Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 1974September 3, 1974 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on September 3, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. in the County Court House, Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley, Mrs. Ellen Craddock, Mr. Louis Staley, Dr. James Sams, Mr. Peter Easter, Mr. William Barksdale, Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor. Mr. McClure moved approval of the minutes of May 6, 1974 through May 28, 1974. Dr. Sams seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mrs. Craddock stated that she had several editorial changes to make on the minutes of July 29, August 5th and August 12th. Mr. Easter moved approval of said minutes subject to the editorial changes made by Mrs. Craddock. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion which carried unanimously. SP-393 William Cason has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a two-family dwelling on 3.53 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of State Route 250 East, opposite the intersection of State Route 731. Property is further described as County Tax Map 79C, Section 2, Block A, Lot 5. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the applicant had requested that the matter be deferred until September 16, 1974,so that he could have additional time to obtain the information he needed. Mr. Easter asked that the records show he disqualified himself from voting or discussion on the following matter and left the room. Moore Brothers Site Plan - Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the matter had been deferred so that accurate data could be obtained from the Corps of Engineers regarding the flood plain. Mr. Tucker noted that one major change was required by the Corps of Engineers; that being a 100' setback from the center line to the Hardware River. He stated that all other items had been complied with. Mrs. Craddock suggested that the Highway Department be asked to place signs along the highway warning of a turnoff. Mr. McClure moved that the Commission recommend approval of the site plan to the Board of Supervisors. Dr. Sams seconded the motion which carried with Mr. Easter not voting on the matter. Off -Street Parking Amendment Mr. Tucker pointed out the recommended revisions to the Commission. Parking requirements for greenhouses and nurseries were discussed. It was noted that possibly enclosed retail area, production greenhouses, and exterior area should each have their own parking requirements. Mr. Carr suggested that Mr. Tucker rework this particular item and bring it back to the Commission. Safe and convenient access (11-7-4) was discussed. After further discussion, action on general provisions for Off -Street w Parking was moved for deferral by Mr. Easter which was seconded by Dr. Sams and carried unanimously. ZMP-309 Orchard Acres. Mr. Carr told the Commission that ZMP-309 had been deferred until September 11, 1974. Mr. Carr told the Commission that a last minute question had arisen which the staff had not had time to react to; that being that the developer raised the question that Orchard Acres was approved by the Board of Supervisors at the time of the initial zoning in 1967. It was alluded that this was accomplished for certain subdivisions that were in motion so that they would not get caught in the middle or in an inbetween situation. Mr. Carr stated that apparently Orchard Acres was in that group. He noted that the staff did not have time at the last minute to investigate this. ZMP-310 - Patsy 0. Tiffany DBA Patricia Ann's Country Store has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to rezone 7.44 acres from A-1 Agricultural to B-1 Commercial. Property is situated on the north side of Route 250'West near Yancey Mills. Property is further described as County Tax Map 55, Parcel 19 (part thereof). Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker read the staff report commenting that "the property requested for rezoning presently contains Patricia Ann's Country Store. A country general store, as defined by the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, is allowed in an A-1 zone with a special use permit. It is the feeling of the staff that by allowing a country general store, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, in an A-1 zone with a special use permit does in many instances meet the intent of the A-1 Agricultural zone. The staff also feels, however, that by rezoning an area to allow a more intense activity, after a special use permit has been obtained, does not meet with the intent of the A-1 zone and we feel this would in turn set a precedent for future rezonings. Therefore, in view of the amount of land zoned B-1 in the immediate area, which is either not being utilized for commercial purposes or vacant; and the fact that a precedent for future rezonings of a similar nature would be set, the staff recommends denial." Mr. Lee McGratty told the Commission that Mrs. Tiffany could not be present as she was out of the country and that he was present to read a letter from her to the Commission which read in part as follows: "I hope by now that most of you have visited my store and find it to be worthy of the pride which I take in it. I am aware that this Commission voted unanimously against the building of my store when it was proposed to you. I have remained aware that this Commission remains in disagreement with the Board of Supervisors on whether the store would have been built on the property. Nevertheless, the