Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 26 86 PC MinutesAugust 26, 1986 W,,, The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 27, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Richard Gould; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Mr. Peter Stark (entered the meeting at 8:50). Other officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Joan Davenport, Senior Planner; Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Wilkerson. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of the August 12, 1986 meeting were approved as submitted. George Palmer Site Plan Waiver - Request for approval for the development of property located on the north side of White Hall Road (Route 614) across from Waverly subdivision approximately 3/4 mile east of Route 671. Tax Map 42, Parcel 41. White Hall Magisterial District. The applicant is proposing to locate a third dwelling unit on approximately 240 acres. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report explained that the Commission had the power to waive the requirement for a site plan if the requirement for such a plan would not further the purpose of the ordinance or otherwise serve the public interest. Mr. Benish stated, "Because the access for the proposed dwellings does not serve other parcels or cross property of others and does not serve more than two dwellings, no road upgrading is required. This site plan waiver will meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance and staff recommends approval." Staff recommended no additions to be attached to the approval. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was present but offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan moved that the George Palmer Site Plan Waiver request be approved. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. SP-85-77 S.L. Williamson - Request to amend prior special use permit (SP-81-10) allowing for the removal of sand and gravel to abandon the southern- most site and establish an additional site on the South Fork Rivanna River. Property described as Tax Map 62, parcel 16 (part of) is part of the Dunlora Estate located on the east side of Rio. Road (Rt. 631) opposite the VO-TEC Center. Rivanna Magisterial District. and ZMA-85-27 S.L. Williamson - Request to rezone approximately 5 acres of 352.05 acres from R-4, Residential, to R-4 Residential with NR, Natural Resource overlay an extension of an existing 20 acre natural resource overlay. Property described as Tax Map 62, parcel 16 (part of) is part of the Dunlora Estate located on the east side of Rio Road (Rt. 631) opposite the VO-TEC Center. Rivanna Magisterial District. August 26, 1986 Page 2 It was determined these two items were to be deferred. Mr. Cogan moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that SP-85-77 and ZMA-85-27 for S.L. Williamson be deferred until September 16, 1986. The motion was unanimously passed. Mill Creek PUD, Phase I Preliminary Plat - This is a proposal to create 39 lots from a total of 26.92 acres, for a density of .75 dwelling units per acre The proposed dwelling units are to be single family detached. The development will be served by internal public roads with the primary access from Avon Street Extended. The property is located on the northwest side of Avon Street adjacent to (and north of) Lake Reynovia. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. Tax Map 90, parcel 36A. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report stated there are three issues to be resolved on this proposal: "Adequacy of fire protection (fire flow); road design; and developability of certain lots." The report commented on these three :issues and these comments included the following: Fire Flow: "Several options are available to the applicant for final plat approval. The applicant can further investigate whether a re -design of the line could provide the necessary fire flows, or propose to loop the water line to the 5th Street connection, or opt for receiving building permits on every other lot until adequate fire flow can be provided." Road Design: "The staff recommends that Copperstone Drive, Mill Creek Court, and Stone Mill Court be constructed using a rural cross section design. Mill Creek Drive, however, should be built using urban cross section design. ...Staff could support rural cross section on Mill Creek Drive within this phase of development only if no lots are to be located directly on (enter onto) this road." Developability of Certain Lots: "Two lots (8 and 36) have building site located on slopes in excess of 25%. An individual site plan for each lot must be submitted to the County Engineer's Office for approval. A final plat showing these lots will not be approved until County Engineer approval has been received. A 15-foot drainage easement runs across lots 30 through 34. Staff is concerned with the erosion which may eventually occur on these lots, as well as how usable these lots will be for homeowners. ... Staff recommends that lots be graded so that the slope of this drainage area will not exceed 4 to 1. This will make this portion of the yards more usable and may discourage any alterations by owners, and will also serve to reduce the velocity of the water flowing through this area." Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions. In regard to the road design, Mr. Benish stated staff felt there would not be a substantial difference in a rural or urban cross section, except in the case of Mill Creek Drive which, because it is the main road for the development, should be an urban cross section. The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Armm, the County Engineer. Mr. Armm stated that the road design had generated much debate among the staff. Both Mr. Benish and Mr. Armm explained that an important consideration had been in trying to keep the cost down since this development is attempting to offer "affordable -income" housing. 1.'7n August 26, 1986 Page 3 Mr. Armm stated the developer has demonstrated that drainage concerns can be handled with the rural cross section. He confirmed that the ✓ recommendation for an urban design for Mill Creek Drive is based primarily on the traffic issue rather than drainage or road construction considerations. In response to Ms. Diehl's question regarding the "marginal lots" (those with steep slopes), Mr. Armm explained that the developer had submitted a conceptual plan showing grading for those lots and it does appear that building sites can be located on the lots, though additional costs will be involved because of the extra grading and excavation that will be required. In response to Mr. Michel's question, Mr. Armm explained that it was felt an urban cross section was necessary for Mill Creek Drive because of the maintenance issue and also because of the necessity for adequate width to allow two complete through lanes of traffic in the event that parking might occur on the side of the road. It was determined an urban design is considerably wider than a rural design. Regarding the marginal lots, Mr. Armm stated, "We should have an approved final site plan prior to their going to construction." Mr. Horne pointed out that a number of the lots have grade problems, in addition to those singled out, 36, 8 and 9, which have particular problems. The Chairman invited comments from the Fire Official who stated, "We would like to see 750 gallons per minute, but until such time as the developer wants to build on every other lot, 500 gallons per minute would be acceptable." In response to Mr. Cogan's question as to why the fire requirement seems to have changed, the Fire Official explained that 500 gallons apparently had been acceptable prior to his assuming the position of Fire Officer. He stated that the I.S.O. requirement has not changed, but confirmed that it may have been misinterpreted. He confirmed that the Ordinance requires 750 gpm. Mr. Gould asked Mr. Rossee, representing the Service Authority to explain the following statement which appeared in the staff report: "The PUD Phase 1 plans extend through a high area to lower elevation lots. The high point will be a critical point during times of maximum flow and may create operational problems (air locks)." Mr. Rossee explained that that statement was based on an earlier report and that situation has been resolved in the present proposal. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Gillum, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: --The developer hopes to provide affordable housing. --The developer has spent a tremendous amount of time on the proposal and the rules have been continually changed. --The developer has met repeatedly with the Service Authority officials and received a letter from Mr. Brendt, dated August, 1985, which stated that sewer service could be provided without difficulty for "lower density residential development" (excluding industrial and commercial development). August 26, 1986 Page 4 (In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. Gillum stated he felt lower density development referred to single-family detached rather than multi -family.) --The PUD was approved by the Board of Supervisors with a condition that the water situation would have to be resolved before the indus- trial, commercial or multi -family could be built. However, it was the developer's understanding, even at that time, and it was the Service Authority's good faith intention, that the development for the single-family detached could proceed on the basis of what's available. --A hand-written note appears on a former plat, from the former Fire Prevention Officer, which states, "I will require a flow of 500 gpm at 20 lbs. residual at all hydrants in this subdivision." The developer proceeded on the basis of that. --Regarding the urban vs. rural cross section, the urban design is much more expensive not only to construct in the beginning, but also to maintain. Making Mill Creek Drive an urban design will add $1,400 per lot if apportioned for the entire development, or $3,000 to $4,000 per lot if apportioned among only the lots in this phase. --Mr. Gillum stated he does not feel there is any public purpose to be gained by requiring an urban cross section for Mill Creek Drive. --If the Commission should require an urban design for Mill Creek Drive, Mr. Gillum asked that the developer, at the time of final review, be given the option of not having any lots access onto Mill Creek Drive so that a "rural profile" can be used (as suggested by staff). --Regarding