Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 27 81 PC MinutesOctober 27, 1981 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public meeting on Tuesday, October 27, 1981, 7:30 p.m., Meeting Room #5/6, Second Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman, Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman, Mr. Allen Kindrick, Mr. Richard Cogan, Mr. James R. Skove, and Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr.. Other officials present were Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney, Ms. Katherine L. Imhoff, Planner and Ms. Mason Caperton, Senior Planner. Absent from the meeting was Mr. Kurt Gloeckner. After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order. Ashcroft, Phase I, Section III, Final Plat - located on the southeast side of Lego Drive, east of North Pantops Drive in the Ashcroft Planned Residential Development (off the north side of Rt. 250 East); proposal to divide 19.987 acres into 17 lots providing 6.842 acres in open space. Rivanna District. (Tax Map 78, portion of parcels 55 and 51E). Ms. Imhoff presented the staff report. Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment. Mr. Cooper pointed out that the Planning Staff has been working with him to try to determine the building setbacks for each lot. He stated that some flexibility should be allowed regarding these setbacks in order to allow for a good building site with two septic drainfields and staying outside the 25% slope area. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the septic systems could be located in the setback area. With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mrs. Diehl noted that public water will be available to the site and asked when this will be provided to the individual homes. Mr. Cooper stated that they expect public water to be available to the individual homes in approximately one year. Mrs. Diehl asked if the homes are intended to be occupied before public water is available. Mr. Cooper stated that the homes will be occupied before public water is available. He pointed out that there is a private well system which has been approved by the health department, and will serve approximately twenty-five (25) homes. Mr. Payne stated that the following condition could be added to the recommended conditions of approval for this plat: • Fire Official approval of building separation for fire prevention purposes. Ms. Imhoff explained to the Commission the formula used by the Staff to determine the building setbacks for each lot. Mr. Skove moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat can be signed when the following conditions have been met by the applicant: a. Note residue acreage; b. Provision of a street sign; c. County Attorney approval of homeowner's association agreement; d. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of off -site water construction plans; e. Fire Official approval of hydrant location and approval of fire flow when public water is available; f. Staff approval of setbacks proposed by the applicant to comply with condition AM of ZIN1A-80-03; g. The entrance of Ridgeway Lane onto Lego Drive must meet Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation sight distance requirements and specifications; h. Compliance with the Soil Erosion & Sedimentation Control Ordinance; i. Compliance with ZMA-80-03; j. Fire Official approval of building separation for fire prevention purposes. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Miran Forest, Section 3, Preliminary Plat - located on the south side of Route 692, 1.5 miles southeast of Batesville; proposal to divide a portion of the previously approved natural area into four parcels with an average size of 6.35 acres, one 5.9 acre natural area parcel, and two parcels greater than 21 acres. Samuel Miller District. (TM 85, parcel 40). Ms. Caperton presented the staff report. Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment. Dr. Samuel Caughron, the applicant, stated that this division is requested in order to build homes for family members. He noted that the road into this property is approximately 8,500 feet in length and 20 feet wide, and built to the specifications of the County. He further stated that the cost to prime and double seal this road is excessive and asked the Commission to grant his request for a waiver of Section 18-36(c)(1) of the Subdivision Ordinance. He also pointed out that the existing road is in good condition and is covered by a maintenance agreement. Dr. Caughron noted that there was a letter of opposition to this division, stating that the natural areas should not be disturbed. Dr. Caughron pointed out that they do not intend to disturb the natural area. With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter is before the Commission. Mrs. Diehl asked if parcels A and B are intended for building purposes. Dr. Caughron stated that parcel A is the existing manor house and parcel B, may be built: on at a later date, he also noted that there are no plans for a division of these parcels. 