Board of Supervisors, acting upon all recommendations and all the evidence produced before it, gave a building permit and all the evidence produced before it, gave a building permit and special use permit for the operation of my store. I believe that the Board will find that the store is in conformity with the information provided to the Board prior to its' construction. Nevertheless, the question has been raised again as to whether or not this store may operate within the confines of a special use permit in an A-1 district. Many of you on the Board are businessmen operating your own businesses. Those of you so situated can most appreciate the rigors of commencing a new business and attempting to bring it to a breakeven much less a profit picture, while at the same time make it a credit to the community. The question that is presented to you tonight is merely to rezone my property as shown on the plat so that whatever one would want to call my business as you now see it, it may continue to operate. You will note that a portion of my property is already zoned commercial but the location where my store is actually built is beyond the commercially zoned area. I am sure that this Commission wishes me no ill will and that it's original stance in opposition to my store was an act of true belief and good faith upon the part of each and every member. I am likewise sure that individual members on this Commission would feel that support of a rezoning petition at this junction would be a reversal of an original position and would therefore, not be so inclined. Therefore, I ask that the Commission pass this matter to the Board of Supervisors without recommendation whatever, if possible. In any event, I respectfully ask this Board to make a disposition of this rezoning Petition at it's meeting on September 3, 1974 so that the Board of Supervisors may consider the matter fully at it's hearing on September 25, 1974. I hope that you will see fit to take some action tonight for or against the proposition so that the Board of Supervisors will not be delayed in receiving the request for their consideration." 11,krr✓' Mr. Max Evans representing Mrs. Plummer, requested .denial of the request because 1) there was ample B-1 zoning in the area 2) there has been discussion of down -zoning commercial so uses could be more restrictive. 3) There had been evidence of unwillingness of Tiffany to develop their property in a proper manner. Mr. Wendell Jackson, representing Greenwood Citizens Council, objected to any further commercial zoning in which they considered to be a residential area. Several other citizens spoke in opposition to the request. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Upon questioning by Dr. Sams, Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the country store was under litigation concerning the definition of a country general store. Mrs. Miller elaborated on this subject. Mrs. Craddock in view of the lack of good faith shown by Mr. and Mrs. Tiffany with regard to their dealings with the County regarding this property, and with regard to the staff comments, moved for denial. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion. Mr. Carr noted that the property now before them for rezoning was before the Commission several months ago for additional craft shops. The motion for denial carried unanimously. SP-406 Patricia W. Pugh has petitioned the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors to locate a gift, craft, and antique shop on 1.531 acres zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the north side of Route 797 in Yancey Mills. Property is further described as County Tax Map 55A, Parcel 25A. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker read the staff report commenting that "the staff is concerned that the introduction of a craft and gift shop in a well established residential area such as Yancey Mills would be detrimental to the character and aesthetic atmosphere of the community. We make this observation for two major reasons. First, State Route 797 would not be conducive to any increase in traffic volume which may be generated by the proposed gift and craft shop, we feel Route 797 is primarily a residential street. Second, it is questionable whether adequate off-street parking could be made available on this lot. It is the opinion of the staff that an off-street parking area such as would be required and an increase in trips in and out of the proposed gift and craft shop would not be compatible with this area and is not in the best interest of the citizens of this community. The staff therefore recommends denial." However, if the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors deem it appropriate to approve this petition, it should be conditioned upon the following: 1. Site Plan approval; 2. Limit of one free standing sign and one wall sign, limited to g square feet each; 3. Limit items sold to small gifts, hand made items, and antiques; and 4. Any addition to the existing structure will require an additional special use permit. She stated that she had planned a small gift shop somewhat like the Village Shop on 250 West. Upon questioning by Mr. Easter, Mrs. Pugh told the Commission that she planned to be open on Saturday and Sunday and by appointment. Mrs. Craddock questioned whether this would be a home occupation. Accord- ing to Mrs. Miller, Zoning Administrator, this could not be defined as a home occupation. Upon questioning by Mr. Carr, Mr. Tucker noted that he thought possibly there should