granted. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. 5� MAUPIN AND DILLON FINAL PLAT - located off Route 609 about 1.5 miles northwest of Free Union; proposed division of one 8+ acre parcel leaving 34+ acres residue. Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Maupin, the applicant, was present. Col. Washington asked if the note on the plan that states: "No further subdivision without Planning Commission approval"; speaks to the 8 acre parcel or the residue. Miss Caperton noted that the note is for the 8 acre parcel, which could not be further subdivided because of the easement. Mr. Maupin noted that he would prefer a 20 foot right-of-way and does not intend to further subdivide his property. Mr. Herndon, an adjacent owner, noted that the easement runs along his fence line and he questioned if 20 feet of right-of-way would be sufficient. Mr. Maupin stated that he had spoken with Mr. Williams, Assistant County Engineer, and he had stated that 20 feet would be adequate. Mrs. Diehl moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Written Health Department approval; 2. County Engineer approval of specifications of right-of-way; 3. Waiver of scale granted; 4. Waiver of private road ordinance granted. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 8-0-1. Mrs. Graves abstained. There was no further discussion. NANCY LAWSON FINAL PLAT - located on Route 680, south of White Hall; proposed division of one 2+ acre parcel leaving 27+ acres residue. Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. kit Collins, the applicant's representative, was present. Dr. Moore asked if the preliminary approval of this plat was for the 27 acres. Miss Caperton noted that the 27 acre tract was divided into lots, but the approval expired and nothing else was done with the property. Mr. Skove asked if the applicant could apply to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance for the frontage (minimum frontage requirements). Mr. Payne noted that adequate frontage is not a zoning question and this would not be a function of the BZA. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Written Health Department approval; 2. Waiver of minimum frontage requirements (i.e. pipestem lot) granted; 3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of frontage improvements (as recommended in their letter of February 8, 1979). 53 Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. BLUE RIDGE ESTATES FINAL PLAT - located on Route 692, near Greenwood; proposed final plat for 12 lots 2+ acres each for residential use. Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Ms. Holowinsky and Mr. Wootton, the applicant's representatives, were present. Mr. Walker, the applicant, was present also. Miss Caperton read the Highway Department comments, from their letter of December. 6, 1979, into the record as follows: "550 feet of sight distance is necessary for the commercial entrance. The existing sight distance can be improved by relocating the fence and grading the slope. We recommend the frontage of this property be graded, such that the shoulder break point is 15 feet from the centerline of the existing road. If this is done sight distance may be improved to the necessary length. This should be verified by the developer prior to approval. The length of the turn lane is adequate, it should be 12 feet in width. Adequate right-of-way should be dedicated along the turn lane in order to properly maintain the shoulder and ditch." Col. Washington asked if the Board of Supervisors had taken action on the preliminary plat. Miss Caperton informed him that the Board had deferred action until March 7, 1979. Col. Washington noted that he did not know if the Commission should take any action on the final plat until the Board had acted on the preliminary. Mr. Payne noted that the preliminary plat does not have the importance of the final plat. He stated that if the Commission should approve the final plat and the Board denies the preliminary, if the final plat is not called up to the Board, the Commission's action on the final stands. Mr. Payne also noted that it would not be inappropriate to defer action on the final until the Board acts on the preliminary. Mr. Keeler noted that if the Commission defers action until the Board has acted on the preliminary it might appear that the Commission is following the action of the Board. He stated that if the Board has any concerns about the final plat they will call it up. Mr. Huffman noted that he agrees with Mr. Keeler concerning deferring the final plat. He noted that it would appear as though the Commission is following the Board in their decision. Mr. Gloeckner noted that the Board's action would not affect the final plat. Mr. Wootton noted that it is the Commission's function to recommend to the Board of Supervisors, but in this case it would appear the opposite. He noted that the Commission,should consider the additional time and money involved with deferrals. He stated that he does not feel it would serve any partical purpose. Mrs. Graves stated that it was her understanding that the Board had deferred the preliminary in order to receive additional information from the Highway Department. She stated that if the Board has the benefit of the additional input then the Commission should also receive this information before making a final decision. Mr. Lindstrom noted that the information that had been requested by the Board was cost estimates and other alternative methods for improvements. 