6/7 Mrs. Diehl stated that there are five lots which would be using this road. Mr. Payne stated that there are six lots which would use the road, explaining that the natural area should be viewed by the Commission as a building site. Mr. Davis ascertained that they are dividing a previous natural area. Mr. Payne stated that a convenant will be put on these parcels stating that they can not be built on and are to be used for open space or recreational area. He noted that this is not entirely reliable, as the owners in the subdivision, if they agree among themselves, could change this. Mr. Payne stated that as far as the County is concerned the natural area can be re -divided and each lot, as long as it meets the setback requirements, etc. can be built on. He stated that the Commission should consider this even though the applicant has stated that they do not intend to divide this. Mr. Davis stated that he felt the road should be primed and double sealed. Mrs. Diehl pointed out that the alternative suggestion of the County Engineer requires a 16 foot road width with a 6 inch base and prime and double seal surface treatment. Ms. Caperton pointed out that if the road were built to state standards it would have to be paved. Mr. Skove questioned the number of lots allowed to use a private road. Mr. Payne stated that it was the intention of the Board of Supervisors to prohibit private roads for over twenty (20) lots. He further stated that as the ordinance is written, in his opinion, this does not prohibit a subdivision of twenty lots from having a private road. Mr. Payne pointed out that a road serving more than twenty lots has to be constructed to state standards. Mr. Cogan noted that there are steep grades in this road which would cause deterioration of the gravel surface. Mr. Davis stated that because of economic pressures he felt that if the road was 16' wide with 6" base and prime and double seal, this would be sufficient. Mrs. Diehl stated that given the length of the road and the size of the lots, she could support the alternative of the County Engineer. (ALTERNATIVE: 16' road width with a 6" base and prime and double seal surface treatment). Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the width of the road is 20' wide with a gravel base. Dr. Caughron stated that at the homeowners last meeting, they discussed the possibility of bringing parts of this road to state standards (prime and double seal) and noted that there was opposition to this because in improving this road they felt there would be more traffic generated. Mr. Cogan asked if under the existing maintenance agreement, would the present owners have to pay if the Commission requires this road to be prime and double seal. Co�£� Mr. Payne stated that this is the responsibility of the developer not the individual homeowner. Mr. Davis stated that he felt the cost to maintain a gravel road is higher than that of maintaining a road with prime and double seal. Mr. Skove stated that he could support the alternative suggested by the County Engineer. (ALTERNATIVE: 16' road width with a 6" base and prime and double seal surface treatment). 1A.s. Caperton reiterated that there are five parcels being divided, two of which are over twenty-one acres. Mr. Bowerman asked what the possibility would be of public traffic using this road as thorough -fare, noting that this would impact the cost to homeowners. Dr. Caughron stated that at this time there are tractor and trailers using this road and public traffic would increase if this road were built to state standards. Moir. Bowerman asked if there is liability on the part of the owner for public using a private road. Mr. Payne stated that the member of the public would be considered a trespasser. Mr. Bowerman stated that he felt this would be brought back to the Commission in the future requesting that this road be taken into the state system. He further stated that he does not feel that prime and double seal is the ultimate answer unless the road is restricted from thorough traffic or there is no connection from one end to the other. Mr. Cogan stated that he also favors the alternative suggestion of the County Engineer. Mr. Davis moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions will be recommended for final approval: a. Delete the "no further division note." A special use permit will be required for any additional development. b. A road sign will be required; c. Profiles for building sites will be required for approval by the County Engineer prior to Planning Conudssion review of the final plat; d. Provide an overlay mapping the drainfield sites within each building site; e. Remove the building site designated on the natural area parcel; f. County Attorney approval of the addition of these .lots in the maintenance agreement; g. County Engineer approval of road improvement plans to reflect the alternative noted in the memo dated October 26, 1981, for 6" of base with prime and double seal. Ar. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-1. Mr. Bowerman voted against the motion. DTSC11.SST0N- IM Dr. Caughron asked if these lots could be released prior to the time the road is brought 66 up to state standards. Ms. Caperton stated that the applicant has to submit a final plat for the Commission's approval first, noting that the road can be bonded for recordation of the plat. Samuel Byers Final Plat - located off the southeast side of Route 649, near Proffitt; proposal to divide 6.15 acres into 2 lots, leaving 3.2 acres residue. Rivanna District. (TM 46, parcel 33 and TM 47, parcel 1C). Ms. Caperton presented the staff report. Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment. Forbes Reback, representing the applicant, stated that they requested Mr. Kindrick to look at this property with them, noting that he may be able to answer concerns the Commission may have. He stated that the applicant is proposing to buy three acres from the land adjoining his property in the rear in order to build a home for his daughter. Mr. Reback stated that it was unclear,in 1979, as to the right-of-way on Old Burnt Mill Road, so a 15 foot right-of-way was obtained for the entire road. He noted that this road is used at the present time by three families. Mr. Reback pointed out that there is 255' of sight distance to the north and that there is adequate sight distance to the south. He stated that the applicant could not afford to prime and double seal this road and asked the Commission to grant the waiver of Sections 18-36 (c) (1) and (2) . Mr. Bowerman ascertained that there are four parcels which will be using the road. Mr. Reback stated that the two adjoining farms own to the center of this road, but they do not use the road. Mr. Reback stated that any further development of this property would have to be approved by the Commission. With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mr. Davis pointed out that the ordinance speaks to odd shaped lots, but noting the size of the acres, he has no problems with granting the requested waiver. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the parcel in the rear of the Byers property is the residue for the Herndon property. Mr. Kindrick stated that there is adequate sight distance, but noted that leaving the property going towards Proffitt there is some trouble with sight distance. Mr. Davis reiterated that he has no problems with granting the requested waivers. Mr. Kindrick moved for approval of this plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following conditions: �ZD a. Provide a second sheet showing the survey of the residue of the Herndon property (Parcel 33, TM 46); b. Provide all owners notarized signatures; c. Delete the note assigning the development rights since this will be reviewed again if further subdivision is contemplated; d. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement between all users of the road, if possible; e. County Engineer approval of road improvements in lieu of requirements in Table 1. Mr. Davis seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Frank Milton Miles, Jr., Final Plat - Requests deferral until December 17, 1981. Mr. Skoved moved to accept the request for deferral of this plat until December 17, 1981. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Berkmar Center Site Plan - located on the east side of Berkmar Drive; north of Route 29 North; proposal to locate mixed retail and office uses in five buildings on 6.4S acres. Charlottesville District. (U4 61U, Parcels 1-7, Section 2). Ms. Caperton presented the staff report. Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment. Fred Pugsley, representing the applicant, stated that he would respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have. With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that the technical information requested by the Staff at the site review meeting had been complied with. Mr. Bowerman asked if drainage plans for adjacent properties were taken into consideration by the County Engineer when approval is given for an individual proposal. Psis. Caperton stated that the plans would have to be in compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance. Mr.Pugsley stated that the contours are adjusted where needed regarding the adjacent property. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that there are two ponct on the property. Mr. Skove ascertained that the pavement specifications have been approved by the County Engineer. Uzi M Mr. Skove asked Mr. Payne if this plan is approved by the Commission, do they need to speak to the number of lots. Mr. Payne stated that this is covered in the recommended conditions of approval suggested by the Staff. (C: Vacate the previously approved plat and note the modified easement by separate deed or plat if the buildings are to be solely leased). Mr. Skove ascertained that if construction is not started within eighteen months then this approval is void. Mr. Davis moved for approval of this site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Building permits will be processed when the following conditions have been met by the applicant: a. Fire Official final approval of hydrant locations, provisions for the handi- capped, fire flow and fire wall placement; b. Modification of the easement location to reflect the location of the proposed road and that the proposed underpass be specified in the modified deed; both are subject to County Attorney approval; c. Vacate the previously approved plat and note the modified easement by separate deed of plat if the buildings are to be solely leased; d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrances; e. County Engineer approval of final stormwater drainage plans; f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; internal plumbing and mechanical plans and specifications shall be approved by the Cross Connection Control Program; g. Record a sight distance easement to improve sight distance to the north from the center entrance if required by the Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation; h. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance; 2. Certificates of occupancy will be issued when the following conditions have been met by the applicant: a. Recordation of subdivision plat(s) for areas to be sold; b. Staff approval of detailed landscaping plan. Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Village Square Preliminary Plat - located on the west side of Route 631 (Rio Road (East), south of the intersection with Route 768 (Pen Park Road); proposal to divide 19.274 acres into lots intended for 91 dwelling units (single family, duplex, triplex, and townhouse units) with a proposed density of 4.72 dwelling units per acre and 4.82 acres in common open space. Rivanna District. (TM 61, Parcels 180 and 181). Ms. Caperton presented the staff report. Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment. Qz Bill Roudabush, representing the applicant, stated that the highway department will not maintain parking areas within a townhouse complex, noting that this is why they are requesting a waiver of Sections 18-36(b) (4) and (5) of the Sub- i division Ordinance. He also stated that there will be a homeowners agreement to maintain the parking area and loop drive within the townhouse area. Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment concerning this preliminary plat. Dr. VandeCastle, an adjacent property owner, noted the amount of traffic at the present time on Rio Road. He stated that an additional ninety units would increase the traffic to a degree that travel on this road will be dangerous. He noted that there are problems with sight distance on this road and asked the Commission to take these factors into consideration. Joan Graves stated that she felt the Commission should not consider the VOTEC School as a school where a majority of the children would attend, when awarding bonus factors. With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any comment from the highway department concerning the entrances for this site. Ms. Caperton read the following from a letter dated October 1, 1981, from the highway department: " Adequate sight distance exists for commercial entrance. Divided entrance as shown should be eliminated and 100' x 12' turn lane and 100' taper pro- vided. We recommend curb and gutter street design for internal roads since it appears these will be state maintained, they must be designed in accordance with the appropriate standards found in the subdivision manual. Of critical concern are entrances to the first six lots. Special attention should be placed such that vehicles using these entrances are not required to back out onto Village Place. The cul-de-sac at the end of Village Place should be offset to the left such that the private street in effect is an extension of Village Place." Mr. Roudabush stated that a plan was submitted for all of the single family lots which provides for joint entrances on every other lot where automobiles can turn around, eliminating the need to back onto the street. Mrs. Diehl stated her concern about the bonus requested concerning wooded areas. Mr. Payne stated that the bonus for wooded areas is based on the size of the trees and the number per acre. NIs. Caperton that a 15% bonus, a total of 11 units, could be obtained from this bonus. She noted that the overall bonus proposed to be used is for 14 units, among the four bonuses requested they could have 38 units and they are using only 14. Mr. Roudabush stated that they went on the site to locate the trees which would meet the definition in the ordinance regarding wooded areas. He stated that the entrance had to be moved to the south because they were trying to save several large trees near the entrance. He reiterated that they meet the definition for wooded areas. 6L Mrs. Diehl questioned the location of the sewer line. Mr. Roudabush pointed out on the plat the location of the sewer line, noting that this has been staked on the ground to make sure that the trees will not be interfered with. Mr. Bowerman noted the traffic conditions on Rio Road and stated that he felt if developments were approved on this road a crisis situation could occur. He stated that he could not continue to approve developments along Rio Road with no idea of the time table for improvements to this road, nor the availability of state funds for these improvements. He stated that he felt it is a danger to the public health, safety and welfare to continue to approve developments along Rio Road. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne to explain how the Commission determines legally that this would be a danger to public safety. Mr. Payne stated that the ordinance provides that the Commission is not required to approve anything, that in their opinion, constitutes danger to public health, safety and welfare. He explained that it the Commission finds that this sub- division constitutes a danger to public health, safety or welfare then they could deny it, noting that this can be exercised only in the most limited circumstances. He explained that expert evidence would be needed that would give a basis for this denial. Mr. Payne also stated that if the applicant disagrees with the denial and challanges their ruling, the Commission would have to convince a court of law that their decision was correct. 1,1r. Payne explained that non -tolerable relates to the sufficiency of maintenance of the road. Non -tolerable is such that given the traffic that is using the road it can not be maintained in any reasonable cost level in a reasonable fashion. Mr. Bowerman reiterated his concern about the traffic on Rio Road stating that this concern should be addressed before additional development is allowed in this area. Mr. Payne explained to the Commission that the County does have the authority to improve roads in a suburban situation. Mr. Skove pointed out that the proposed McIntire Extension would eliminate some of the traffic congestion on Rio Road. Mrs. Diehl stated that she felt expert advice was needed concerning the traffic generation on this road and that the Commission needs to consider this problem in detail. Mr. Payne stated that the Commission needs to engage a consultant traffic engineer to discuss the traffic problems. He also noted that this engineer would have to approach this concern keeping in mind the availability of funding. Mr. Davis stated that this problem should be taken into consideration when the comprehensive plan is updated. �z� Mr. Bowerman ascertained that this proposal is expected to be built within next three years. Mr. Horn stated that twenty five single family units would be built in the first phase and the remaining sixty lots would be divided equally in the second and third phases . Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Horn if they faced problems in selling these units based upon the highways that service them. Mr. Horn stated that he did not think the potential buyer would recognize this problem. He also stated that he felt the traffic problem on Rio Road was due to the number of people that use the road as a thorough fare. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that preliminary approval has been obtained for stormwater detention, stormwater drainage plans and the road plans and profiles. Mr. Davis moved for approval of this preliminary plat subject to the following conditions: 1. The following conditions will be recommended for final approval: a. Virginia Department of Highways $ Transportation approval of the commercial entrance; b. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road plans for acceptance into the State system; this includes the provision for on -street parking on Towne Lane, urban curbing; a sidewalk on the south side of both streets and the private entrance *490 designs; c. Albemalre County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans, internal plumbing and mechanical plans and specifications shall be approved by the Cross Connection Control Program; d. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plan, stormwater drainage layout; e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance; f. Board of Supervisors acceptance of 1.706 acre parcel dedication for the McIntire Road Extension; g. County Attorney approval of homeowners agreement to include the main- tenance of stormwater drainage and appurtenant structures, landscaping and wooded areas; h. Staff approval of pathway specifications prior to approval for Phase III; i. Correct the bonus for location with z mile of the Vocational Technical School from 15% to 50; j. Street trees shall be maintained on the frontage of lots 10-17, Phase subject to Staff approval and street trees shall be provided along the frontage of lots 7-9, 18-22 and 25 (at least one per lot), subject to staff approval; k. Street signs shall be provided; 1. County Engineer approval of pavement specifications for the privately owned portion of Towne Lane; m. Fire Official approval of fire flow and hydrant location; n. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for the private portion of the road. Vol Mr. Davis included in his motion the waiver request to allow the twenty-two townhouses to be located on a private road (Section 188-36(b)(4) and (b)(5). Mr. Skove seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4-2. Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Cogan voted against the motion. Village uaare, Phase One, Final Plat - located on the west side of Route 631 (Rio Road Ease), south of the intersection with Route 768 (Pen Park Road); proposal to divide 9.50 acres into 25 lots for single family attached units with a density of 2.63 dwelling units per acre and 1.365 acres in common open space. Rivanna District. (TM 61, Parcels 180 and 181). Ms. Caperton presented the staff report. Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment. Mr. Roudabush, representing the applicant, stated that they would respond to any questions or concerns the Commission may have. With no comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the Corruuuission. Mr. Davis stated that this plat is the same as the preliminary and moved for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. The plat will be signed when the applicant has met the following conditions: a. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of the commercial entrance; b. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of road plans for acceptance into the State system; this includes the provision for on -street parking on Towne Lane, urban curbing, a sidewalk on the south side of both streets and the private entrance designs; c. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; internal plubming and mechanical plans and specifications shall be approved by the Cross Connection Control Program; d. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and stormwater drainage layout; e. Compliance with the Soil Erosion Ordinance; f. Fire Official approval of fire flow and hydrant location; g. Board of Supervisors acceptance of 1.706 acre parcel dedication for the McIntire Road Extension; h. County Attorney approval of homeowners agreement to include the main- tenance of stormwater drainage and appurtenant structures, landscaping and designated wooded areas; i. Street trees shall be provided along the frontage of lots 7-9, 18-22 and 25 (at least one per lot), maintenance of trees along the frontage of lots 10-17 subject to Staff approval; j. Street signs shall be provided. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 4-2. Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Cogan voted against the motion. (D & Residential Treatment Center Temporary Site Plan - Request for Extension - located on the east side of Route 780, north of the intersection with Route 31; proposal to request an extension of the site plan to allow for five temporary modular units. Scottsville District. (TM 76, parcel 46A, portion of). 