be an administratively approved site plan. After further discussion, Dr. Sams moved approval of the request with the following conditions: 1) Limit to one free standing sign and one wall sign, limited to 8 square feet each; 2) Limit items sold to small gifts, hand made items, and antiques; 3) Any addition or expansion of this shop will require an additional special use permit; 4) Limit sales area to a maximum of 150 square feet; 5) Minimum of 2 off-street parking spaces; 6) No non-resident employees; 7) No additional exterior lighting; 8) This permit is issued to the applicant only and is non-transferrable. It was noted that if the business wanted to expand, Mrs. Pugh would have to come back to the Commission for re -approval. SP-402. George W. Shifflett has applied for a Special Permit to place a mobile home on 5.0 acres in an A-1 zone located on the north side of Route 688, one-half mile east of Route 810. Property is described as County Tax Map 14, Parcel 52A. White Hall Magisterial District. Mrs. Craddock moved that the matter be deferred and that Mr. Shifflett be contacted and asked to be present at the next meeting. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Carr told the Commission that he would like for them to consider seriously the mobile home problem, and would like the staff to bring something before them in writing next week. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. J o L. Humphre Secre ary 9 September 9, 1974 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on Sep- tember 9, 1974, at 7:30 p.m. in the County Court House, Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice - Chairman; Mr. William Barksdale; Mr. Peter Easter; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Dr. James Sams; and Mr. Louis Staley and Mrs. Ellen Craddock. Mr. Carr called the meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. The approval of the minutes of August 19 was opened for discussion with several corrections being made. It was pointed out to the stenographer that she should specifi- cally take note which members of the Commission disqualified themselves from discussion and voting on matters. Mr. Rinehart moved that action on the minutes be deferred until the next week so that they could be reviewed more carefully. Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. ZMP-309. Orchard Acres, Inc. Mr. Humphrey read the staff report commenting that "because of existing side yard requirements, building permit cannot be issued until a variance is granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals on each individual lot or appropriate zoning is granted to alleviate the problem. ' The staff having found the request in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and with the proposed zoning ordinance and map, recommends approval." Mrs. Craddock and Mr. Staley were concerned with what problems might occur with septic systems. It was noted that the health department had already approved the lots. Mr. Carr stated that he thought that the County had already committed themselves since the lots were already sold. Mrs. Craddock moved approval of the request, but stated that she would like for it to be a part of the record that this subdivision be put on public sewer as soon as possible, and that it be approved since it was in line with what already had been approved and felt it was within the developer's rights. Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion. It was noted that this was for approval for the remaining portion of Orchard Acres from A-1 Agricultural to R-2 Residential. The motion for approval carried unanimously. Mr. Rinehart noted that the Commission recommended approval to the Board being aware that there was going to be a problem with sewage and that they recognized the need for public sewer in the area. Mr. McClure moved that the records show the Commission's concern for the lack of public sewage in the area. Mr. Barksdale seconded Mr. McClure's motion which carried unanimously. M SP-402. George W. Shiflett It was noted that there were several property owners against mobile homes bein placed in the area. It was also noted that the applicant desired to place the mobile home on his father's property and that the mobile home would be used on weekends. Mr. Henry Javor, an adjacent landowner, stated that he was not ultimately opposed to the request, but did not want an influx of mobile homes in the area. At this time, the public hearing was closed. Mr. Tinsley stated that he thought there was one primary difference in this request; that being that Mr. Shiflett wanted to use this as a retreat home. Mr. Rinehart noted that he was not in favor of this request, as they would probably see a cluster of mobile home8in the area. Mr. Barksdale stated that he had visited the site, and that he could be in favor of a permanent home, but not for a vacation site. He noted that the site was wooded. Mr. Rinehart moved that the request be denied. Dr. Sams seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Off -Street Parking Ordinance It was moved by Mr. Easter and seconded by Mr. Tinsley that 11-7-7(28), 11-7-7(29), 11-7-7(39) be changed to read as follows: "One space per each two employees, plus addi- tional customer parking as deemed necessary by the Commission with a minimum of "2" in each case." The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Easter moved that the Off -Street Parking Ordinance be sent to the Board of Super- visors recommending approval as revised. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Mobile Home Parks and Subdivisions Mr. Humphrey told the Commission that he did not want them to think that they had to wait until more mobile home parks were developed in the County before they enacted a more restrictive mobile home ordinance. Mr. Easter commented that he was not ready to make the decision restricting mobile homes to parks and subdivisions at this time. Dr. Sams stated that he was also not ready to make this decision at this time, and stated that he was not convinced that an ordinance such as this was the answer. He noted that someone could not be told what to do if their conventional single-family dwelling was unsightly. Mrs. Craddock questioned whether they were discussing what to do about mobile homes or low income housing. Mr. Staley stated that he was not ready to vote for mobile homes being located on a lot as small as 3500 square feet, but might consider 1 acre subdivisions. Mr. McClure noted that he could not vote for a more restrictive ordinance on mobile homes at this time. Mr. Carr suggested that the Commission be studying this situation and set a date sometime in the future to take action on the future of mobile homes in Albemarle County. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. Join L. Humphrey ecreta y i� IM M FE FE September 16, 1974 This was a regular meeting of the Albemarle County Planning Commission held on September 16, 1974, 7:30 p.m., at Piedmont Virginia Community College, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. William Barksdale; Mr. Jack Rinehart; Mr. Wilbur Tinsley; Dr. James Sams; Mr. Louis Staley; Mrs. Ellen Craddock; Mr. Peter Easter; Mr. Clifton McClure, Vice -Chairman; and Mr. Lloyd Wood, Supervisor. Mr. Carr called the meeting to order and established that a quorum was present. The minutes from the last meeting were approved; however, Mr. Easter suggested a standard phrase be employed in the minutes when a member of the Commission disqualified himself. SP-393 - William C. Cason - two family dwelling: This item was deferred from the first meeting of August. Mr. Tucker gave the staff report and reminded the Commission that this was a request for a two-family dwelling in Shadwell Estates; the site falls within the Keswick Cluster. The deed restrictions pro- hibit two-family dwellings in this area. The matter had been deferred in order that the Commission could clear up this question with the Homeowners Association. Mr. Tucker told the Commission that the applicant had planned to withdraw the petition, but no letter has been received by the Planning Department to this effect. Since that time, there was no opposition by the adjacent landowners. It was moved by Mr. Tinsley, seconded by Mr. Easter, that the petition be deferred till Mr. Tucker received official notification. The motion carried unanimously. SP-409. Frances H. Roberts has applied for a Special Permit to locate a mobile home on 4.6 acres of land zoned A-1 Agricultural. Property is situated on the south side of State Route 250 East just west of its intersection with State Route 744. Property is further described as County Tax Map 80, Parcel 58. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Tucker read the staff report. It was pointed out that the matter should go before the Board of Supervisors before any warrant was issued, since the applicant is presently in violation of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. There were two letters of opposition, one from Virginia and Thomas E. Washington; the second from Raymond Guthrie. Neither could attend the meeting of the Planning Com- mission, but both planned to attend the Board meeting. Mr. Rinehart established that Frances H. Robert was the sister of Louise Scott, the applicant, and learned that the property was owned by Mrs. Robert. The trailer is owned by Mrs. Scott. He also established that there are no mobile homes in the area. Mr. Carr requested more information on the violation. Mr. Tucker explained that the mobile home had been situated on property that did not belong to a relative of Mrs. Scott, but had been moved. The fact that it had been moved prompted the City and County Commonwealth Attorneys to defer the issuance of a warrant until the Board would review the matter. 661 Mr. Carr asked the applicant if the dealer who sold the mobile home explained that a special permit was required to locate a mobile home. Public hearing was closed and the matter went before the Commission. Dr. Sams was concerned that granting this special permit would establish a prece- dent. Mr. Tucker noted there is a mobile home behind a service station in the area, but it is not visible from Route 250. Dr. Sams withdrew his motion since this statement from Mr. Tucker made it invalid. Mr. Rinehart said that the Commission had allowed mobilesin the area and had not even required the owner to have conditions placed upon him. Therefore, he moved approval and Mr. Tinsley seconded. Mrs. Craddock stated that she would like to look at the site since there had been letters of opposition. Mr. Rinehart accepted the substitute motion to defer the matter until some members of the Commission could look at the site. Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion. Dr. Sams asked that the two opposing parties be notified by Mr. Tucker prior to the next meeting so that they could plan to attend. The vote was unanimous. Mr. Carr asked that a letter be written to National Mobile Homes to inform them that they had not abided by the long standing requirements set by the Commission to inform purchasers that a special permit was required; he requested a copy of the letter. At this point he was informed that National Mobile Homes no longer had a representative in the area. The petition was deferred until September 23, 1974. Greenhouse Nursery Site Plan: Mrs. Scala said in the staff report that when the preliminary plat was present, one major change was suggested. This was done, which moved the fill back 100 feet from Moore's Creek. This recommendation had been made by the Corps of Engineers. Square footage of floor space was revised to read 400 feet. Elevation is above 10C year flood level. Recommend no fill within 100' of centerline of Moore's Creek. The site plan was revised to show this. Would you like to have actual flood plain elevation shown on site plan. The sign they show must be 30' from the right-of-way. Final high- way department approval is needed. Must obtain grading permits and flood permits. Re- quired that everything is firmly anchored, regardless of type of structure. Actual nur- sery will be under building, which will be on piles. Accessory structures would have to also go before Site Plan Committee. Anything in flood plain would have to be in compli- ance with flood plain ordinance. The sign would have to have final Highway Department approval. Mr. Rinehart noted that this plan was submitted before new parking regulatiori4re passed by the Board, therefore there must be 1 parking space per 100 square feet of retail room. Mr. McClure reminded the Commission that there has been a lot of problems with this piece of property and suggested this was probably the best use for it and made the motion that it be approved with the following conditions (Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion): 1. Sign must be 30' from right-of-way; 2. No fill within 100' of center line of Moore's Creek; 3. Show actual flood plain elevation on plan; 4. Final Highway Department approval; 5. Must obtain grading permits and flood permits; 6. Everything must be firmly anchored, regardless of type structure and must comply with Flood Plan Ordinance. The motion passed unanimously. Kappa Sigma Training Center Site Plan: This is to be located on Kappa Sigma Grounds, 250 West. They will use a dorm type building with sleeping rooms on ground floor, conference rooms on the first floor. Pur- pose is to serve 30-60 men there on week -ends who are there for training sessions. These sessions are now taking place in the main building. This is not a new use, just a new building. Plan also provides additional parking. Must have erosion control plan; need grading permit approval; parking spaces should be delineated on plan (which is now a re- quirement of the parking ordinance). The Highways Department asked to defer comments on the entrance (there is an en- trance and an exit from the same area). The Site Plan Committee recommends a walk or path from the new parking area. The Fire Marshal will make recommendations about fire hydrants, etc. He recommends 1 fire hydrant in this area ---there is no ordinance to establish the ground rules, so this will be just a recommendation. David Gibson representing Kappa Sigma, explained the need for the facility. He pointed out that the assembly room could be used by civic organizations. He pointed out to the Commission that it had been established that no grading would be necessary. Mr. Rinehart said parking situation could be somewhat critical and suggested ex- panding the parking lot. He also pointed out that this would permit the Headquarters to better keep the appearance of a residence. Mr. Tucker suggested that they leave the parking situation for administrative approval. Mrs. Craddock questioned the drain -off and was informed that it would be taken underground to the ravine along the railroad track. She suggested that it go into a sewer. Mr. Rinehart moved approval but wanted to see the parking lot divided into 3-4 units to keep residential character; he wanted consultation by the Planning Department and to minimize the number of parking spaces. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion. Mr. Rinehart then amended his motion to include approval on everything except the parking lot. Mr. Tinsley seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Key West Subdivision Section #6: Mrs. Scala. read the staff report and explained that part of the property in ques- tion is A-1 and part is R-1. Sections 1 and 5 will be tied together via a loop. The staff recommends rezoning, but she pointed out that this is a preliminary plan. The Fire Marshal requires 2 fire hydrants and the Health Department must approve. Mr. Rinehart said approval should be conditional upon a well check. Mrs. Scala brought out that the water requirement was 1 gal./min. per dwelling. Mr. Rinehart moved approval conditioned upon water being adequate; 2 fire hydrants being placed; rezoning taking place; grading permit being obtained; setback lines being shown on final plan; loop being built for safety standards. Mr. Blue reminded the Commission that this was a preliminary and they only wanted the concept approved at this time. Mr. Rinehart made a motion that it be approved; Dr. Sams seconded. The vote was unanimous for preliminary approval. MINOR TRACT PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN: *900 Mrs. Scala read the staff comments which she noted were very general in nature. The engineers wanted the Commission's feelings on the concept. The site plan will consist between 550-600 units. Will be entirely