Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 1974�1l December 2, 1974 The regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission was held at 7:30 p.m. in the Piedmont Virginia Community College auditorium on December 2, 1974. Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Louis Staley; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Dr. James Sams; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, Board of Supervisors. Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present, and called the meeting to order. Bicentennial Site Plan: Mr. Tucker gave the staff report and told the Commission that the site had already been approved by the state, and that this plan was for the information of the Commission and for their approval. Mr. Floyd Johnson stated that all work by the State Highway Depart- ment would have to be completed prior to any construction on the building itself. He stated that all erosion plans, etc., had been approved by the state. He cited that the building and grounds would revert back to Piedmont College for classroom facilities after its immediate use. He noted that no appropriations had been made for landscaping, but hoped that some of the local garden clubs would sponsor such a program. Mr. Rinehart questioned the parking facilities. Mr. McClure madea motion for approval, seconded by Mr. Rinehart, which carried unanimously. ZMP-313. Alvin N. Brooks has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 5.4 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property is situated on the west side of State Route 742 (Avon Street Extended) near its intersection with State Route 20 South. Property is further described as County Tax Map 90, Parcel 30. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker gave the staff report. Gary Brooks, son of the applicant, told the Commission that this would be for 2 separate family dwellings with 30-50' easement for right-of-way. He said the plan was to make 3 lots. Mr. Rinehart moved approval; Mr. McClure seconded the motion which carried unanimously. OR ZMP-314. Mary Carter Lee has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 3.5 acres from A-1 Agricultural to RS-1 Residential. Property is situated on the north side of State Route 791, about 1 # miles north of Miller School. Property is further described as County Tax Map 72, Parcel 26. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker gave the staff report. Mr. Barksdale asked if there had to be a proper deed before the property could be re -zoned, and was informed that the deed could be after. Mr. McClure told the Commission that a deed must be in writing, that a verbal agreement is insufficient. Since neither the applicant nor the representative was present, Mr. McClure moved that the request be deferred, since this had been the policy in the past. The motion was seconded by Mr. Barksdale; it carried unani- mously. SP-435. James N. Fleming, Flamenco Enterprises, Inc., and Four Seasons West have petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a Planned Community on 128.06 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the west side of State Route 743 (Hydraulic Road), and east side of State Route 657 (Lamb's Road). Property is further described as County Tax Map 45, Parcels 8, 8A, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, or parts thereof; and County Tax Map 44, Parcel 35B. Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker gave the staff report. He read a letter from Mr. Guy B. Agnor, Jr., Director of Public Works for the City of Charlottesville, which stated that the city would "object to any grading or construction of any feature which would impair the City's ability to properly maintain or repair the two high pressure gas lines which exist within the forty foot easement which crosses the property involved." Mr. Tucker also read to the Commission the resolution unanimously adopted by the City Council at a special meeting on November 27, 1974, concerning the Rivanna Reservior. Mr. Rinehart asked if the Zoning Ordinance addresses itself to zoning changes as a result of such things as a PUD. Mr. Tucker told him that it did, and that PUD's are usually in an Agricultural zone. Mr. Easter questioned the item numbers 5 and 10, and asked why they had been incorporated in the second group of conditions of staff report and not in the first, and was informed that the first group of conditions were for a lower density, i.e., 2.5 du's/acre. R Cfi Mr. Richard Carter, attorney -at -law, represented the applicant. He explained to the Commission that the applicant would be willing to meet all the conditions that the staff had recommended if the special use permit were approved, except for the condition concerning lowering the density to 2.5 dwelling units/acre. He said this was due to economic reasons. He told the Commission that his client was asking for 6 dwelling units/acre in the $30-35,000 price range. He cited the fact that this was in keeping with the density of the area. He pointed out that the County had not declared a moratorium on growth and development. He further stated that this fits the Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance of the County. Mr. Carter suggested to the Commission that it is very arbitrary to define what is high, low or medium Residential. Mr. Carter pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan backs the theory of open space in cluster units, which this PUD also does. He argued that this is a well -planned and well -engineered concept. He stated that the PUD concept is one way of saving open space in the County. Mr. Carter stated that the applicant did not wish to damage the re- servior, and said that this project lacks 75 acres having frontage on the Rivanna Reservoir. Furthermore, he pointed out that there is existing R-2 and R-3 zoning along the reservoir. Referring to the staff report, he explained that any other develop- ment in the urban area would probably require some redistricting and re- assignment of students in the school system, and reminded that the Commis- sion that this is a 10 year project. He stated that the applicant would not use Lambs Road as a possible entrance and cited that the proposed Hydraulic Road would be completed in approximately 5 years, considerable time before the projected 10 year completion of Evergreen Planned Community. Mr. Carter reiterated that the applicant would be quite willing to work with the City concerning the gas pipeline. He summarized by stating that Evergreen is not a "fly-by-night"plan, and urged the Commission to incorporate condition #5 (the first item to be constructed from an approved site plan is to be the lake in order that it will act as a sediment basis and prevent any soil erosion into the reser- voir. This approval to be made under the provision of the Soil Erosion Ordinance) in its conditions for approval. He again reminded all that the project will not damage the Rivanna Reservoir, since there would be Planned Protection. Mr. Roudabush, speaking for the applicant, described a location map, a composite tax map with existing zoning, and a second location map showing total drainage to the reservoir from the 361 acres in the area, including Im the 128 acres of which is Evergreen. He explained that the runoff will increase by 13.4% with the development and slightly less without the development. He explained that land will drain to reservoir anyway. Mr. Roundabush explained that another possible way of developing this land would be to subdivide it into 2-acre lots. He explained that the developer will work with the county and city to avoid this. The major physical characteristic of the land is such that all major drainage is to where dam will be built. He further pointed out that the general plan for the PUD is submitted under the Zoning Ordinance and that the plan is quite flexible. He reassured the Commission that if the PUD is approved, the first construction will be the lake and a soil conservation plan. Mr. Grimm of Charlottesville Savings and Loan Association took the opportunity to explain to the commission and to the public that single family dwellings will soon be a thing of the past except for the very wealthy. He stated that this is an attempt to solve the housing situation in the $30-35,000 price range. Dr. Nichols, a professor at the School of Architecture, University of Virginia, spoke in opposition to the PUD. He stated that it would infringe on the historic significance of Shack Mountain, one of the finest examples of Jeffersonian-type architecture remaining, and designed by a distinguished architect Fishe Kimball. Dr. Clinton Parker, a resident of the county, also spoke in opposition to the PUD. He sopke to the point of the reservoir, citing several articles of statistics as to the probable detriment of the reservoir if this special permit were approved. He cited the 1974 University Council Research on Storm Runoff and said that with one inch of rainfall, 250,000 pounds of lead and 30,000 pounds of mercury would be deposited in the re- servoir. Dr. Parker further stated that he had been appointed to the committee which was being formed to make the structure for a study on the reservoir property, which will take in farm, agricultural, and urban runoff. He stated that the study would take approximately two years. Steve Mekas, assistant city attorney, told the Commission that building the lake is a violation of the city' rights of the gas pipeline. He also expressed City Council's concern over continued growth around the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Mr. Guy Agnor pointed out to the Commission and the public that the city owns and built the gas pipeline. Mrs. Frances Martin, speaking for the Citizens for Albemarle, pointed out such problems as density and traffic situations that would result if the special permit for Evergreen Planned Community were approved. Her report, however, centered on the concern for the life of the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir. Her report indicated that it was the consensus of the Citizens for Albemarle that the county did not have the staff and/or funds to so closely monitor the effects of one development's runoff on the re- servoir. She stated that an alternate source of water would take 10 years to develop. Debbie Scott, President of the League of Women Voters, stated that this group had adopted a resolution supporting the concept of a PUD on the reservoir, but not at the density that Evergreen planned, especially considering the water supply of the reservoir and the runoff involved. She suggested a total environment study. Mrs. Craw, representing the Civic League, urged protection with complete