Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 21 84 PC MinutesAugust 21, 1984 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, August 21, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Harry. Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel and Ms. Norma Diehl. Other officials present were: Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. James Donnelly, Director of Planning and Community Development; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. Willow Lake Preliminary Plat - Located west side of Route 20 South, just south of the intersection of Route 53. Proposal to create 40 single family lots, average lot size 20,179 square feet; and 80 townhouse lots to be developed as four (4) unit clusters with an average lot size of 2,559 square feet and 17.45 acres in common area. Scottsville Magisterial District. Zoned R-4, Residential. Tax Map 77E1, Parcels 1 and 2. Ms. Davenport gave the staff report. She added that the only two differences since the re -zoning was the realignment of the town- houses in a linear fashion and the two lots adjacent to the Lake- side Subdivision and Piedmont College had been changed to three. She confirmed that the number of townhouse lots and single family lots remains the same. She pointed out that the townhouses did have individual lots as opposed to common land. In response to Ms. Diehl's inquiry, Ms. Davenport explained the different phases proposed by the applicant. Phase 1: Lot 39, 4 townhouse units; and Lots 1-3 and 12-16. .Staff had recommended that the applicant go through site plan approval before the plat is approved. Phase 2: Everything on Maple drive. Phase 3: Five single family lots and construction of a road (she indicated the road on a map). Phase 4: Two lots (she indicated the lots on a map). Ms. Davenport added that all off -site utilities would be done on the first phase. Air. Bowerman invited comment from the applicant. Mr. Fred Hermanson, president of Willow Lake Developers, addressed the Commission. He discussed the changes which had been made in the proposal since the re -zoning. He stated the linear design had come about in order to save a cluster.of maple trees. The realignment also allowed larger lot sizes and allowed the creation of more single family units as a buffer. He stated that Rev. Lowe, the nearest adjacent property owner, had indicated he no longer objected to the project. He stated that the main entrance had been changed. He stated he had received support for the proposal from Piedmont Virginia Community College. He emphasized that every effort had been made to amend the plans in order to meet the legitimate questions of the adjacent property owners. 3b 3 August 21, 1984 Page 2 He stated that Ms. Davenport's statement regarding lot lines was not correct and.that lot lines have actually been drawn so that each lot can have a separate road. However, shared driveways have been requested in certain cases because they would least effect the community. He stated a request for ad- ministrative approval (after all agencies had been heard from) had been made in a effort to save both the applicants' time and the Commission's. Mr. Bowerman invited public comment. Mr.. Joseph Garland, a resident of Lakeside Subdivision, addressed the Commission. He stated that a former comment referring to 100% acceptance of this plan by the Lakeside residents was not accurate. He stated he felt the two documents the two groups had been working.with should be combined into one legal docu- ment. He stated the first document dealt with what the applicants would like to do for the Lakeside residents if they would agree to the new entrance. Discussion regarding this document had then led to the second document which asked for signatures from the Lakeside residents indicating their agreement with the consideration and.cooperation.the applicants had shown the Lakeside residents. He stated not all the ideas of the first document had been included in the second document. He added not all residents had signed the paper since some felt bits of rhetoric had been omitted which should have been retained as a safety measure for the Lakeside residents. He indicated those who had not signed would do so after this was done. In response to Mr. Bowerman's.inquiry, Mr. Garland explained the document in question was one which the applicants and the Lakeside residents had entered into of their own accord, and which stated the. Lakeside residents accepted the different proposals of gratuity offered by the ap- plicants in return for accepting the new entrance into Lakeside.. He added the Lakeside residents had understood this document would be submitted to the Commission for approval, which has not been done. Mr. Garland confirmed that unless all the Lakeside residents were in agreement regarding this document, they would resist allowing the applicants access onto their private road. He continued that the proposal has been a threat to the Lakeside development from its inception. He pointed out a previous ap- proval of the Willow Lake project had called for a different entrance and the Lakeside residents would have preferred that that entrance be kept, since they felt it was unfair to add another 500 vehicle trips onto their road each day. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question regarding whether the document described by Mr. Garland should be given consideration by the Commission, Mr.. Payne responded that he was not familiar with the status of the road and indicated he could not give an accurate answer. August 21, 1984 Page 3 Mr. Coffey, one of the applicants, addressed the Commission. He explained the document with the Lakeside residents was a separate agreement in which the applicants agree to pave an already existing private road in the Lakeside development in exchange for being allowed to use the Lakeside entrance. Mr. Wilkerson asked if the preliminary plat is approved at this time without the existence of such an agreement (i.e. without approval from the Lakeside residents to use their entrance), how would this effect the applicants' proposal. Mr. Coffey indicated there would be no effect since it would be possible to construct an entrance on their own land anyway. He added the applicants did not have to enter into such an agreement with the Lakeside residents, but had tried to do so in order to carry out a promise made to the Board to try to work with the surrounding property owners. In regard to Mr. Gould's inquiry as to where the differences between the two groups lie, Mr. Coffey responded there were disagreements concerning wording in regard to (1) water and sewer hook-up, and (2) use of recreational facilities. In response to Mr. Cogan's inquiry, Mr. Coffey confirmed it was his understanding that the applicants had the legal right to place the road in the proposed position regardless of Lakeside residents' approval. It was determined the Highway Department takes the position that it is dedicated right-of-way (dedicated to public use). In an attempt to clarify the ownership of the existing Lakeside entrance road, Mr. Garland explained that the Lakeside residents had always felt this road belonged to their development. He added that the developer had intended to turn the road over to the State for maintenance but had died before he had actually done so. However, before the developer had died, he had deeded the road to the State and the residents of Lakeside had been unaware of this until recently. He stated that some of the owners who do not understand the mechanics of such an action, still feel the road belongs to the Lakeside development. Mr. Cogan pointed out that he felt the important factor here is that one of the conditions of the re -zoning had been that the developer would work with the residents of Lakeside and he felt this was the compelling force behind these agreements. In response to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry regarding the status of the entrance, Mr. Payne stated the best way to handle this would be to add condition (j) as follows: Evidence of dedication to public use of Willow Lake Drive to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the County Attorney. _Aa51__ August 21, 1984 Page 4 Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Garland if the lack of public comment at this meeting was due.to the fact that most of the people Mr. Garland represented were in accord with the proposed agreement. Mr. Garland indicated this was true, though he pointed out he was not speaking for everyone involved, but his comments did represent the feelings of most of those present at the meeting. Mr. Garland confirmed his feeling that it would be possible to reach an agreement with the applicant which, though not perfect, would be acceptable to everyone. Mr. Gilliam addressed the.Commission and stated that Lakeside and Willow Lake had both originally been on a common parcel of. land owned by the same developer. When Lakeside was subdivided, the developer preserved,unto himself and his successors, the right to deal with the road.: He further explained that when the current applicant closes on the Willow Lake property, he will succeed to the developer's rights to deal with the entrance to that road. He stated the applicant believes the existing subdivision plat effectively dedicates that road to public use. He added that if this had not been effectively done, the applicant was in a position to do so now as successor in title. Mr. Gilliam stated the Highway Department had estimated this to be an approximately $57,000 project. Because -of credits under the cost -sharing formula and the subdivision credit, a balance of $9,500 remains to be paid by the citizens. The developer has agreed to pay $5,000, leaving $4,500 to be split.between the citizens, making the cost approximately $500 per lot. He stated his feelingthat every reasonable effort had been made to accommodate the citizens. Mr. Echols of the Highway Department indicated there were no problems with the road. Ms. Davenport confirmed that staff's conditions had attempted to incorporate all of the County Engineer's concern with the exception of requiring that Maple View Road be redesigned to provide frontage to lots 8 and 9. (She explained staff could not support this recommendation since the Subdivision Ordinance permits shared driveways.) She also confirmed that the applicant was seeking preliminary approval at this time, with staff approval of each one of the four phases. Mr. Payne stated the life of a.preliminary plat is six .months, with the. Commission able to authorize staff approval for final plats after that. Ms. Davenport confirmed the recommended conditions of approval were for final plats and were attached to each phase. August 21, 1984 Page 5 Ms. Davenport also explained that the applicant is proposing four separate lots with one building, noting that because they are attached housing they require site plan review. Mr. Skove ascertained that a duplex does not require a site plan. Mr. Bowerman noted that whereas the final plat can be approved as suggested by the