condos with different building types two medium rise--7 stories and several 3 story apartment types; remainder will be townhouse type units. Plan allows for circle parking with open space in middle. It was pointed out to the applicant that through new condo laws: 1. Units should meet the zoning regulation of those physically identical under the present zoning ordinance. Was suggested that Greenbrier Drive will eventually be extended across this pro- perty --due to alignment of this road on the property that dedicates 600 feet width of Greenbriar Drive at this time. Wanted him to dedicate possible future access way to Westfield Road. Now the only access is Greenbriar Drive. Alignment of interior roads with Westfield Road is exactly ideal at present. Fire Marshal has made recommendations as far as .fire hydrants --he recommends 5 be required since this will be a subdivision. Mr. Sotirchos, the architect for the project, spoke about the site plan. He has made application to Service Authority concerning water and sewer. Felt right-of- way on Greenbriar should be 30 feet within his property rather than taking all 60' from this property. Spoke to Highway Dept. and said they had no specific recommendations. Would not like to open project to Westfield Road, but will dedicate a small piece of property if Commission recommends it. Questioned, on the other hand, if property owner that is south of his project will be willing to give so much from his land for connection. Design aimed to have as much space as possible. Explained that it was divided into 5 sections, approximately 100 units or 1 section per year and first section will include recreational facilities for whole area. Approximately 90% of whole project is open space. Pointed out that design is a new concept. Mrs. Craddock --How much area is in tennis area? --was informed there is 535'x120' for each court. Pool is very close, she was told, to Olympic size. She was instructed that the recreational area is approximately 4 of the entire project. Mr. Carr pointed out that 90% open space is a very favorable ratio. Applicant said that there were minimum roads. Mrs. Craddock suggested sidewalks for children walking to school. Mr. Rinehart suggested sidewalks for children walking to school along Whitewood Road. Hopefully children can cut through these 5 areas rather than going around by the road and where Greenbriar becomes a feeder for other areas, along the frontage of Green - briar or either the applicant will have to let them come thru this area. The applicant should think about how children can traverse that, and to get in a position to go up Whitewood Road. Mrs. Scala said the school system was aware of the proposal, but as yet had made no comments. a When asked, Mr. McClure stated that the gas line could not be used as/right-of-way. Mr. Rinehart moved preliminary approval subject to various conditions already men- tioned. Mr. Carr said to give the applicant a copy of the comments of the basic issues raised by the Commission in order that next time he appeared, they would be spoken to. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion which carried unanimously. Mr. Carr suggested to the applicant that he pursue the 60' right-of-way with the proper people, since it was probable that the County of Albemarle owned the adjoining property. It would be helpful if that were discussed prior to the Commission's meeting so there will be no delay. He told the applicant that there is no question that the road has to be extended. Stonehenge Sections 6 & 7 Site Plan: Mrs. Scala read the staff report. She told the Commission the sewer taps were settled in court. The sewer is not guaranteed, therefore they can't provide Certificates of Occupancy. She suggested to Mr. Rotgin, the applicant, that he revise the preliminary plan to take care of the off-street parking. She reported that Section 6 has 13 units and Section 7 has 25 units. The first two sections of Stonehenge have been approved and are presently in the process of getting Certificates of Occupancy. Bond has been posted for those that have not been completed. The only requirement not on the plat is the one fire hydrant required by the Fire Marshal. occur. Mrs. Craddock was concerned about the parking and wondered if congestion would Mr. Rinehart said he presumed the ordinance would take care of this. Mrs. Scala said no provisions were in the ordinance for ocaasional large gathering! at one dwelling. Mrs. Craddock said something should be done by the staff and perhaps the ordinance should be revised to consider the occasional large gatherings. Mr. Rotgin questioned the Commission about the location of the fire hydrant. After much discussion, Mr. Rotgin pointed out to the Commission that the risk is to the developer, since no one would live in the development without water and sewer. Mr. Rotgin also asked that if a road change became necessary if it could be approved administratively. At this point, Mr. Carr advised the Commission that they had two things to conside 1. Would they approve the change in the regular site plan? 2. Would they approve the site plan for Sections 6 & 7? Mr. Tinsley moved approval of the first and Mr. Barksdale seconded. It carried unanimously. Mr. McClure asked about the completion dates for the recreational facilities, since he felt that here were lots of houses without any recreational facilities. He mentioned to the applicant that he would hate to see the entire project completed before any of these provisions were made. Mr. Rotgin told the