condition 1.i.2. (Grades on driveways not to exceed 20%. All driveways with slopes in excess of 7% shall be paved), Mr. Gillum questioned whether there was any basis in the Ordinance for such a requirement. He asked that if the Commission approved that condition, the developer would like to "have an agreement as to the timing of the paving of such driveways." --Regarding condition 2. (Public roads in this phase shall be dedicated and brought into the Secondary System prior to an approval for any other phase of development within this Planned Unit Development.), he stated that Mr.Horne had agreed that that recommendation would be changed to provide that they would be brought in within a year after a substantial completion of a section. He stated, "We agreed that within one year after 80% of a given section has been built out, one other section could be approved, but not a third section, until after the first section roads had actually been accepted." --Regarding water pressure, the test results are inconclusive and vary depending on the time of day and the location of the measurement. --He pointed out that the Fire Officer had stated that the fire flow "is not a requirement, but is simply a recommendation." --It was determined the proposed houses would be in the high 60's to low 70's range, approximately 1,200 square feet. --Regarding the density, Mr. Gillum stated the Board of Supervisors felt that 200 single-family residential units could be served with the existing water. Mr. Horne pointed out that the 200 figure was not actually a "conclusion" of the Board, but that it was the number that was discussed as being the best estimate at that time. --Mr. Gillum agreed that the fire flow was not adequate for commercial development. i�2-7 August 26, 1986 Page 5 --Mr. Gillum indicated his concern about a lack of consistency and definite guidelines in regard to frontage requirements and road design. --Mr. Gillum discussed the costs involved in road maintenance. Mr. Craig, the developer, addressed the Commission. He pointed out that Hollymead has a much higher traffic count than is expected for this development, but has rural design roads. He discussed briefly the factors involved in determining the costs of lots and the costs of houses. He indicated he felt the County should be consistent in its requirements in regards to entrances on roads. He stated, "It is inconceivable to me that the County would require me to do one thing and somebody else to do another and to do so encourages folks to go out and build on rural roads because they can't afford to buy a house in an area where we've got to build new roads." The Chairman invited public comment. There being none, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Benish to explain why staff would accept a rural cross section for Mill Creek Drive provided no lots enter onto that road, i.e. what is the disadvantage to having lots enter onto a rural -designed road. Mr. Benish explained that having lots access onto the road means that on -street parking would occur and have to be accommodated, which would effect the traffic flow and would also increase the frequency and expense of maintenance since pulling on and off the road causes the shoulders and edges to deteriorate more rapidly. Regarding the water flow question, Mr. Bowerman stated he felt it was NNW regrettable that the position of the County has changed since the approval of the PUD by the Board, but he felt the Commission could not deviate from the requirements of the Fire Official and could not lower the requirement. Mr. Cogan stated he felt the best alternative was to build on every other lot until adequate flow is obtained. Addressing Ms. Diehl's concern as to how condition l.c. (County Engineer approval of building on slopes in excess of 25%.) is implemented, Mr. Benish explained that the developer must submit individual site plans for each lot and is bound by those site plans. It was determined the lots are evaluated before grading occurs and it is the responsibility of the developer to see that the County Engineer has that information. Regarding condition l.h. (VDH&T approval of commercial entrance as outlined in their letter to Mr. David Benish, dated July 23, 1986), it was determined a left -turn lane will be required, into the site, and a right decel land. In response to Mr. Bowerman's suggestion that condition 1.i.2 (Grades on driveways not to exceed 20%. All driveways with slopes in excess of 7% shall be paved) be tied in with condition 2. (Public roads in this phase shall be dedicated and brought into the Secondary System prior to an approval for any other phase of development within this Planned Unit Development.) and required "within one year after 80% of a phase is complete," Mr. Horne stated, "I don't think a year after 80% is an appropriate point August 26, 1986 Page 6 for the paving of the driveways. It think it needs to be less lengthy a time period. I would suggest, instead of us resolving that matter here tonight, you leave it like it is and when it comes back for final plat approval, we will have worked out with the developer an agreeable schedule that is economically viable and (satisfies) us." This was agreeable to the Commission. It was determined condition 