Conservation zoning. Mr. Jim.Murray, Jr., attorney, represented the Jones, Greers, and the Garlicks in opposition to the PUD. He stated that it is unlawful to contaminate state waters and this is a critical environmental area. He stated that there is a bill before the State Legislature, which if passed, would protect not only waterways in the state, but which would also protect such places as Shack Mountain. He stated that the Historic Landmarks Committee was against this PUD, since it would destroy the significance of Shack Mountain. He stated that to approve Evergreen Planned Community, even with rigorous conditions, would be dissatisfactory. He recommended a moratorium on this tract of land. He stated that the only possible acceptable alternative would be for the PUD to have a density no less than CVN. Mr. Porter, a resident of Lamb's Road, cited the road conditions as a major reason for his opposition. He was concerned about the impact the PUD would have on the classroom. He stated that in 1971, Mr. Robert Warner had said that it would take 6-8 months to have plans for the ex- pansion of Hyrdraulic Road, and asked the Commission to draw its own con- clusions, since that was three years ago. Mrs. Nancy Bowers, interested citizen, urged denial of the request for special permit because of the reservoir. Mrs. Martin cited the State Health Department's concern and pointed out their denial for any more waste treatment plants along the reservoir. Dr. Charles Hurt, a major landholder and a developer himself, urged approval. He stated that the opposition had once again been voiced by the same people who always voiced opposition. At this point, Mr. Carr closed the meeting to public hearing. Mr. Rinehart told the Commission that there is a shortage of this price range housing and that land is becoming less available all the time. He stated that the Commission is not against the growth of the county, they merely wish to regulate the density. Dr. Sams asked if this were a proper hearing, since Mr. Carter had stated that Four Seasons West was not petitioning the Commission for the special permit, only James Fleming. Mr. Fred Payne, Assistant County Attorney, stated that it satisfied the statute. Mr. Tucker stated that Daley Craig does own a small portion of the land that is incorporated in the 128 acres in question. Dr. Sams stated that other PUD's in the county have not satis fied the concept of the PUD. He stated that so far the closest the county had gotten to this idea was the "cluster alternate." He said it was his opinion that this does not approach a good PUD and was a very poor substitute for the cluster alternate. He stated that he could not approve because of the density involved. Mr. Easter stated that if the runoff water is satisfactorily con- trolled, it must be controlled with a lake, and he cited the fact that there is some question if the lake can even be built on top of the gaslines. Mr. Carr mentioned the fact that the City says the lake cannot be on an easement. Mr. Roudabush stated that the lake can be constructed without con- flict and without changing the surface area and volume. Mr. Tinsley told the other members of the Commission that he would be in favor of the community if the density were more agreeable since he felt there is aneed for more housing in this price range. Mr. McClure stated that subdivisions are a thing of the past and that now we must use the "trout -stream" approach. He said that it is a "must" to concentrate the population of the county. He said that he him- self is still not convinced that anything of this sort will be more detri- mental to the reservoir than a subdivision of single family dwellings. With more favorable density, he would approve the concept. He sug- gested that the density might be controlled by site plan. Mrs. Craddock voiced her opposition on the grounds of contaminating the reservoir, whose life, she said, is already endangered. She stated that this is not the place for this density. She said this would be a big injustice to the citizens of the county, due to the density proposed. She stated that the price range of the proposed housing would not satisfy the capacity to pay of low income groups. Mr. Carr stated that the density of the PUD was of major concern to him. He cited the Commission's request for help in protecting the re- servoir. How to achieve protection and land utilization during the mean- time is his concern. He asked the Commission to delay action on this re- quest and asked for further study. Mr. McClure moved for deferral until the January 6, 1975, meeting of the Planning Commission. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion. Mrs. Craddock asked the reason for deferral. Mr. McClure stated that the reason that he moved deferral was that he wished to consider the density, both proposed and possible alternatives. Mrs. Craddock said that she felt this was a premature submittal. Mr. Rinehart told the Commission that he would like to see a with- drawal without prejudice with later submittal containing lower density and more complete engineering data. Mr. Carr stated that he hesitated to require the applicant to go to this expense without some indication as to what action the Planning Com- mission would take. Mr. Rinehart stated that with technical assistance on the water levels, he could give conditional approval --said he would also have to consider the density. Mrs. Craddock was of the opinion that even with lower density the Commission would need more conclusive data for approval. The foregoing motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES: Messrs. Carr, McClure, Tinsley, Staley, Rinehart, Easter, Bark9dale, and Dr. Sams. NAYS: Mrs. Craddock Mr. Carr told the petitioner that the matter might be discussed with the staff, and if so, his presence would be requested. SP-436. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority has petitioned the A1be- marle County Board of Supervisors to locate an Interceptor Sanitary Sewer along Moore's Creek. Property in the County which is affected is described as County Tax Map 76, Parcel 28; County Tax Map 77, Par- cels 4, 5 and 6; County Tax Map 77E(1); County Tax Map 76, Parcels 44 and 45; and County Tax Map 77, Parcels 7 and 9. Samuel Miller and Scottsville Magisterial Districts. Mr. Tucker gave the staff report. Mr. Gene Pott represented Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. He stated that everything was in compliance with state and local rules and regulations. Mr. G. G. Forrens, a landowner, was concerned about the pipes going through his property, since he felt as though one of the streams would bring about a vast amount of soil erosion. Mr. McClure stated that this particular matter was not germane to the Commission. Mr. Carr recommended that this request be deferred for a period of ten minutes in order that Mr. Pott could give Mr. Forrens the necessary statistics. SP-439. Robert R. Patterson has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate an indoor tennis club on 4.29 acres zoned R-2 Residential. Property is situated on the east side of Rt. 743 (Hydraulic Road), approximately 0.5 miles north of Albe- marle High School. Property is further described as County Tax Map 61, Parcel 14, Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker gave the staff report. Mrs. Craddock questioned why a site plan had not been submitted. Mr. Patterson stated that setback would be no problem and that there would be a planting plan. He said that the color scheme would be done as aesthetically pleasing as possible. He explained that the concept is sound and that the market for this particular tennis club is with those not involved in previously existing facilities. He stated that part of the structure would be subterranean and that the height of the structure at its apex would be 40 feet. He further explained that there would be screening. Mrs. Craw voiced opposition in behalf of Mrs. Garrick due to the traffic situation on Hydraulic Road. Mrs. Preston, an adjoining property owner, also opposed the request because of the volume of traffic the project would bring to the area. Mr. Carr suggested that some rough sketch be submitted to the Com- mission by the applicant and that the Commission would hear the matter at its December 9th meeting. Mr. McClure moved deferral; Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Deferred Item: SP-436. Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority. Mr. Pott told the Commission that the lines have already been set and approved by the State. Mr. Forrens stated that he wanted the creek readjusted, since he was concerned about soil erosion. Mr. Rinehart moved approval and Mr. McClure seconded the motion with the following conditions: 1. Re -seeding and maintenance of all disturbed areas for one year after the placement of the interceptor; 2. Grading permit must be obtained from the Zoning Department. The Commission approved unanimously. Parrish Site Plan �*M► Mr. Tucker gave the staff report and stated that this property is located 1 mile east of Simeon. This is a 2-acre parcel with an existing 30' right-of-way which is maintained by the residents along the right-of- way. He stated that there are twelve lots located along this right-of-way. He said that this was the only remaining lot that could be subdivided. Mr. Parrish showed a picture to the Commission and reiterated Mr. Tucker's remarks. Mr. McClure made amotion, seconded by Mr. Barksdale, for approval. The Commission approved the site plan unaninously. The meeting was adjourned. n 1 1- - n L. Hump rey Secret ry December 9, 1974 The Planning Commission held its December 9th work session at 7:30 p.m. in the County Executive's Conference Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Dr. James Sams; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Peter Easter; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mr. Louis Staley; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor. Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. The approval of the minutes was deferred until a later date. Deferred Items: Clothier Site Plan Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that the Board had not taken action on this since they had wanted to see a complete subdivision plat. Lot #3 was established to be the one of interest. Mr. Humphrey stated that Lot #2 could be used for a very small faci- lity, but that it is not in keeping with the intent of commercial development, and that it is already a substandard lot. Mr. Roger Martin, esquire, represented Dr. Clothier. He argued that the special use permit should be heard by the Board of Supervisors as soon as possible in order that Dr. Clothier would not lose his option to purchase property. Mr. Rinehart stated that lot #2 is not acceptable. Mr. Easter moved that action be deferred until there could be proper review of the site plan by the planning staff, at which time the applicant or his representative should be present. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. ZMP-314. Mary Carter Lee Mr. Tucker gave the staff report. Mr. Burke Walker, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant was re- questing 2 lots, one of which is already there. It was pointed out in the staff report that one of the lots would have to be at least 1.5 acres, since that is what the rezoning request is for. Mr. Barksdale moved approval; Mrs. Craddock seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. SP-422. Amendment to Hickory Ridge PUD Mr. Tucker gave the staff report, stating that the PUD had already been approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Murray, representing the applicant, stated that the request was that the ownership and control of the barns revert back to Mr. Brown, and explained that the density will not be changed. It was established by Mr. Fred Payne, Assistant County Attorney, that every- thing was in order. Mr. Payne told Mr. Carr that he was satisfied that Mr. Murray's client would do what he had said. Mr. Rinehart moved approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The Homeowner's Association will have an option to purchase the barn and stable facilities if they desire; 2. The new street to be constructed in accordance with State Highway specifica- tions so it may be accepted into the state secondary system; and 3. That the horseback trail remain within the right-of-way of the proposed new street. The motion, which carried unanimously, was seconded by Mr. Tinsley. SP-439. Robert R. Patterson Mr. Peter Easter disqualified himself from the discussion by leaving the room and not voting. Mr. Tucker reminded the Commission in the staff report that the matter had been deferred in order that the applicant could bring a preliminary site plan before the Commission. 140) Mr. Rinehart noted that there seemed hardly any room for buffering - which was necessary because of the neighbors. plan. Mrs. Craddock suggested that the number of outdoor courts be limited. Mr. Tinsley stated that he felt the outdoor court time should be limited. Mr. Wood pointed out that the special permit was not according to this preliminary Mrs. Craddock moved approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of site plan; 2. Indirect lighting of outdoor tennis courts, i.e., lighting is to be directed away from Hydraulic Road and adjoining properties; 3. Sufficient set back of facilities to accomodate the widening of Hydraulic Road; 4. Hours of outdoor operation not to exceed 11:00 p.m.; 5. Submittal of planting plan; and 6. 10' building setback and 20' open court setback with plantings OR 10' set- back with proven sound deadening fence. The motion was seconded by Mr. Barksdale, and the Commission voted unani- mously to approve. Westgate Apartments Phase III site plan Mr. Humphrey pointed out that a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals would still be required. Mr. Rinehart was told upon questioning that the management would be responsible for building the parking lot. Dr. Sams moved for approval with the provision that more parking facilities would be provided if the need arose. The motion, which carried with a vote of 8-1, was seconded by Mr. Barksdale. Randy Rinehart Subdivision Plat Mr. Jack Rinehart disqualified himself from the discussion and the vote by leaving the room. Mr. Humphrey stated that this is a request for a subdivision of 2 lots with a common driveway. The Health Department has given general approval. The Planning Commission approved a waiver of frontage requirements. Dr. Sams moved approval of the subdivision and Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Moore Brothers site plan This site plan had been given administrative approval, and Mr. Tucker explained the staff action to the Commission. Discussion of Board's recommendation concerning the zone in which a go-kart facility should be located: Mr. Humphrey stated that the Board had requested this discussion since it was the desire of the city to locate such a facility on the old landfill. The Staff suggested that this could be permitted by right in an M-2 zone, and with a special use permit through public hearings in an M-1 zone. The meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. M Joh)a L. Humphrey, Se6Zetary i December 17, 1974 The regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission was held at 7:30 p.m., December 17, 1974, at Piedmont Virginia Community College, Charlottesville, Vir- ginia. Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice - Chairman; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Dr. James Sams; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Mr. Louis Staley; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Peter Easter; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, ex-Officio. Mr. Carr established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. Site Plans and Subdivisions: Monticello Home Builders Plat Mr. Tucker gave the staff comments. This is a subdivision of 3 lots, two of which are 2 acre lots. They requested an easement to serve the third lot. Mr. McClure recommended approval with the following condition: 1. One driveway serve as the driveway from the 2 lots fronting Route 615. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mr. Tucker told the Commission that there was a second part to the requests from Monticello Home Builders. This was a request for an easement to serve the 3.2 acre lot on the back. Mr. Rinehart moved approval with the following condition: 1. The driveway serving A-2 is also to serve as the driveway for A-1. Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. E. B. Martin Plat Mr. Tucker gave the staff comments, in which he stated that this was a request for further easement to subdivide Parcel B, and that Parcel A be made a part and parcel of Parcel B. Mr. Tucker further pointed out that the staff recommends no further sub- division be permitted without Planning Commission approval. Mr. McClure moved approval; Mr. Barksdale seconded. The motion carried unanimously. Evalyn M. Galban Plat Mr. Tucker explained to the Commission that this is a request for a 20' easement to serve one 3.4 acre parcel located off Farmington Drive. Mr. Carr cited an instance which stated that there could be no further subdivision along Farmington roads or else there could be no further subdivision along Farmington roads until these roads were improved. On these grounds, he asked the Commission to defer the matter till more research could be done. Mr. McClure made the motion, and Mr. Rinehart seconded it. The motion carried unanimously. Emogene S. Bias Plat Mr. Tucker stated that this was a request for six 2-acre lots. He stated that the 50' pipestem is the only access the buyer has to the remainder of the property. He said that the staff recommended common driveways for the lots, so that lots F & E would share a drive, amd lots C & D would share a driveway. He further pointed out that this could not be enforced, it could be merely recom- mended. Mr. Rinehart moved approval; Dr. Sams seconded the motion, which carried unani- mously. L. C. Parrish Plat Mr. McClure disqualified himself from the discussion and voting by leaving the room. Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the staff did not feel that this constitutes a subdivision. Mr. Carr stated that since this was the circumstance, that Planning Commission approval or disapproval hardly seemed necessary, since they did not usually act on such plats. Mr. McCallum, speaking for the applicant, told the Commission that he considered it to be a private road, since his research noted more references to private than public. He stated that he had carried his research back to the 1840's. Mr. Carr again questioned the legality of the Planning Commission acting on this plat. Mr. Payne, from the County Attorney's office, told the Commission that its jurisdiction is based on this being a subdivision and that any Planning Commission action would be void if the road were public. Mr. McCallum stated that he would not be at the meeting if he could establish that the road is private. Mr. Tinsley suggested that only a legal court could determine if the road were private or public. Mr. Payne told the Commission that no enforcements of violations of subdivisions could be made, nor could subdivision penalties of the Subdivision Ordinance be en- forced. Mr. Carr stated again that he felt the matter was beyond the jurisdiction of of the Planning Commission. Mr. Rinehart moved that the matter be withdrawn and Dr. Sams seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. White Oak Park Preliminary Plat Mr. McClure disqualified himself from the discussion and the voting by leaving the room. Mr. Tucker stated that the staff had suggested no conditions since all preliminary requirements had been met. He stated that the restricted road would have to be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Mr. Rinehart moved approval; Mr. Barksdale seconded. The motion carried unani- mously. Jan Langman - 2 Rental Units Site Plan Mr. Tucker suggested that approval be conditioned upon the following: 0 1. Two parking spaces per unit; and 2. As few trees removed as possible. Mr. Fernaham, an adjacent property owner, spoke in opposition. Mr. Grant Cosner, another adjacent property owner, questioned the future plans for subdivision. ly. Mr. Rinehart moved approval. Dr. Sams seconded, and the motion carried unanimous - Double C Corporation Office Building Site Plan Mr. Tucker told the Commission that parking requirements had been met and that there is an alternate drainage field. A list of conditions were submitted by the planning staff, one of which was a variance being granted. Mr. Carr stated that he did not think a site plan approval should be subject to a variance. Mr. McClure moved approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Final approval by Virginia Department of Highways; 2. Grading permit obtained; 3. Health Department approval; 4. Granting of variance of 50' setback in Residential zone. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 7-1. to The Planning Commission asked that Mr. Tucker/write a letter to the proper authorities concerning that area near Rio Road which was not served by public water to see if something could be worked out that this area could be put on the public water system. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. n L. Humphrey, S retary7 /l 19