Commission that he did not feel that the approximate 10 families living in the project justified the completion of expensive recreational facili ties at this time, but they would be completed in the Spring. With this information, Mr. McClure moved approval; Mr. Tinsley seconded. The motion for final approval for Section 6 & 7 passed unanimously with the following condi- tions: 1. No Certificates of Occupancy would be issued till public water and sewage were available. The Commission gave the staff the authority to administratively approve the dele- tion of lot #10, if necessary. Cosmopolitan Spa Site Plan: Mrs. Scala told the Commission in her staff report that this spa was to be located in Westfield. The plan has been to the Site Review Committee. The Commission said that since the plans were done by an out-of-town architect approval should be with the following conditions: 1. Engineers check the drainage; 2. Grading permit be obtained; 3. Landscape Plan be submitted; 4. Final approval by the Highway Department. Mr. Tinsley moved approval with the above conditions; Mr. Rinehart seconded the motion which carried unanimously. 7-Eleven Store Site Plan: Mr. McClure disqualified himself from the discussion and voting and left the room. Mrs. Scala read the staff report and noted that the property is located between Old Lynchburg Road and Oak Hill. Mr. Rinehart moved approval and Mrs. Craddock seconded the motion conditional to the following: 1. Grading plan and permit submitted; 2. Final Highway Department approval; 3. Health Department approval; 4. Administrative approval of planting plan, and plan is to be brought back to the Commission if planting plan can't be worked out; and 5. Subject to property to south being zoned B-1. Mackie Engineering Office Site Plan: Mrs. Scala read the staff report and pointed out that there is an existing en- trance, will make use of an existing dwelling, and will expand parking area. The side is located across from Deerwood near Benoit Nursery. They have shown on the plan pro- posed relocation of road, since it was previously on someone elses property. Will have 3-4 employees in office at one time, and roughly 6 vehicles there at one time, including customer parking. The only recommendation the staff had was that parking should be delineated on the site plan. Mrs. Scala said that she was not sure if a landscape plan were necessary. Mrs. Craddock was informed that the property was zoned A-1, working under a special permit. Mr. McClure moved for approval with the following conditions (Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion): 1. Subject to parking spaces being delineated on the site plan; and 2. Submittal of planting plan satisfactory to the Planning staff. The motion carried. unanimously. 1 �41 Ampy Smith Subdivision Plat: Mrs. Scala gave the staff report that stated that this is two 2-acre lots on a state road. The staff recommended approval, and Mr. Rinehart made a motion to follow the staff's recommendation. Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. John Mays Subdivision Plat: Mrs. Scala reported to the Commission that this is one 2-acre lot on a state road, on which the staff recommended approval. Mr. Rinehart moved it be approved and Mr. McClure seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Lelia Raines Subdivision Plat: This is a request for additional footage onto a 30' right-of-way, Mrs. Scala reported in the staff report. She explained to the Commission that under the old ordinance such thingsaere approved with no problems, i.e. if there were an existing right-of-way with deed book reference, such things were administrative. Now, under the new ordinance, any such right-of-way needs approval of the Commission. In other words, there must be Planning Commission approval any time there is further subdivisio along an easement or right-of-way. There was some discussion as to the accuracy of the interpretation, and after discussion by Mr. McClure in which he pointed out that everything under 5 acres has to be approved by the Commission. However, he cited the case of Cushman vs. Farmington in reference to larger acreage. Mr. Rinehart moved approval on this basis. Mr. McClure seconded. The motion carried unanimously, after which Mr. McClure stated that he would talk to Mr. St. John about interpretation of right-of-way extensions. Clevester Logan Subdivision Plat: Mrs. Scala told the Commission that this is in an R-3 zone off Hydraulic Road. She said this is a permitted subdivision provided there is public water and sewer, which she stated is the intention of the applicant. There is an existing 10' right- of-way and the applicant was requesting the permission to dedicate an additional 15' to make a 25' right-of-way. This matter requires Planning Commission approval. She pointed out that the staff is requiring a note on the plat to make it official that tl city is serving the area with water and sewer. Mr. Tinsley moved approval of the additional 15' right-of-way and Mr. Barksd=<le seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Yellow Mountain Estates: Mrs. Scala reported to the Commission that according to the new Subdivi- sion Ordinance all subdivisions of 4 or more lots have to come before the Planning (-'-7 Commission. It was established that this property is zoned A-1. Mr. McClure moved approval conditional on a 75 foot setback with some variation subject to staff approval on corner lot B. Mr. Rinehart seconded and the Commission passed the motion unanimously. The meeting was adjourned.