1V Dr. Moore asked if the residue is considered an additional lot should it be included in the maintenance agreement. Mr. Payne noted that it should be included under all the provisions pretaining to this subdivision. Ms. Holowinsky noted that what appears to be an easement on lot 13 is really only a path. Mr. Payne noted that it is shown as an easement on the plat and could be used for any form of ingress, egress. Col. Washington noted that he had raised this question before. He stated that he is concerned about the interperti©n . and if the easement should be there. He asked if the applicant really wants an easement on lot 13. Mr. Wootton noted that the easement on lot 13 would allow the owner's of property in this subdivision to have access to the residue, which is the owner's intent. He noted that this easement is not intended as a vehicular easement. Ms. Holowinsky suggested that maybe the Commission would prefer a change in wording to note that this easement is not a vehicular access. Mr. Payne noted that normally an access is shown to shown to serve a parcel, but in the case the easement ends at the property line -of lot 3 (residue). Mr. Wootton noted that i.f .the ,Commission's_ concern is whether lot 13 should join in a maintenance agreement, the applicant would agree. Mr. Skove noted that as this property gradually developes he questions the need . for off -site road improvements. He asked what will happen to the condition of the roads as the area developes and the roads need improvements. Mr. Payne noted that the applicant could plat the total number of lots on the preliminary plat and bring in finals on 12 lots until the property is fully developed. He noted that if the Commission feels this is a reasonable request, then it can be done. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Waiver of scale granted; 2. Written Health Department approval; 3. Compliance with private road ordinance, including: .(a) County Engineer approval of road plans; (b) Maintenance agreement to be approved by the County Attorney; 4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval; 5. County Engineer approval of drainage easements; 6. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval as per their letter of December 7, 1978, 7. Waiver of Section 18-36(d) granted as for existing entrance. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion. Mrs. Graves stated that she feels 30 feet easement is not included in the notes on the plat and she would like to see this included. (cond. #8) Mr. Keeler suggested the following wording for condition #8: "No further division using 30 foot or 50 foot easements without Planning Commission approval." Mr. Gloeckner's motion for approval carried unanimously, with no further discussion. ADVANCE MILLS VILLAGE FINAL PLAT - located west of Route 29 North, off Route 743, about one mile north of Advance Mills; subdivision plat showing 35 lots with average size of 7 acres for residential use. Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Ms. Holowinsky, the applicant's representative, was present. Mrs. Diehl asked if there are any changes between the preliminary and final plats. Ms. Holowinsky noted that there have been no changes. Miss Caperton noted that the staff had requested that the residue acreage be included in the subdivision. Mrs. Diehl asked if the owner's signature is on the plat. Mr. Payne noted that that owner's signature and the contract purchaser's signature should be placed on the plat and be a condition of approval. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Written Health Department approval; 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance and frontage improvements as recommended in their letter of January 3, 1979; 3. Compliance with private road ordinance, including: (a) County Engineering Department approval of road plans; (b) Maintenance agreement to be approved by the County Attorney; 4. Grading permit; 5. County Engineer approval of drainage easements; 6. Written statement from the developer regarding required improvements; 7. Owner's notarized signature. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Keeler,stated that it should be noted for the record that Tax Map 20, Parcel 16D is existing and is not a part of this action. There was no further discussion. JOHN GIBBS FINAL PLAT - located on the north side of Route 729 in Fluvanna County; proposed division of five lots with an average size of 2+ acres, proposed for residential use. Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Sinclair and Mr. Coles, the applicant's representatives, were present. Mr. Gibbs, the applicant, was present. Miss Caperton read the Highway Department comments, into the record, as follows: "Route 729 has been staked to obtain right-of-way for a proposed improvement in the future. All of the property owners along these roads have signed Deeds of Dedication which are at this time being placed in line for recordation. The plat shown does not reflect the limits of that right-of-way which has been agreed to be dedicated at this time. At the common corner of Lot B and C proposed the right-of-way is into the 54- property farther with no additional right-of-way needed in the area of corner A and B. Adequate sight distances exist for private entrances. We would recommend that frontage improvements placing the shoulder break point at 15 feet and the bottom of the ditch at 18 feet from the center line be required across Lots E and D. However, due to the change in alignment this widening should not continue across Lots C, B or A. " (Letter of February 8, 1979) Mr. Coles stated that his client, Mr. Gibbs, objects to condition #2 (VDH&T frontage improvements). He noted that if the Commission determines that this proposed subdivision will increase the usage and will cause a safety hazard then the applicant will have no objections to the frontage improvements. He noted that the Highway Department made no reference to safety in their letter. Mr. Coles stated that it is their opinion that the Highway Department is attempting to have improvements made along Rt. 729 free of charge. Mr. Coles noted that only a 400 foot strip of roadway would be improved and he asked if this would improve the condition of the road to a great extent. He stated that any work Mr. Gibbs would do now would have to be redone by the Highway Department, which the Commission should consider. Mr. Keeler noted that Mr. Coburn, in his letter of Feb. 8, 1979) spoke to the deeded dedication, which is not shown on the plat properly. He noted that this could change the lot lines and make them non -conforming. Mr. Gibbs noted that the road is being moved to the west, in order to remove a curve. He stated that this would enlarge lots A, B, and C. Mr. Lindstrom noted that he believed the Commission had a similar situation involving a stable. Miss Caperton noted that Foxfield Stable had a similar situation. - Mr. Keeler noted that in that case the Highway Department agreed to relocate the owner's entrance if he would dedicate the necessary right-of-way. Col. Washington stated that he felt it might be beneficial to have some one from the Highway Department present at the meeting. Mr. Gibbs noted that he had asked Mr. Coburn to attend the meeting, but he refused. He noted that he will have to receive entrance permits from the Highway Department and that is when safety is considered. Col. Washington asked Miss Caperton to read the Highway Department comments again. (comments are above) Mrs. Graves moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Written Health Department approval; 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of frontage improvements 3. Shared entrances be located, where possible, subject to the approval of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; 4. The road dedication on the plat be shown as stated in Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation letter of February 8, 1979. Mr. McCann stated that he does not like to see developers with road frontage have to build roads. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. 5 7- Mr. Gloeckner noted that an entance has been offered between lots D and E and does feel this warrants 400 feet of road improvements. Mrs. Graves amended her motion to leav& condition #2 as stated in the Staff Report. ("Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of frontage improvements as stated in their letter of February 8, 1979."). Mrs. Diehl seconded the amended motion. Mr. Gloeckner noted that if an additional condition is added requiring an entrance between lots D and E it would save the developer a larger expense of improving the road. Mr. Skove noted the he feels regardless of whether the developer has an entrance between D and E, he should pay for the improvements on the road that would bear the additional traffic generated by his development. Mr. Lindstrom noted that Mr. Roosevelt, Highway Department, had stated at one of the Board meetings that the Highway Department does not have any criteria for safety, except sight distance. Mr. Skove asked if it would be possible to get information from the Highway Department concerning the accidents along this section of Rt. 729. Mr. Keeler noted that this information can be obtained. Mr. Gibbs noted that it was his understanding that roads are to be built by gas taxes and not by private individuals. Mr. Coles noted that there is no suggestion in the Highway Department's letter that Rt. 729 will be inadequate once this subdivision is developed. Col. Washington suggested that the Commission defer action on this item until the Highway Department could provide more detailed information. Mr. Payne noted that Mr. Gibbs has stated that there will not be any dedication to the.H!g,bway.Department that woau•ld,change.the lot sizes. He noted that the Commission would need to know definitely where the property lines are. Mr. Gibbs noted that this plat is not the final presentation to the Commission. He noted that the plat will need to be taken to Highway Department in order to determine any changes in lots A, B, and C. Mr. Sinclair noted that the road will be moved to the south and straightened. He noted that these changes would add property to lots A and B. Mrs. Graves motion carried with a vote of 6-3. Col. Washington, Mr. McCann, and Mr. Gloeckner dissented. There was no further discussion. JOHN GIBBS PRELIMINARY PLAT - located on Route 618, west of Route 53, near Fluvanna County; proposal for 17 lots with an average size of 3+ acres. Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Coles and Mr. Sinclair, the applicant's representatives, and Mr. Gibbs., the applicant, were present. Mrs. Diehl asked Miss Caperton to read the Highway Department's recommendations. 5� Miss Caperton read the Highway Department's recommendations into the record as follows: "Joint use entrances appear to have adequate sight distance. Right-of-way shown is consistent with the agreement to dedicate right-of-way which is in the process of being recorded. We recommend frontage improvements be required on the frontage of the property by placing the shoulder break point at 15 feet from the center line of the existing road with the ditch at 18 feet." (letter of 2/8/79) Mr. Coles stated that emphasis should be placed on the safety of a road as a whole. He noted that that if safety is the issue then the entire roadway should be widen and not just a section. He noted that the Highway Department is attempting to get Mr. Gibbs to do.their work for them and that is not fair. Mrs. Graves noted that a note should be added to the plat stating: "Lots 14-17 shall have no access on the private or CCC road." Miss Caperton read a letter into the record from Mr. Richard Harry, and adjacent owner. (attached) Mr. Gibbs noted that Mr. Harry currently has his property divided into 2.5 acre lots that are on the market. Mr. Gibbs noted that he would like to know the Highway Department's specific requirements for determining that a road needs improvements. Col. Washington noted that it is his understanding that the Highway Department allows 7 vtpd per lot, as a standard for calculations. Mrs. Graves moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Written Health Department approval; 2. Provide written and signed statement regarding improvements required of the developer (Section 18-52(m) of the Ordinance); 3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of frontage improvements, as recommended in their letter of February 8, 1979; 4. Note on the plat that lots 14-17 shall have no access on the private or CCC roads. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. Mr. McCann noted that he could not support the motion, because of the required road improvements. Mrs. Graves motion carried with a vote of 7-2. Mr. McCann and Mr. Gloeckner dissented. There was no further discussion. WYNRIDGE FINAL PLAT - located off Commonwealth Drive on an extension of Westfield Road; proposed plat showing 40 lots for residential duplexes. Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Sinclair, the applicant's representative, was present -and had no comments. Mrs. Diehl noted that at Site Review there was a problem with the turning radius and she would like to know if this has been resolved. Miss Caperton noted that the applicant has re -aligned the road and added four additional lots. Mrs. Diehl moved for approval with the following conditions: 5/ 1. Compliance with Soil Erosion Ordinance and Stormwater Detention Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. County Engineer and Virginia. Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans for Minor Ridge Road and Westfield Road for inclusion into State Road System, including a cul-de-sac at the end of Westfield Road, if required; 3. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; 4. Fire Marsahll approval of location of hydrants; 5. Change note noting that lots 1,26,44, and 25 shall enter onto Minor Ridge Road; 6. Sidewalks required on the outside of Minor Ridge Road and on both sides of Westfield Road. (As shown on plans for Minor Townhouse- Apartments site plan from Commonwealth to end of dedication); 7. The entrance road to Minor Townhouses shall align with one of the entrances with Minor Ridge Road. (The commission granted staff approval of this amendment); 8. Note residue acreage. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. REGINALD ADAMS FINAL PLAT - located south off Route 631, south of Charlottesville; proposed division of 3 parcels of more than 6 acres each. Miss Caperton noted that the applicant has requested deferral until March 20, 1979. Mrs. Diehl moved for deferral. Mr. Gloeckner secondedthe motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. HARRY L. WISE FINAL PLAT - located on the west side of Route 678, south of Decca; proposed division of the Wise property into 4 parcels of 2 acres each. Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Foster, the applicant's representative, was present. Mr. Kenderick Dure represented the applicant. Mr. Huffman asked what frontage improvements are being recommended by the Highway Department. Miss Caperton read the Highway Department's recommendations into the record as follows: "The area indicated is adequate for private entrances. Adequate sight distance exist. We recommend that frontage improvements of the property be required by placing the shoulder break point at 15 feet from the center line of the existing road, ditch at 18 feet." (letter 2/8/79) Mrs. Graves asked what is the topo in the area. Miss Caperton noted that the topo is hilly. Col. Washington asked Miss Caperton why the building setback is shown off of Old Via Road if the entrance is off of Rt. 628. Miss Caperton noted that the entrance is off of Rt. 678. She also noted that the building setback is to determine the direction the lot is facing. Mr. Keeler read the following definitions into the record: �P6) Corner Lot: A lot abutting on two (2) or more streets at their intersection. of the two (2) sides of a corner lot the front shall be deemed to be the shortest of the two (2) sides fronting on streets. Street: A public thoroughfare which affords principals means of access to abutting property. Mr. Payne noted that according to Section 2-3 of the Zoning Ordinance, he believes the setback should be 75 feet on both sides of the lot. Mr. Keeler noted that he feels certain the Zoning Administrator is still relying on Section 2-6 of the Zoning Ordinance. Col. Washington noted that lots 3 and 4 are setback from Rt. 678 and he can not understand why lot 2 is also not setback from Rt. 678. Mr. Payne commented that the reason lot 2 is not setback from Rt. 678 is under Section 2-6 of the Zoning Ordinance, assuming you have a corner lot without a building, the short side is the front of the lot. Col. Washington noted that it would seem more reasonable to have the building setback from Rt. 678 instead of Old Via Road. Mr. Foster noted that because of the shape of the lots a 75 foot setback would put strong restrictions on the lots. He noted that a 30 foot setback from Old Via Road would serve the purpose much better. Mr. Payne noted that if his opinion is correct a 75 foot setback may be needed from both roads. He noted that the applicant may need a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Col. Washington noted that if a variance is what is needed he advises the applicant to see one. Mr. Foster noted that if the setback on lot 2 is changed to 75 feet it would change the lot lines and cause an unusal configuration. Mrs. Graves asked if the applicant would like to withdraw his request and resubmit the plat later, with the lots redrawn. Col. Washington -asked if the Commission could waive the 75 foot setback on lot 2. Mr. Payne noted that the Commission does not have the authority to waive a setback, because it is a requirement of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Keeler suggested that the Commission defer this plat for one week in order to get the Zoning Administrator's opinion. Mr. Foster noted that the applicant would agree to 75 foot setback. Mrs. Graves moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Maintenance agreement between lots 1 and 3 for the 30 foot joint driveway easement to be approved by the County Attorney; 2. County Engineer_ approval of 30 foot joint driveway easement; 3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of private entrance locations for lots 2 and 4 and frontage improvements, as recommended in their letter of February 8, 1979; (!:;W 4. Written Health Department approval; 5. Waiver of Section 18-36(d) of Subdivision Ordinance; 6. Show 75 foot setback from Route 678. Mr. Dure noted that he had spoken with Mr. Coburn, Highway Department, concerning the applicant's objections to the road improvements. He noted that Mr. Coburn stated that the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors asked the Highway Department to help the County stretch the tax dollars and this was the Highway Department's solution. He noted that Mr. Coburn had stated that subdivisions with a high impact on the road system had been required to improvement the roads and lesser subdivisions had been exempt. This policy has been changed to include all subdivisions upon the County's request. Mr. Dure also noted that these road improvements would be a extreme hardship on his client. He noted that the road improvements requested would require the cutting of over 200 trees and a large amount of earth removal. He stated that the road improvements along this stretch of road would invite speeding into the hairpin curve'at the end of the property. He noted that when the Highway Department removes the curve from the road it will shift the road 10-15 feet. He noted that because of this his clients work would be to no avail. Mr. Dure stated that he would encourage.rthe..Commiss.ion not to.follow the recommendations of the. Highway Department,. Dr. Moore asked Mr. Dure, if he had discussed these problems with the Highway Department. Mr. Dure stated that these problems where discussed in general terms. He noted that Mr. Coburn would not committ himself. Mr. Huffman asked Mr. Dure if Mr. Coburn stated that the frontage improvements were being recommended upon Commission request. Mr. Dure noted that he did. Mr. McCann noted that he personally did not request such a change in policy. Col. Washington noted that Mr. Coburn was in error, by stating that the Planning Commission requested any change in policy. Mrs. Graves noted that there are limited dollars for road improvements from the gas tax and these tax dollars