2. would be handled in this same manner. It was determined condition No. 3 (Administrative approval of the final plat) would be deleted. Mr. Michel asked Mr. Benish to elaborate on his statement that the urban cross section has been required in several other developments. Mr. Benish responded, "As far as we can determine, it has been general policy in the urban areas that the urban cross section is the rule. We very seldom deviate from this." Mr. Horne gave the following examples: Willoughby, Raintree, Willow Lake, Minor Hill. Mr. Horne added: "What needs to be clarified here is there is no stated policy. I think that's apparent from tonight's discussion. There is nothing in the Ordinance that says precisely when it's done. There is no adopted Planning Commission or Board policy on this. We're saying 'It has been the general rule.' If there is something that has been a deviation from what you've normally done, it's the staff recommendation that any of them be rural. That's a deviation from what has taken place in most situations." Mr. Gillum pointed out that the subdivisions listed by Mr. Horne have much narrower lots. He added, "What we're all asking is that there be some definition of what the break point would be." He stressed that the current proposal has significantly larger lots than Willoughby. Mr. Cogan stated he could see very little advantage to an urban cross section. He felt they were unattractive and did not fit into a low density residential community, and they were expensive to maintain. He stated the only possible advantage was a wider pavement in the event a car might occasionally park alongside the road. Even in that case, he felt it was very unlikely that a rural cross section road could be blocked by cars parking on the road. He felt the advantages of a rural cross section were as follows: Less run-off; more attractive; more aesthetically compatible with the community; savings to the homeowners both in terms of initial costs and in maintenance costs. He felt the provision requiring double -width driveways would address the issue of parking alongside the road. Mr. Michel agreed with Mr. Cogan, but added that he felt it was important that a "break point" be established. He and Mr. Cogan felt the determining factors in establishing a "break point" are lot frontage and density. Mr. Benish stated that the break point between lot widths is only one aspect of the issue. He felt the total length of the road and traffic generation must be considered along with the number of lots which will ' access onto the road. v7, _z August 26, 1986 Page 7 Ms. Diehl was concerned about on -street parking and pointed out that many houses might have more than two automobiles. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that even in the case of on -street parking, the cars would still not be on the pavement, but would be on the shoulder, thus the road would not be blocked. Mr. Horne pointed out, however, that with only 5-6 foot shoulders, a portion of the car would be on the pavement. It was determined staff was recommending that Mill Creek Drive be an urban section for its entire length. Mr. Bowerman stated he would support Mr. Cogan and Mr. Michel's position for a rural cross section. He was concerned that requiring a urban cross section would preclude the developer from carrying out his plan to provide affordable -priced housing. He felt this consideration was more important that what would be lost by allowing a rural cross section. He did not think parking on the shoulders would be a problem. Mr. Cogan suggested that between now and the final plat, staff could devise some formulas for minimum lot width and distance between driveways. It was suggested that it would be preferable to defer the item to allow the applicant time to work with staff to address the issue of lot widths and distances between driveways. Mr. Horne did not think it would be possible to make this determination within a time frame that would be acceptable to the applicant. He felt there were more issues involved than lot width, including grade, etc., and this would require some study by staff. He asked that the Commission simply make the determination between urban vs. rural. Mr. Gillum indicated he agreed with Mr. Horne. He stated the applicant would be willing to accept as a condition "a minimum of 200 feet between driveways entering onto Mill Creek Drive." He confirmed he was referring to joint driveways, 200 feet apart. Mr. Gould indicated he was concerned about "pushing the problem into the future" and though he was sympathetic to the developer's intention, he would not support a rural design for Mill Creek Drive. Mr. Stark indicated he would support the rural design, in view of the fact that Avon Street is a rural design. Mr. Cogan stated he felt the applicant was aware of the Commission's concerns and he added that he would be in favor of a "turnaround" on the lots so that cars would not have to back out into road. Mr. Cogan moved that the Mill Creek PUD, Phase I, Preliminary Plat be approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans and computations. All roads to be built as rural cross sections. %7 August 26, 1986 Page 8 b. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and compu- tations. C. County Engineer approval of building on slopes in excess of 25%. d. Issuance of an erosion control permit. e. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and computations. f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans. g. Fire Officer final approval of fire flows for this phase of development. h. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance as outlined in their letter to Mr. David Benish, dated July 23, 1986. i. The following to be noted on final plat: 1. All. driveways to be constructed to accommodate two cars parked side -by -side; 2. Grades on driveways not to exceed 20%. All driveways with slopes in excess of 7% shall be paved; 3. Drainage ditches along roads to be constructed to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards; 4. Maximum slope of 4 to 1 for drainage easement on lots 30 through 34. 2. Public roads in this phase shall be dedicated and brought into the Secondary System prior to an approval for any other phase of development within this Planned Unit Development. Mr. Michel seconded the motion. The motion for approval passed (4:2) with Commissioners Diehl and Gould casting the dissenting votes. Both Ms. Diehl and Mr. Gould asked that the record show that they voted against the proposal because of the roads. City of Charlottesville Public Works Center Site Plan - This is a proposal to locate parking for school and transit buses. The site will also be used for general storage. A total of 50 bus parking spaces and 27 auto parking spaces are to be provided (a total of 124,000 square feet of paved area). A 3,000 square foot building will also be provided. Total area of the property is 51.182 acres. The property is located on the east side of Avon Street Extended between I-64 and the Moore's Creek Bridge. Zoned LI, Light Industrial. Tax Map 77E(1), parcel 1. Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report included the following: "Staff has requested that the applicant not only reserve, but dedicate this right-of-way to public use at such time as it is de- termined by the County that a public road is needed at this location. The request was made in an effort to establish a right-of-way for the proposed Rt. 742-Rt. 20 connector road in this area. The applicant, however, has been unwilling to agree to any dedication. Staff has recommended that a connector road be constructed between Avon Street and Rt. 20 in order to provide this area with a more direct access to I-64 and, ultimately, to relieve industrial traffic on city streets. One alternative location for this property traverses this l 7 /. August 26, 1986 Page 9 property and was determined by the County Engineer to be the most desirable, but has not been adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The County Attorney has determined that until the option is adopted by the Board, it has no legal standing. There- fore, dedication cannot be required as part of the approval of this ap- plication. ... The applicant's current unwillingness to provide for dedication of a roadway in this location limits the possibility of a public road being established." The report also stated: "With the applicant's refusal to provide a public road to serve this site, a waiver from the private road regulations must be granted in order to allow a second access to a public road (Avon Street). This second access will be designed with one-way flow for exits only, as required by VDH&T. Staff recommends approval of this waiver request." Mr. Cogan asked if the Ordinance required an engineer's report since hazardous materials would be stored. Mr. Benish responded that staff had determined that none of the materials to be stored would require such a report. However, if at some later time other materials are added, the applicant would be subject to submitting an amendment to the site plan. Mr. Payne pointed out that was the reason for condition 3. (Materials to be stored on the site shall be limited to those specified in letter from Cloeckner, Lincoln, and Osborne, dated August 4, 1986....). In response to Ms. Diehl's question about the reservation of right-of-way, Mr. Benish stated, "They've met all the requirements that we can impose on them at this time. Our recommendation was to get dedication to allow a public road to be put in at some point in time.'Mr. Benish confirmed, as pointed out by Mr. Bowerman, that it does not preclude dedication being made at some future time. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Mark Osborne, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: --This will be primarily a school bus parking facility. --The applicant agrees to the conditions of approval including the change to condition 5. --The applicant will willingly provide landscaping along I-64 as determined by staff and permitted by the Highway Department. Ms. Judith Mueller, representing the City of Charlottesville, addressed the Commission. She explained the process the City has followed with this application. She stated the City has considered 29 sites in both the City and the County and this site was finally chosen because of its size and the fact that it has some future options, including the possibility of moving other public works functions to the site. She assured the Commission that the site would be well landscaped in consideration of the surrounding residential neighborhoods. 