Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 13 1998 PC Minutes1-13-98 JAN UARY 13, 1998 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, January 13, 1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr. David Tice; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee - Washington; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. Will Reiley; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Elaine Echols, Planner; Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. A quorum was established and Mr. Cilimberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Cilimberg welcomed new commissioners Dennis Rooker and Will Reiley. ELECTION OF OFFICERS CHAIR: Mr. Cilimberg asked for nominations for Chair. Mr. Tice nominated Mr. Loewenstein. Mr. Rooker seconded the nomination. Mr. Nitchmann said he had no problem with Mr. Loewenstein serving a second term as Chair, but he hoped the Commission would follow the policy of the Board and limit a person to serving no more than 2 consecutive years in an office. No further nominations were offered. Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the nominations be closed. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Loewenstein was unanimously elected Chairman by roll - call vote. VICE CHAIR: Mr. Loewenstein asked for nominations for Vice Chair. Mr. Tice nominated Ms. Washington. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion. No further nominations were offered. Mr. Finley moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the nominations be closed. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Washington was unanimously elected Vice Chair by roll -call vote. SECRETARY: Mr. Loewenstein asked for nominations for Secretary. Mr. Rooker nominated Mr. Cilimberg. Mr. Tice seconded the motion. There being no further nominations, Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the nominations be closed. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Cilimberg was unanimously elected Secretary by roll -call vote. MEETING DAY, TIME and PLACE: Mr. Rooker moved that the meeting day, time and place remain the same --Tuesday, 7:00 p.m., in the County Office Building Board Meeting Room, (unless otherwise announced), Charlottesville, Virginia. Ms. Washington seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The minutes of the December 9, 1997 and December 16, 1997 meetings were unanimously approved as submitted. 1-13-98 2 Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken at the January 7, 1998, Board of Supervisors meeting. ZMA 97-10 The Storage Center - Request to rezone approximately 0.948 acres from C-1, Commercial, to HC, Highway Commercial. The property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 37A1, is located on the west side of Route 29 North (Seminole Trail) approximately 1/4 mile south of the intersection with Route 649 (Airport Road) in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is recommended for Regional Service in the Community of Hollymead in the Comprehensive Plan. Access to the property is from Route 29 North. Deferral to February 3, 1998 was requested. Public comment was invited; none was offered. MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that ZMA 97-10 be deferred to February 3, 1998. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA 97-13 Anthony Valente - Request to rezone approximately 0.82 acres from C-1, Commercial, to HC, Highway Commercial. The property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel 37A, is located on the west side of Route 29 North (Seminole Trail) approximately 1/4 mile south of the intersection with Route 649 (Airport Road) in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The property is recommended for Regional Service in the Community of Hollymead in the Comprehensive Plan. Access to the property is from Route 29 North. Deferral to February 3, 1998 was requested. Public comment was invited; none was offered. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that ZMA 97-13 be deferred to February 3, 1998. The motion passed unanimously. SP 97-08 Angus Arrington - Petition to expand a Class B Home Occupation on 4.6 acres zoned Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax Map 80-Parcel 74C, is located off Goochs Mill Lane -Route 842 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This area is not in a designated development area. The applicant proposes to add 2 additional employees, one additional landscape trailer, and one additional pick-up truck. Indefinite deferral was requested. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SP 97-56 be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. M M 1-13-98 ZMA 97-08 Minor Amendment to Glenmore PRD - Request to rezone 11 acres from RA Rural Areas to PRD to add the acreage to the Glenmore PRD, change the maximum number of residential units from 764 to 775, and to modify the General Conditions accordingly. The property, described as Tax Map 94, Parcel 50, would be added to tax parcels 93A1-1 and 93-61, 61A and 61B, knownas the Glenmore Development, which is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This property is located at the end of Ashton Road approximately 2,700 feet from the intersection with Route 250 East and Glenmore Way. It is zoned RA Rural areas and the use would be single family residential. The area is designated for neighborhood density of 3-6 dwelling units per acre in the Village of Rivanna in the Comprehensive Plan. AND SUB 97-076 Glenmore Section 41, lots 15-28 Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Request for preliminary plat approval to create 14 lots on 51.037 acres of land in the Glenmore PRD. The property, described as Tax Map Parcels 93A1-1; 93-61, 61A and 6113; and 94-50, is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This property is located along a private road approximately 1,300 feet from Paddington Circle. Ms. Echols presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of both requests. Ms. Echols said staff has received no negative comments about these requests. The applicant was represented by Mr. Don Franco. He offered to answer questions. Public comment was invited. None was offered and the items were placed before the Commission. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that ZMA 97-08, Minor Amendment to Glenmore PRD, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SUB 97-076, Glenmore Section 41, Lots 15-28 Preliminary Subdivision Plat, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval by the Board of Supervisors of ZMA 97-08. 2. The preliminary plat will be approved when modifications required in the attached staff memorandums are made. 3. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the conditions required in the attached staff memorandums are made. The motion passed unanimously. 1-13-98 4 SUB 97-075 Hidden Forest Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 5 lots averaging 5.4 acres served by a proposed public road on Tax Map 30, parcel 32B. The property is located at the end of Forestvue Drive approximately 1,700 feet (0.3 miles) north of Route 660, Reas Ford Rd., in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is zoned RA, Rural Areas and is not located within a designated development area. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Tice asked if the 80-acre residue can still be divided into 21-acre parcels. Mr. Fritz responded: "Into 21-acre parcels only; it has no further development rights." Mr. Tice asked if the note on the plat -"No further division without Planning Commission approval." --also applies to the 80-acre residue. Mr. Fritz responded: " It will need to be modified to state 'No further division into parcels of less than 21-acres' or some appropriate wording noting that no development rights remain. It can be developed as a family division without Planning Commission action, and if they proposed to develop it as a commercial division...it would be subject to the same review as the plat before you tonight...." The applicant was represented by Mr. Roger Ray. He offered to answer Commission questions. Public comment was invited. Mr. Dave Poston, a neighboring property owner, asked how this development will effect Mallard Lake, and whether or not it will be a part of Mallard Lake. Mr. Poston hoped that the purchasers of these lots will be required to participate in the maintenance of the Lake and the dam. (Mr. Fritz said access around the lake and maintenance were addressed in a deed recorded in 1984. He did not know the particulars of that deed.) Mr. Ray addressed Mr. Poston's questions and related a brief history of the Mallard Lake development. He said when Mallard Lake was developed, there was an agreement with the owners of this property that they would be allowed to have three lots that front on Mallard Lake (as this plan shows). This subdivision will not be a part of the Mallard Lake development. It will have its own identity and be called Hidden Forest. He was certain there would be some type of arrangement to require that these three lots participate in the maintenance of the lake. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann was concerned about the issue raised by Mr. Poston. He said he fears someone could purchase one of the lake -front lots who would not feel they have any obligation to maintain the lake. Mr. Kamptner said this is a private matter between the adjoining property owners. Mr. Rooker added: "The property before us tonight is owned separately from the Mallard Lake Subdivision, and whatever rights exist exist whether or not the property is subdivided. We don't have the power to change the private property rights that currently exist. The subdivision isn't going to change that." Mr. Reiley said it is Nift..> an interesting question but it is not really pertinent to whether or not the request should be approved. '41( cm 1-13-98 'J At this point, Mr. Ray advised the Commission that the property owner, Ms. Van Yahres, had just arrived at the meeting and might be able to answer some of the questions raised. Ms. Peggy Van Yahres said the owners of the three lake lots will have lake rights and will join into the lake maintenance agreement. There was no further Commission discussion. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the Hidden Forest Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Engineering Department approval to include: 1. Approval of an erosion control plan; 2. Approval of final public road plans and drainage computations. b. Health Department approval. c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval to include approval of final public road plans and drainage computations including abandonment of existing cul-de-sac. The motion passed unanimously. SUB 97-77 Starfield Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 5 lots ranging from 4.20 acres to 9.25 acres on Tax Map 81, Parcel 51 D. Access is proposed over a new private road. The property currently contains 25.17 acres zoned RA. Rural Areas and is located on the north side of Route 600, Campbell Road, approximately 1.3 miles south of Route 22 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is not located in a designated development area. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Referring to the proposed road over the dame, Mr. Tice asked if the Engineering Department has suggested any conditions related to the drainage calculations for the dam. Mr. Fritz said because the dam is an intearal part of the road, it will have to be reviewed as part of the road plans. Appropriate approvals from the Corps of Engineers will be required for the dam. Those approvals address not only structural integrity of the dam, but other issues as well, such as wetlands. Mr. Rieley asked if figures are available which compare cut & fill for a public vs. a private road. Mr. Fritz referred to Attachment D to the staff report (from Muncaster Engineering). He said a public road represents a 29% increase in pavement area and other activities will account for the other 1 % differen e which brings the percentage difference to the 30% "test." Mr. Rieley pointed out thd� 4 difference of 14 feet width vs. 18 feet width represents a 29% difference in IDAYIn wi Jh, but not volume. Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Erb i f ed Mr. �i k!§ ' Wet ion. He said, fpion4 in 111v in the past, for subdiy ,.// 9� 1-13-98 6 3-5 lot category, some volume calculations have been done "assuming the uniform depth of earth work for the entire length, so essentially the only difference in a private road vs. a public road for 3-5 lots is the dimension of the width. In that comparison of that earthwork volume for a unit depth, that is what we have come up with--29%. That what Mr. Muncaster, in his letter, was making reference to. It has just been from past experience for subdivisions of this particular size. That only leaves you with 1 % more to make up, and, generally, it is easy to make up that difference in the horizontal and vertical alignment." After hearing staffs comments, Mr. Reiley said: "I don't think we should necessarily penalize this applicant for this review technique, but the methodology you've outlined guarantees that anybody who wants a private road will be able to get one." Mr. Kelsey responded: "For the 3-5 lot category it pretty much does. We've gone back through all the years since private roads have existed and tried to look at these 3-5 lot developments to get a feel for the earthwork difference between the two options, (private or public) and we could not find a single case where it was not possible to justify the 30%. There has never been one denied. It is a very easy one to justify. We've had staff -level discussions as to whether or not, at some time in the future --for 3-5 lots --just not have to meet that criteria. Rather than make them jump through that hoop, just to leave it at the discretion of the Planning Commission." Mr. Rooker said, from an aesthetic standpoint, for a small subdivision, "you often end up ,.. with a better looking road coming into a small subdivision if you don't have to do public road standards." Mr. Reiley said he thinks there are two sides to the coin. "One is that the width of the roadway means less grading. There are somewhat less standards for horizontal and vertical alignment. The other side of the coin is as these things proliferate all over the county and as the maintenance agreements break down and new people come in and the roads aren't maintained properly, it gets kicked back as a public problem. I think we should look hard at this standard and see when it makes sense --when in fact there really is a legitimate environmental difference or whether it is just checking off a box because everybody meets the criteria." Mr. Kelsey noted that just the reduction in impervious area is also looked as a benefit. He understood Mr. Reiley's concerns about long-term maintenance, but said that the agreements are recorded with the plats and are clear to anyone who purchases these properties. He was not aware of any 3-5 lot subdivision for which the county has had to take over the maintenance. There have been times when these small subdivisions have come to the county for instructions as to how to get the roads taken into the State secondary system. Mr. Finley asked if a subdivision road must be paved if the State road which it intersects is gravel. Mr. Kelsey responded: "If it is a new subdivision, you are required to comply to the Subdivision Street Standards aO t w uld re i ubdivision street to be paved vs on on 1-13-98 7 whether the state road it intersects is improved or not." If a road is in the 3-5 lot category, and is less than 7% slope, a gravel surface is allowed. More than 5 lots requires paving. Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Commission the Board asked a Committee to look at private road standards back in 1990 and there had been discussions at that time about the potential that "we would get private roads qualifying because of the difference between standards and the knowledge that many roads would probably qualify, and the benefits that arise from that." There was a lot of discussion about the question raised by Mr. Reiley, i.e. the potential burden to the county if these private roads are not maintained. "It turned out the Board adopted the regulations that are in place. They sided on the idea of environmental benefit. Whether or not, in a case like this, there is substantial benefit is an arguable point, but that was their bottom -line reasoning." Mr. Tice said: "The dilemma is that the Ordinance states clearly that private roads are intended to be the exception and we have a situation where they are almost automatic. One way or the other we ought to clean that up." Mr. Kelsey interjected: "It may be automatic but it is still at the discretion of the Planning Commission." Mr. Rooker asked about anticipated traffic volume on the private road. Mr. Fritz said 10 vehicle trips/day/ lot (for a total of 50 vtpd) are calculated. Mr. Rooker asked if there should be a requirement for a road maintenance agreement. Mr. Fritz said the Ordinance will require a maintenance agreement so there is no need to specifically reference it in the approval. Mr. Finley asked about right-of-way requirements for a private road. Mr. Fritz said staff recommends 50 feet, but 30 feet is minimum, "or that necessary to accommodate the road." 50 feet is adequate to accommodate a public road. Mr. Tice asked if staff feels there is adequate room to put the road in on the dam and still allow for adequate erosion and sediment control measures and drainage measures to protect the downstream pond. Mr. Kelsey replied: "Obviously that pond downstream is going to be very sensitive in nature and proper erosion control will be necessary. It will have to be coordinated with the plan review in terms of timing and phasing in the draining of the existing lake and re -building of the dam and construction of the roadway across the top of the dam." Mr. Kelsey said the review level will be the same, regardless of whether this is a private or public road. Referring to a note on the preliminary plat--" 20-foot permanent drainage easement centered over all the streams and