are inadequate to improve the roads. She noted that since these funds are inadequate it is not unreasonable to request individuals coming into the area to contribute to these improvements. Col. Washington asked how much grade is involved for the entrances. Mr. Foster noted that all the entrances would be the same contour. Mrs. Diehl noted that she would like some clarification concerning the tree removal and replacement. Mr. Foster noted that the Highway Department deems anything 3 inches in diameter a tree. The individual making the improvements would be required to record the diameter and species of each tree and replace it with the sane or similar species. Mr. Skove stated that it is his understanding that when the curve is removed the road would have to be realigned. Mr. Foster that it would have to be realigned and and that he feels it would be pointless to make major improvements at this time. Mrs. Graves stated that she feels the road is unsafe and the Highway Department would not recommend improvements that are not necessary. Mr. Skove seconded Mrs. Graves motion. Mr. Lindstrom noted that this is a very complicated problem. He noted that the funds can not be raised to improve these roads and it is senseless to improve portions of roads only to have them torn out in the future. He noted that there is no easy solution to the problem. Col. Washington noted that all lots in the County are not developable. He stated that if the cost of engineering is toff great maybe the lots are not developable. Mr. Vest noted that normally he would support a motion for road improvements, but he was not aware that replacing trees in the Highway Department's right-of-way was a requirement. Mr. Payne noted that if the tree replacement is a problem the Commission could recommend frontage improvements subject to a waiver of the tree requirement. Mr. Keeler noted that if the Commission should decide to act on this subdivision subject to Mr. Payne's condition, they may want to direct the Staff to sent a memo to the Highway Department noting that the Commission is not aware of this requirement. Mrs. Graves amended her motion to include the following wording to condition #3: "Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of private entrance locations for lots 2 and 4 and frontage improvements, as recommended in their letter of February 8, 1979, and a waiver of the tree requirement." Mr. Skove seconded the amended motion, which carried with a vote of 6-3. Mr. McCann, Mr. Vest, and Mr. Gloeckner dissented. There was no further discussion. GIBBS PLATS: Mr. Coles, Mr. John Gibbs, requested that the Commission reconsider his applicant's plats. Mr. Vest moved. to reconsider both plats. Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 7-1. Mrs. Diehl dissented. Mr. Huffman moved to add the following wording to condition #1 (Final Plat) and condition #3 (Preliminary Plat) "and a waiver of the tree requirement." Mrs. Diehl noted that she does not see the necessity of including the additional wording. Col. Washington asked if the property is wooded. Mr. Gibbs noted that the area contiguous to the road is wooded. Col. Washington noted that since the wording has been added to the Wise Plat he can see no reason why it should not be added to these plats. Mr. Keeler noted that it should be understood that the Commission is not weighing the number of trees on each item, butgthe Commission was not aware of this tree requirement. that (�^ 3 Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried with a vote of 5-3-1. Mrs. Graves, Mrs. Diehl and Dr. Moore dissented. Mr. Gloeckner abstained. There was no further discussion. THOMAS LANE FINAL PLAT - located on Route 626 between Ballinger Creek and Route 723; proposed subdivision plat showing 6 parcels, five 2+ acres and 148+ acres remaining. Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Foster, the applicant's representative, was present. Mrs. Graves asked if the residue acreage should be on the plat. Mr. Payne noted that it should. Mr. Foster stated that the residue was divided off from the major part of the farm in order to release the deed of trust on that portion of the property. He noted that this is a portion of a 750-800 acre farm, which is wooded and can not be used for farming. Mr. Foster also noted that the road was widened several years before and now the Highway Department wants to tear up the road to move the ditch possibly one foot. Col. Washington asked the Highway Department's recommendations. Miss Caperton read the Highway Department comments into the record as follows: "Lots as shwon have adequate sight distance for a private entrance. The 50 foot right- of-way which is retained at the western boundary does not have adequate sight distance for a commercial entrance if one were to be desired in the future. We recommend that frontage improvements be required by placing the shoulder break point at 15 feet from the center line, with center of the ditch being at 18 feet." Miss Caperton read a letter into the record from Mr. and Mrs. Crosby, adjacent owners. (attached) Mrs. Diehl asked if the Mr. Coburn discussed the recommended improvements with the applicant at Site Review. Miss Caperton noted that Mr. Coburn