177 August 26, 1986 Page 10 The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Roosevelt, representing the Highway Department, addressed the Commission. Regarding the issue of screening from the interstate highway, he stated, "I don't believe you should consider the interstate as a location for screening this site. It runs contrary to both federal and state policy concerning the use of the interstate. I don't believe that the interstate right-of-way would be available for that purpose." Mr.James King addressed the Commission and asked that the Commission approve the application. (Mr. King was a city resident.) Mr. Floyd Artrip, a County resident, addressed the Commission. He was concerned about current traffic problems in the County and felt that the I-64 access issue was vital and should be a main consideration when deciding upon this request. He was concerned about the limited LI property in the County being used for this purpose. He asked that this applicant be subjected to the same requirements as every private citizen in the County. He felt that the applicant should be required to submit a Certified Engineer's letter which addresses not only hazardous substance storage, but also requires that certain standards must be met. He asked that the Commission defer the item until the Board of Supervisors has approved the connector road as described by staff. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Ms. Diehl's question, Mr. Benish confirmed that an Engineer's report would address various performance standards in addition to hazardous substance storage. He indicated that, because of the nature of the proposal, staff felt it "almost not an industrial use." He stated staff felt the items which would be stored on the site would not be a detriment to the area. In response to Ms. Diehl's question, he stated salt would not be stored on the site (as suggested by Mr. Artrip). Mr. Horne explained that staff felt an engineer's report was not necessary in this case, but he confirmed that, as suggested by Mr. Artrip, a strict reading of the Ordinance would require such a report. He stated that the Commission would be within its rights to require such a report. In light of Mr. Roosevelt's comments, Mr. Michel asked Mr. Osborne if the applicant had any alternative plans for screening. Mr. Osborne responded negatively and explained that the plan was for a line of trees immediately adjacent to the storage area. He agreed with Mr. Artrip's statement that because of the difference in elevation it would be some time before any plantings would provide effective screening. Mr. Benish added that there were not many possible locations for screening which would really do much good. He stated it was included in the staff report simply to show the applicant's intent to provide screening from I-64, where possible. i'7 it August 26, 1986 Page 11 Mr. Michel asked if it would be possible to require dedication of the right-of-way at some future time when a site plan for a new use might be submitted. Mr. Horne responded that the County Attorney feels that dedication could not necessarily be required. Mr. Payne added, "It depends on what the use is and the extent to which that justifies a public road. It is conceivable that it could, but I don't think you can say categorically that any further development will justify it." Mr. Payne added, "I think this case illustrates, again, what the staff has told you on a number of occasions, i.e. if you think there ought to be a public facility of some sort, whatever it is, a road or a park or whatever, you better put it in the plan, because if you don't you're not going to get it." Mr. Cogan asked if this proposal, as presented, could preclude that connector road from ever being built. Mr. Horne responded negatively. He stated, "Physically, the site plan makes provisions for a roadway." Mr. Cogan restated his question and asked, "Assuming that decision (for the roadway and a particular alignment), do we still have legal access to that alignment, without condemnation?" Mr. Payne responded, "Under these circumstances, no. If there is further development that occasions it, potentially, yes." Mr. Payne stressed, "What I think is important is if that decision is not made and a potential developer wants to put a building in what is shown as that reserved right-of-way, you are out of luck." Mr. Gould asked for an explanation as to why the applicant is unwilling to dedicate the right-of-way. A representative of the City responded, "We are not anxious to have a 60 to 80 foot public right of way running through that property with no known use for it." He stated that it is felt that the proposed road will be very expensive and difficult to build and may be many years in the future. He added, "We are willing to reserve the space. It will be available. We don't propose to build on it in any sort of way and I am sure at such time as the County is ready to build something there the City will be quite willing to work with the County to work something out." Mr. Horne clarified that what was Tequested of the City was not for actual dedication at this time, but for a voluntary agreement that at