applicant, the site plan would have to be reviewed for each townhouse. Ms. Diehl stated that, given the nature of the development, public interest, and lack of comment from necessary agencies, she felt the Commission should review the final plat for this division. Mr. Cogan stated that it is evident that the applicant has made an effort to work with the residents of Lakeside Subdivision as suggested by the Board of Supervisors. He pointed out that there is a country type setting in Lakeside, and noted that this is a high density development. He noted that when this plan was sub- mitted it showed a cul-de-sac adjacent to Lakeside and the new plan shows that the traffic has been shifted considerably towards Lakeside by a through road. He noted that the rights of the residents of Lakeside have to be considered as well as the rights of this developer. He further stated that because he felt the applicant and the residents of Lakeside are close to working out a mutual agreement, he would vote in favor of the preliminary plat but noted that he would still like to review the final plat in the event that this doesn't work out. Ms. Diehl noted that there are substantial changes in this plan from -what was approved in the rezoning petition. Mr. Payne explained that there is restriction from building on 25% slopes because they are environmentally sensitive. He noted that there is a provision in -the Zoning Ordinance that allows for building on 25% slopes as long as it is shown to the satisfaction of the County Engineer, as approved by the Commission, that it can be developed without adverse environmental impact. Mr. Payne read section 4.2.5, Modification of Regulations, from the Zoning Ordinance. He explained that the way this section has been applied in the past, by the Commission, is to have conceptual approval by the Commission leaving detailed approval to the County Engineer. Mr. Gould ascertained that this is a condition of approval for this preliminary plat. He also determined that the County Engineer has not responded to the waiver request (waiver request of 25% slopes). Mr. Elrod explained that he would need to see drainage plans, . site plan, etc., but stated that he felt this could be done without any major problems. Mr. Payne suggested adding the following condition: • Subject to County Engineer approval of construction on slopes in excess of 25%. August 21, 1984 Page 6 Mr. Gould stated he felt all parties concerned have worked to- gether as directed by the Board of Supervisors and noted that he did not feel the final plat needed to be reviewed by the Commission. Ms. Diehl stated she felt the final plat should be reviewed by the Commission as there are still unanswered questions. Mr. Cogan stated he also felt the final plat should be reviewed by the Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated that because of the unanswered questions, the concern of the public is subject to an agreement that is yet to be reached, and with the impact of this development on the area, he felt the final plat should be reviewed by the Commission. He also stated that because the'roadway is integral to the entire development, he felt there should be a final plat showing the entire development. He noted that the rezoning has been .approved by the Board of Supervisors. He questioned how integral a part of the rezoning was this site plan. Mr. Skove asked if there was a policy which required the paving of private driveways. Mr. Elrod stated that there is no policy which requires paving of private driveways, but noted that because this driveway is steep, erosion will occur and further stated that this will be a signifi- cant problem. Mr. Skove ascertained that the County Engineer has made this recom- mendation in the past, noting that it has been denied by.the Commission. He stated that he felt a policy should be established. Mr. Payne stated that one controlling factor is whether or not the building of driveways is exempt from the Soil Erosion Ordinance; if not, then the requirements. of the Soil Erosion Ordinance can apply. Mr. Gilliam stated that the problem with submitting a final plat for the entire subdivision at once is monetary. He noted the cost of.construction for internal roads, utilities, noting that this has been budgeted for in four phases. He noted that while they have no problem in submitting a plat showing the entire proposal, they.would like to work out an agreement with the County Attorney's office allowing them to bond by phases (as built). Mr. Bowerman suggested that the road plans for the entire develop- ment had to have final approval by the Highway Department with the first phase of development. Mr. Gilliam noted that a plat would not be put to record until the roads, utilities, etc., have been bonded. He pointed out that they do not want to bond more than what would be constructed in a single phase. August 21, 1984 Page 7 Mr. Skove ascertained that there are no sidewalks inthis development. Mr. Cogan moved for approval of this preliminary plat subject to the following conditions. As part of his motion he noted that the final plat showing the entire project would have to be ap- proved by the Commission, although the Commission is not requiring that the four phases be bonded at the same time. The final plat would be reviewed in the sense that this would be the layout of the road and lots. Each phase may be bonded separately and the con- ditions which are applicable to that phase must be met. The following conditions were approved prior to the signing of any final plat (Phase I -IV): 1. a. Issuance of erosion control permit (erosion control bond to include allowance for paving driveways; b. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and computations;) c. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation and County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans to include County Engineer approval of: 1) driveways serving more than one single family lot, including off-street parking provisions; 2) driveways in excess of 5% grade; 3) parking lot design and pavement specifications. d. County Engineer approval of pedestrian bridge design; e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans, including available connection capacity for each phase of development; f. Fire Officer approval of hydrant location and building separation; g. County Attorney approval of homeowner association docu- ments and shared driveway maintenance agreements; h. Staff approval of landscape plans by phase including the preservation of mature trees; i. Staff approval of recreation plans by phase; j. Evidence of dedication to public use of Willow Lake Drive to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of County Attorney; k. County Engineer approval of construction on slopes in excess of 25%. 2. Prior to the signing of a plat for any townhouse lot, site plan approval must be obtained. The Commission authorized Site Review Committee approval of townhouse lot site plans. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Davenport asked it the Commission wanted to review site plans of the townhouses, noting that staff recommended in the staff report that the site plans for the townhouses be approved by the Site Review Committee. M August 21, 1984 Page 8 Ms. Davenport also noted that, at this point, staff does not have authority to administratively approve site plans. Mr. Michel stated that the Commission would review the final plat but not individual site plans. Mr. Payne stated that the final plat would be reviewed by the Commission but noted that areas that contain other than single family dwellings are required to have site plan approval. He pointed out that staff is suggesting that the Commission authorize them to approve these site plans. Ms. Diehl ascertained that the individual townhouse plat would be reviewed by the Site Review Committee and approved by staff. Mr. Cogan included Site Review Committee approval of townhouse site plans in his motion.. The previously stated motion was unanimously approved. McElwain Final Plat - Located on the north side of Route 743, approximately 3/4 mile south of the intersection with Route 643. Proposal to create four lots ranging in size from 5.0 to 12.43 acres, served by a private road. Zoned RA, Rural Areas.. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Tax Map 45, Parcel 48. Ms. Davenport gave the staff report. In response to Ms. Diehl's inquiry regarding density, it was determined there would two dwelling units on a 12-acre parcel and all other parcels are at least five acres, thus meeting the requirements for a private road. It was determined the reason for staff's recommendation that the easement be moved away from the property line, at the entrance location, was because a private street commercial entrance requires at least 30 feet. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Larry McElwain, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained one parcel is being subdivided and the parcel which contains three units is not.a part of that, having been sub- divided earlier. This leaves one 30-acre parcel which currently has two dwellings upon it. The proposal is to take almost 19 acres at the back and divide it into 5-acre parcels, leaving the residue of 12 acres to serve five dwellings, two of which already exist. Regarding the entrance, he stated it is the radius that can be put up in order to locate the easement off the edge of the boundary line. He said the location for the entrance was selected because it offered the best sight distance. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. .3/O August 21, 1984 Page 9 In answer. to Mr. Cogan's and Mr. Bowerman's questions, Mr. Payne explained that the note on the plat which indicates two development rights means that it can be divided but it cannot be further developed. He reminded the Commission that develop- ment rights deal with construction of dwellings or lots. Mr. Michel moved that the McElwain Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met by the applicant: a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of private street commercial entrance permit; b. County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans; C. Issuance of Erosion Control permit; d. County Attorney approval of road maintenance agreement and homeowner association documents; e. Street sign installed or bonded; f. Compliance with Runoff Control Ordinance. 2. Upon the transfer of the residue parcel, both existing residences shall use the proposed private road. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Green Hill Farm Final Plat - Located on the east side of Route 712 at North Garden. Proposal to divide a 4.0 acre into 2 lots served by a private road. Applicant requests waiver of sight distance requirement. Tax Map 99, Parcel 62. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Ms..Scala gave the staff report. She confirmed that all that was being sought was a waiver of the sight distance requirement, otherwise this would not have come before the Commission since it is a family division. It was determined the distance between the driveway's entrance on to Rt. 712 and the railroad overpass was approximately 150' to 2001. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Ms. Cathy Womack, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. She made the following two corrections to Ms. Scala's report: (1) The underpass is two lanes, not one; and (2) Facing the entrance, the house immediately to the left is also occupied by a family member. Explaining the history of the family briefly, she stated this was a family farm operation that has been in existence for fifty years. Family members who work on the farm either live on the site or on adjacent property. She stated Mr. Ben Thomas, his wife and mother currently live on the farm. However, Mr. Thomas would like his own home and thus the reason for this subdivision. Regarding the entrance, she stated Mr. Morris, owner of the property to the right of August 21, 1984 Page 10 entrance, has indicated he is willing to do anything reasonably possible to obtain sight distance to the South and, based on the Highway Department's recommendations, the applicant believes it will be possible to obtain this sight distance. The problem lies with the sight distance to the north and nothing can be done because it is a railway underpass. She further explained that because of the unusual way the underpass is con- structed, it is virtually impossible for a vehicle to come through the underpass at much more than the advised safe speed limit (10 mph). She stated the entranceway has been in use for many years and the family cannot recall there ever having been an accident. She stated there are currently seven adults using the road, including the Morrises (neighbors). She pointed out that granting the waiver would not result in increased usage of the entrance. She stated there are no plans for expanding the farm. She stated the applicants -are not aware of any objections to the proposal. She pointed out there would not be a change in, the usage of the property, and.requested that the Commission grant the waiver of the sight -distance requirement to the north. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. .Echols (Highway Department) if the sight distance is based on the speed limit or the posted speed of 10 mph. Mr. Echols explained the sight distance requirement is based on the riding speed of the roadway. He.said the 10 mph is a cautionary speed advising people that it is a very sharp curve. It is not a legal posted speed, but serves as a warning. He indicated he was uncertain as to what speed had been used in determining sight distance in this case, but he was certain what existed was not adequate based on the road plan. He stated the sight distance to the north was about 180' to the underpass. He explained there was a blindspot within the underpass. He stated the stopping distance would also be inadequate should. a car be stopping to make a left turn. (i.e. A car going south, coming from under the underpass, to make a left turn into this entrance would not have sufficient stopping sight distance and could be hit from the rear.) Mr. Echols stated he thought it might be possible to do 15 to.20 mph through the underpass. He further explained. that because of the design of the road ("S" curve) both lanes were needed to make the curve, thus making it a one lane road. Mr. Cogan stated he felt it was not possible to do 15 to 20 mph through this section and, being familiar with the road, he further stated that most cars stop since it was not possible to see through the underpass. He indicated he would have no problem granting the waiver for the northern.sight distance, provided the sight distance to the south was taken care of. .T August 21, 1984 Page 11 Ms. Diehl stated that, although she is not normally in favor of waivers, she felt the circumstances in this case would lead her to be in favor of the request. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the request for a waiver of the sight distance requirement to the north, for the Green Hill Farm Final Plat, be approved due to the unusual circumstances of the rail- way overpass. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was approved with Messrs. Wilkerson, Cogan, Bowerman, Gould and Michel and Ms. Diehl voting.in favor, and Mr. Skove voting against. Hydraulic Road Apartments (Arbor Crest) _ Revised Site Plan - To addparking deck for 32 cars. Located east side of Route 743 (Hydraulic Road). Zoned R-15, Residential. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Tax Map 61, Parcel 39. Ms. Scala gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant continent. Mr. John Tate, representing the applicant, addressed the. Commission. He stated there was approximately 35' difference in elevation between Hydraulic Road and the structure, making it virtually invisible from Hydraulic Road. He stated there was a 25' natural buffer between the structure and adjacent property. He did not know whether or not the structure would be visible during the winter. He stated the owners have no problem with granting to the Authority the easements required and the applicant will main- tain the easements. He indicated the current parking for the apartments is inadequate. He stated wherever a natural buffer did not exist, a fence would be erected. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Ron Bouchard, a resident of Oak Forest, addressed the Commission. He indicated he was in agreement with staff regarding the application. He also indicated he found it difficult to believe that visitor parking or the possibility of tenants having more than one automobile had not originally been anticipated. He also pointed out that there are number of children in the area which this structure would attract. He was concerned with the potential run-off from the structure. Mr. Bouchard was opposed to the parking deck. Mr. James Luehman, a resident of Oak Forest, addressed the Commission. He pointed out that the applicant and the developer had requested the variance from the required number of spaces originally. He also stated that the apartment complex does not currently have a decel lane on Hydraulic Road, and more parking spaces would indicate more traffic. He stated he was concerned about the precedent that would be set by approval of this proposal which would allow people with commercial property to apply for ,3/3 August 21, 1984 Page 12 similar variances in order to be able to erect parking structures and thus make more of their land available for building. He indicated he was opposed to the request. Mr. Anthony Valente,owner of property on Solomon Road and in Oak Forest, addressed the Commission. He stated he was concerned that the applicant was requesting a second variance and indicated he did not understand the Commission's position on granting variances. Mr. Robert Walters, a homeowner on Oak Forest Circle, addressed the Commission. He indicated he was concerned about the noise from the traffic in the Jefferson Towne area and he was also concerned about what might ultimately happen to the property, i.e. would it remain for the elderly, or would another variance be requested changing it to multiple dwellings. Mr. Harrison Turner; a homeowner in Oak Forest, addressed the Commission and expressed his opposition to the proposed parking deck. He referred to the petition against the proposal which had been signed by most all residents of Oak Forest. Mr. Dave Johnson, a homeowner "inside the circle" (Oak Forest), addressed the Commission. He stated he thought it was unusual that there had been no contact between the developer and the people affected by this development. Mr. Phil Goodwill, a resident of Oak Forest Circle, addressed the Commission. He indicated he was opposed to the proposal. Mr. Ron urban, a resident of Oak Forest, addressed the Commission. He expressed his opposition since he felt this structure would invite a lot of "cross -cutting" by pedestrians through the Oak Forest area. He was also concerned about increased run-off problems. Mr. Alex Tereszcuk, a resident of Oak Forest, addressed the Commission. He questioned why, if the.original them of this development had been to serve the elderly, had there been no provisions for elevators in the original plan. He indicated the residents of Oak Forest are beginning to feel that there was actually another reason for the development, thus the need for this variance. He also stated the Oak Forest area has not appreciated as have other areas in the City and County because it seems that everything is being "dumped" into this area. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated the staff had presented the concerns very well. Recalling the development as it had originally been presented, he suggested that perhaps the density of the development was too steep for the property. August 21, 1984 Page 13 Mr. Skove indicated he was in agreement with staff's concerns. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Hydraulic Road Apartments (Arbor Crest) - Revised Site Plan be denied. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. It was determined thatdenial was being recommended because installing this deck would interfere with the landscaping and natural area which was the subject of the bonus and it would also be an infringement of the density requirements of the Ordinance. To secure approval, the density on the site would have to be reduced so as to be consistent with the use permitted by right in the R-15 zone. Regarding Mr. Valente's former question about how variances are granted, Ms. Diehl explained that this is a function of the Board of Zoning Appeals, not the Commission. There being no further discussion, the above stated motion for denial was unanimously approved. Sherwood Farms, Tracts 1-5, Final Plat - Located off the south side of Route 29 South, on the south side of Mountainview and Overlook Drives. Proposal to divide 73.46 acres into 5 tracts ranging in size from 6.556 to 19.207 acres. Previously ap- proved, expired plat (plat approval expired June 22, 1984). Applicant requests administrative approval of final plat. Tax Map 76N, Parcel 8, part of. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. It was determined the applicant had requested deferral -until August 28. Mr. Wilkerson moved, and Mr. Michel seconded, that the applicant's request for deferral be approved. The motion was unanimously approved. Farmington Hunt Club (SP-84-9) - Located on the northwest side of Route 671, near Buck Mountain. Compliance with special permit requires Planning Commission review of proposed uses of clubhouse. Tax Map 16, Parcel 26. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. White Hall Magisterial District. It was determined that staff has requested deferral until August 28. Mr. Michel moved, and Mr. Wilkerson seconded, that staff's request for deferral be approved. The motion was unanimously approved. August 21, 1984 Page 14 There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. CLA ames R. Donnelly, Secretary Recorded by: Janice Wills Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms (3--5-85)