just stated his comments. Dr. Moore noted that it appears recommendations should be based on good planning and not on an owner's personal desires regarding the location of a 50 foot access easement. Col. Washington asked Mr. Foster, what the applicant's thoughts are on the interior roads. (see staff report - attached) Mr. Foster noted that the applicant has no desire to comply with these suggestions. He noted that the applicant feels this is his use by right. Mr. Keeler noted that he believes Mr. Foster is incorrect. He noted that a waiver of the subdivision ordinance would be required. Mr. Foster noted that his client is not concerned with shifting the 50 foot acces. He noted that he doesn't intend to have a commercial entrance, but wants access to his farm through this property. Dr. Moore noted that he feels the Commission needs further information from the Highway Department regarding the best location for a commercial entrance and the status of the road. Dr. Moore moved for deferral until March 13, 1979. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. Mr. Payne suggested that the applicant may wish to eliminate the pipestem and have an easement strictly for farm use. Dr. Moore's motion carried unanimously, with no further discussion. SLATE HILLS FINAL PLAT - located on Route 795, north of Blenheim; proposed for ten lots of 2+ acres intended for residential use. Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Foster, the applicant's representative, was present. Miss Caperton read the Highway Department comments into the record as follows: "Sight distance needs to be improved. A commercial entrance with a 100 foot turning lane, 12 foot wide with a 100 foot taper will be required. We recommend frontage improvements across the remainder of the property by placing the shoulder break point at 15 feet from the existing center line, the ditch at 18 feet. We recommend sufficient right-of-way be dedicated along turn lane to maintanence ditch." (Letter of 2/8/79) Mr. Foster noted that his client would rather not have a shared access with the adjoining parcel. Mr. McCann moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Maintenance agreement to be approved by the County Attorney; and provisions made for access from Slate Hills Road to Tax Map 103, Parcel #2, if possible; 2. Written County Engineer approval of road plans; 3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance, and frontage improvements; 4. Waiver of scale granted; 5. Grading permit. Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion. Col. Washington asked if any specific off -site road problems were addressed by the Highway Department. Miss Caperton noted that they had not noted any specific problems. Mr. McCann motion carried unanimously, with no further discussion. FAIRGROVE, PHASE III, PRELIMINARY PLAT - located on Route 662, west of Route 660; proposal for 29 residential lots with an average size of 2.81 acres. Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Foster, and Mr. Richmond, the applicant's representatives, were present. Miss Caperton read the Highway Department's comments into the record as follows: "Three major entrance locations shown on Route 662 either have adequate sight distance or can be improved to have sight distance at the point shown. Commercial entrances will 65 be needed at the two major intersections. That is, Lot 2 and 10, Lot 16 and 29. Additional right-of-way along the turn lane should be dedicated. We would recommend frontage improvements to Route 662 placing the shoulder break point at 15 feet from the centerline of the existing road, ditch at 18 feet where necessary." (Letter 2/8/79) Mr. Skove asked what is the distance to Route 660. Mr. Foster noted that it is approximately 1/2 mile. Mr. Richmond noted that his client objects to the frontage improvements recommended by the Highway Department. He noted that there are not many trees, about 6-8 white oaks, which are very old and beautiful. Mr. Richmond noted that these trees will have to be removed. He noted that the other section of Fairgrove has access on Route 662 and there is no through access. Mr. Jackson, an adjacent owner, stated that he has no objections to the subdivision, but he feels the Commission should be made aware of what bad condition the road is in. Mrs. Graves noted that the setback needs to be shown at 75 feet. Mr. Skove noted that he would have no objections to the road improvements being required on this subdivision, since the impact on the roads would be great. Mr. McCann moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Written Health Department approval; 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrances and frontage improvements as recommended in their letter of February 8, 1979; 3. Grading permit; 4. No buildings are to be constructed on slopes of 250 or greater; 5. Compliance with private road ordinance; including: a) County Engineer written approval of road plans; b) Maintenance agreement to be approved by the County Attorney; 6. All lots shall enter onto interior streets; 7. Compliance with Run -Off Control Ordinance; 8. Montei Drive be shifted to the south following contours to give additional building area to northern lots. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion. Col. Washington asked if this development drains into the Reservoir. Mr. Foster noted that it does. Col. Washington noted that he is concerned with the adequacy of the drainfields. Mr. Foster noted that a soil scientist will examine the lots for adequate drainfield sites. Mr. McCann's motion failed with a vote of 2-7. Mr. Huffman, Col. Washington, Mrs. Diehl, Dr. Moore, Mr. Skove, and Mrs. Graves dissented. Mrs. Graves noted that she is concerned that some of the lots do not have building sites. Mr. Keeler suggested that the following condition should be added: "Soil studies to determine the suitability of septic drainfields to be provided by a soil scientist 6� approved by the Health Department." Mrs. Diehl moved for approval with the following conditions: 1. Written Health Department approval of two septic drainfields and well locations; 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrances and frontage improvements as recommended in their letter of February 8, 1979; 3. Grading permit; 4. No buildings are to be constructed on slopes of 25% or greater; 5. Compliance with private road ordinance; including: a) County Engineer written approval of road plans; b) Maintenance agreement to be approved by the County Attorney; 6. All lots shall enter onto interior roads; 7. Compliance with Run-off Control Ordinance; 8. Montei Drive be shifted to the south following contours to give additional building area to northern lots; 9. Show 75 foot building setbacks on Route 662; 10. Soil Studies to determine the suitability of septic drainfields to be provided by a soil scientist approved by the Health Department. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried with a vote 5-4. Mr. McCann, Mr. Huffman, Mr. Vest, and Mr. Gloeckner dissented. There was no further discussion. WESTERN ALBEMARLE SHOPPING CENTER SITE PLAN - located on Route 250 West, near Crozet; proposed site for shopping center and professional services. Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Blankenbaker, the appli- cant's representative, and Mr. Benn, the applicant, were present. Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself from discussion on this item. Mrs. Graves noted that she has a problem with paved areas over a septic systems. She noted that she spoke with someone from the Soil Conservation Service and they are not recommend that heavy equipment be used over septic systems. Mr. Keeler noted that the Virginia Department of Health allow septic systems under parking lots. Mrs. Diehl stated that she would like the Staff to ask the Health Department to clarify this matter for the Commission's benefit. Col. Washington asked Mr. Benn when he plans to develope this shopping center. Mr. Benn noted that he has not determined when he will begin construction. Ms. Shrewsbury, a member of the Scenic Highways Committee, stated that she would like to commend the applicant's on the good job done on the site plan, but her committee is still concerned with the traffic problem. Miss Caperton read a letter into the record from Ms. Martha Seldon, Chairman of the Scenic Highways Committee. (attached) Ms. Hunter, an adjacent owner, stated that she is concerned with the students going to the shopping center and the flow of traffic between school and shopping center. 6 7- Col. Washington noted that he believes there is a potential for a problem. He also noted that the School Board did not receive their notification until 4:00 this evening and could not furnish the Commission with their comments. He noted that the would to see this item defer to allow the School Board to present their comments. Mrs. Diehl moved for deferral until March 13, 1979. Mrs. Benn,noted that she feels this is an extreme inconvenience. Mr. Eaton, an adjacent owner, stated that he feels it would be a good idea to receive some input from the School Board and any other school Officials. He noted that whenever a shopping center is proposed on Rt. 250 there will be problems with the schools and the traffic. Mrs. Graves noted that she sees five different septic fields on the-:property,and one storm sewer going through a septic field. She stated that she is opposed to so many septic fields. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. OLD BUSINESS - GERCKE CONSTRUCTION CO. SITE PLAN AMENDMENT Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Jerry Dixon, the applicant's representative, was present. Miss Caperton noted that the applicant's wish to convert the loft of the building into office space and to add three additional parking spaces. Mr. McCann moved for approval. Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion. OLD BUSINESS - NORTHSIDE INDUSTRIAL PARK - GENERAL ELECTRIC WAREHOUSE SITE PLAN AMEND. Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Wagner, the applicant, was present. Miss Caperton noted that the applicant wishes to add and delete some landscaping, add a pad roof, storage shed, additional parking, move entrance, and reduce pavement. sion. 09 Mr. McCann moved for approval. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discus - There were na further comments and the meeting adjourned at 12:35 a.m. 6e t W. Tucker, Jr. - Secretary Im