14.s. Caperton presented the staff report. Mr. Payne stated that his firm is involved with this application but he does not feel that there is a conflict of interest. Mrs. Diehl asked if the applicant had any comment. Fred Russell, representing the applicant, stated that Western State is funded until December .31, 1981 and that they would like to be available when this institution closes. He noted that sewer will be on line November 2, he also stated that they plan to comply with all the safety requirements. He asked the Commission to act favorably on their request. Mrs. Diehl asked if there was any public comment concerning this site plan. Gaston Fornes, an adjacent owner, stated that he felt the Commission should approve the applicant's request. Bruce Rassmussen, representing Sherwood Manor Homeowners Association, stated that when this site plan was approved in March, the Commission was assured that the permanent structures would be under construction by September. He stated that they did not feel this site plan should be submitted in a piece meal fashion. With no further comment from the public, Mrs. Diehl stated that this matter was before the Commission. Mr. Davis asked the applicant if it will be possible to build permanent structures in the remaining sixteen months. Mr. Russell stated that it is his understanding that the permanent structures will be completed within the next twelve to eighteen months. Mrs. Diehl reiterated that application for the temporary structures was granted for a six month time period, until September 17, 1981. At the end of that time the construction of the permanent structures shall have commenced whereupon the Commission may allow for an extension of occupancy of this plan for a period not to exceed eighteen months. Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant if he had a bond for the temporary buildings. Mr. Russell stated that they had to obtain a resolution approving the permanent facility, but the temporary facility will not be financed by IDA (Industrial Development Authority) bonds. OR Mrs. Diehl stated that she is relucant to grant the extension for the temporary structures and noted that she would like to see some work done on the permanent facility. Mr. Kindrick stated that he has no problem in approving the extension for the temporary structures, but noted that he did not feel the completion date for the permanent facility should be extended (March 17, 1983). Mr. Davis stated that he did not feel that the Commission was advised of the difficulties involved when permission was granted for the temporary structures. He stated that he can not support the request for an extension. Mr. Cogan stated that he agrees with Mr. Davis and he cannot support this request. Mrs. Diehl also stated that she could not support this request noting that she would like to see a permanent structure. Mr. Davis moved to deny the request for an extension of the site plan to allow for five temporary modular units. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 4-2. 111r. Bowerman and Mr. Kindrick voted against the motion. OLD BUSINESS: Fire Official and County Engineer were requested to explain `%Wwtheir procedures to the Commission. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Cortez, the Fire Official, if he would explain his procedure for granting approvals of fire flow. Mr. Cortez stated that he does not mind giving preliminary approvals when a site plan is submitted, but noted that once this approval has been granted, the location of the entrances may change which causes the hydrant locations to be altered. He stated that he likes the hydrant to be located, if possible, on the highway right- of-way. Mr. Cortez stated that the following are general conditions required for a site plan: • hydrants must be located no closer building; • hydrants in a residential area are • hydrants in a shopping center are diameter of the building. than 50' nor more than 400' from the to be located every 800' along the roadway; to be located every 500' around the Mr. Cortez stated that the information given at site review, concerning fire flow, is not the information they receive when the building plans are submitted. He noted that the type of occupancy, what will be put in the building, are questions that are not asked at site review. He further stated that until all the necessary information is submitted he can only give preliminary approvals. Mr. Cogan stated that on plans which are very similiar preliminary approval was given on one and final approval on the other. He stated that he felt this should be consistent and questioned why the difference in the approvals. Mr. Cortez stated that the difference in approvals may be because he has spoken with the developer or architect for this project and more detailed information has been given pertaining to the use of the building, etc. Mr. Cortez stated that he relies upon the Commission to enforce the fire flow, as there is no law that allows him to make this recommendation. He stated that he is recommending to the Commision what he feels the fire flow should be and this can be enforced only if they include this in their conditions of approval for the site. Ms. Caperton stated that a condition could be added to read: Fire Official approval of recommended fire flow. Mr. Payne stated that there is a section in the ordinance which provides that hydrant location and fire flow requirements should be as prescribed by ISO standards and subject to approval of Albemarle County Fire Official. The Commission and Mr. Cortez agreed to add the following condition to the conditions of approval: • Fire Official approval of required fire flow. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Ashley Williams, Acting County Engineer, to explain his requirements concerning pavement specifications. Mr. Williams stated that parking areas in an urban area, that are commercial or where traffic is heavy, requires six (6) inch base and one and one-half (12) inches of black top. Ms. Caperton pointed out that the Engineering Department is having difficulty giving final approval because not all the necessary information is submitted. Mr. Williams pointed out that in giving preliminary approval of stormwater detention plans they consider the amount of run off, storage available in a conventional stormwater detention basin, etc.. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that the Engineering Department reviews the drainage plans. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the Commission is requesting preliminary approvals because this will let the applicant know if his plans are feasible. Mrs. Diehl pointed out that the Commission would be reluctant to approve any plan where the drainage appears critical unless they have a statement from the Engineering Department. Mr. Bowerman stated that the applicant has the responsibility to provide enough information for a valid judgement to be made. Mr. Williams stated that they plan to prepare a checklist, which can be given to the engineers, architects, etc., which will give them an idea of what will be required for approval. 66 Tom Trevillian, Engineer, stated that there are things which -should be on the site plan which are omitted, noting that this should be discussed at site review. Mr. Cogan asked if the Engineering Department could make a recommendation regarding detention ponds as to whether or not fencing should be required. Mr. Williams stated that they require fencing in high density urban areas. Mrs. Diehl thanked Mr. Williams and Mr. Trevillian for their input. NEW BUSINESS: Mr. Payne stated that there are three things that needed to be considered by the Commission, noting that the Subdivision Ordinance will have to be amended to provide for these items. Mr. Payne listed the following concerns for the Commission to consider: 1) Private roads - He pointed out that a private road provision was needed for townhouses and multi -family developments. He noted that at this time the Commission is basically requiring public roads for these developments, which is sufficient, but pointed out the number of waiver requests concerning this. He also noted that if the Commission continues to require public roads, he will advise against granting waiver requests unless there are extraordinary circumstances involved. Mr. Payne suggested to the Commission that they leave the basic structure of the Subdivision Ordinance as it applies to private roads, but add something that speaks to private roads in townhouse and multi -family developments. Mr. Payne stated that he is working on a draft at this time and asked the Commission if they would like him to continue this and report to them when it is completed. CONSENSUS: The Commission agreed with the above ideas of Mr. Payne and asked him to prepare the draft and submit it to them when completed. 2) He noted that the Commission discussed eliminating private roads for developments over twenty lots, but decided not to do this. He noted that the Commission decided that twenty lots would be the cut off where state standards are required but also would allow for private roads. Mr. Payne stated that an ordinance was sent to the Board that stated that private roads should not be allowed for over twenty lots. He noted that the way the ordinance is written it does not make sense internally because it speaks in terms of the maximum standard ending at twenty lots but the next section speaks in terms of twenty to thirty-five lots. Mr. Payne stated that a series of amendments should be made to clarify this problem. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that Mr. Payne is not suggesting a resolution but just some minor amendments. Mr. Payne stated that he is working on the wording for these amendments. 3) Mr. Payne stated that there is no time limit for the expiration of final plats that have been approved by the Commission. He noted that a plat that has been signed expires six months from the date of approval. A preliminary plat expires six months from the date of the Commissions approval. The only case where it does not expire is where a plat has been approved by the Commission but has not been signed. He pointed out that this presents problems because of the changes in the zoning map, etc. Mr. Payne stated that Mr. Tucker suggests that if a plat is not signed within eighteen (18) months after the Commission's approval then it should be considered void. Mrs. Diehl ascertained that 14r. Payne will prepare language for these three concerns which will be presented to the Commision upon completion. DISCUSSION OF NOVEMBER MEETING SCHEDULE: Mrs. Diehl pointed out that there is a work session scheduled for Thursday, November 6, from 4:30 to 6:00 to discuss the comprehensive plan. Mrs. Diehl noted that the Commission had asked Mr. Keeler to contact someone to explain the language for the definition of mineral extraction. She pointed out that someone will be able to attend a meeting to explain how they administer these regulations. She asked how the Commission felt about having a work session on November 12 from 4:30 to 6:00 to discuss mineral extraction and the Cross Connection Program. The Commission agreed to hold a work session on November 12, 1981 from 4:30 to 6:00 to discuss mineral extraction and Cross Connection Program. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m. n 631