such time as the County acquired all other rights -of -way, off this site, and has a funding source to actually construct a roadway, at that time, if the Board of Supervisors requests dedications, we are asking for voluntary agreement at this point that they would, in fact, dedicate under those circumstances." He stated they are not being requested to dedicate the right- of-way at this time. Mr. Horne confirmed that that voluntary agreement was what the City chose not to participate in. /'7-9 August 26, 1986 Page 12 It was determined a Certified Engineer's Report would be required. Mr. Cogan moved that the City of Charlottesville Public Works Center Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions are met: a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrances as per letters from the Highway Department, dated March 5, 1986 and July 23, 1986. b. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and computations. c. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and computations. d. Issuance of an erosion control permit. e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans. f. Extension of sewer easement as required by the Albemarle County Service Authority. g. County Fire Officer final approval of site plan for fuel storage vent location and fire flows. h. Planning Staff approval of landscape plan. i. Applicant to submit Certified Engineer's Report in compliance with Section 26.7 of the Albemarle County Zoning Code. 2. Materials shall be stored only in areas designated as storage areas on the site plan. 3. Materials to be stored on the site shall be limited to those specified in letter from Gloeckner, Lincoln, and Osborne, dated August 4, 1986. Quantities of vehicles and equipment to be limited by available parking spaces. 4. Waiver of 18-35(d) 4 of the private road requirements. 5. Grading or fill activity within the 60-foot reserved right-of-way shall be at or below grades necessary for future construction of a roadway to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards. The compaction of any fill material shall meet Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation standards for road construction. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. WORK SESSION Comprehensive Plan - A continuation of review of background information presented by staff. Mr. Cilimberg presented a memo in which staff recommended an approach for handling a public survey. Staff recommended a "random -sample survey" which would be mailed to 2,000 county residents with the hope of receiving 1,000 completed surveys back. He explained that the staff anticipates four types of questions on the survey: WE August 26, 1986 Page 13 (1) Ask people to respond to a set of (2) Ask opinions or rating of public including a question about paying (3) A ranking of priority issues. (4) General opinion question. issue questions (YES, NO, T/F). services and facilities for improvements to services. The survey will be limited to the front and back of one sheet. The time frame anticipated is 11-14 weeks with a report back to the Commission in November or December. Cost is estimated at $1,075 and funds will have to be approved by the Board. Mr. Cilimberg stressed that this would be a very labor intensive project to the staff and could effect the overall timeframe of the Comp Plan review. Mr. Cogan suggested that the project be advertised so that anyone interested could fill out a survey. Mr. Cilimberg confirmed that this was possible but stated that those results would have to be tabulated separately. Mr. Gould indicated he was concerned about the project and questioned xiie ftr any information would be uncovered which was not already known. He was very skeptical that 50% would actually be returned. Mr. Michel shared Mr. Gould's concerns. It was felt "Yes -No" type questions would be of little value unless they were written in such a way as to make their tabulation meaningful. Since there were concerns about the project, it was decided staff would compile examples of questions and submit them to the Commission before a final decision to proceed with the survey is made. A member of the public suggested that the surveys be distributed at Commission work sessions to those members of the public who were interested enough to attend the meetings. He felt this would produce better results than a random mailing. (The person making this suggestion was Mr. Francis Fife.) Mr. Cilimberg continued the review of the background information. He was assisted by Ms. Trisha Nielson. Significant concerns and comments included the following: --Mr. Bowerman felt that retired persons were a basic industry in the County and ask that staff gather some statistics on this segment of the population. --Regarding the median family income ($33,464), Mr. Horne pointed out that this figure is skewed somewhat because of the high percentage of persons in Albemarle County with "non -wage" income. --Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Horne to check on the balance owed on Literary Loans,(i.e. the indebtedness of the County). No formal actions were taken at this meeting. There being no further business, the meetin journ at 11:15 .m. John Horne, Secretary Recorded by: Janet Miller Transcribed by: Deloris Sessoms 49/