drainage courses"-- Mr. Tice asked if that easement goes around the pond as well. Mr. Kelsey responded: "Yes, it will go around the pond as well. That is a standard note. Any streams and waterways are required to have easement, and in the case of a lake, it just goes around the outside of a lake." Based on Mr. Kelsey's reply, Mr. Tice said the note may need to be changed because presently it just refers to "streams and drainage courses." Mr. Kelsey said: "We definitely will be picking it up on the final plats and road plans." ON 1-13-98 8 Mr. Tice noted that the Tax Map shows a road going through the property which appears to serve parcel 22. Mr. Fritz said there is an old, "incredibly disused" roadbed which may have shown up when the tax maps were drawn in the 1930's. He said he found no evidence of the existence of a right-of-way or easement. Mr. Tice asked how parcel 22 is served. Staff could not answer this question, but Mr. Reiley said parcel 22 (the Bailey property) has adjoining property on the other side so they access parcel 22 through their own property. Mr. Finley asked about the septic setback requirement from the pond. Mr. Kelsey said in a runoff control area or in a Water Resource Protection area, the setback is 100 feet from the stream or pond, or any contiguous wetlands associated with the stream or pond. (Mr. Cilimberg said this property is not in a runoff control area. Mr. Fritz said, however, it is a WRPA. ) The applicant was represented by Mr. Roger Ray. He said both a public and private road were considered and it was determined a public road would need a second point of access (because of the dam crossing) in order to qualify to be taken into the public system, so a road would have had to be constructed "back to the public road and not tip the dam, (which) would have required a much longer road." The owner does not own property which would allow a second point of access. He recalled that had been an important part of the private vs. public road discussions. He said if the property cannot be served with the private road across the dam, the owner may not be able to serve the N%w- property at all. Though the dam could be removed, there are other considerations such as wetlands which the owner wants to protect. Having worked closely with county staff, it is believed this is the best plan for the development of this property. He said the private road will serve an additional four lots and maintenance agreements already in effect will assure the maintenance of the road. He said profiles are usually done to confirm the 30% less environmental degradation, but the County Engineering department felt this was not needed because "we would have to at least double the road if we made the second point of access." Mr. Reiley said he had met with the applicant and though the applicant might have preferred a public road, the dam had presented a "roadblock." He said that though he will support this application, he feels it is "not quite as much of an absolute roadblock as it may seem at first." He explained that VDOT regards the dam as "the part of the embankment that holds the water back, i.e. the part that has the core under it." He said it is possible to offset the roadway from the core. He said there will be more situations where the issue of a public vs. a private road must be decided and " I hate to see us choosing between a public road or a pond nearby when we really don't need to. There is a way to separate the two, and simply have the core of the dam offset and out of the VDOT right-of-way, and still have both." He concluded he would support this request as presented, but he encouraged the applicant to consider that alternative. Mr. Loewenstein suggested staff consider Mr. Reiley's suggestion to see whether or not it may be useful to suggest some alternatives to the Board at some future time. 1-13-98 0 There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Tice noted that the stream on the subject property also runs through the adjoining property to the east (Harris). The road is shown along that property line. He said if that property is subdivided at some future time it seems logical that adjoining property would also want to access this road, which would kick the road into a higher category, requiring paving (if the owners of this parcel were agreeable). He concluded: "I guess I am prepared to support this, but it raises some questions as to whether or not we wouldn't be better served by a public road in this location so this adjoining property might potentially be served by it without having to require an entirely new road." Mr. Finley said if the adjoining property owner had any plans for development he would have made an attempt to work with this applicant to try to work out some arrangement to share the road. Staff said there are no pending applications on the Harris property. Mr. Loewenstein said Mr. Tice's point is a good one, but the Commission must act on the application as presented. MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the Starfield Preliminary Plat be approved, including the use of a private road, and subject to those conditions listed in the staff report dated January 13, 1998. Discussion: Mr. Tice asked if the motion could include an additional condition requiring that the language on the plat be changed so as to show that the drainage easement will go around the circumference of the pond. Both Mr. Finley and Ms. Washington agreed to this amendment to the motion. Mr. Rieley asked if an additional clarification could be added to the conditions, i.e. "that the emergency spillway for the pond be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm underneath the private road ," so the private road is not functioning as an emergency spillway. Mr. Finley said he was uncertain of the implications of such a requirement. Mr. Rieley said a pond always must be designed to accommodate a 100-year storm, and he was just trying to ensure that the water will go underneath the road (through culverts) and not wash over the surface of the roadway. Mr. Tice asked if the standard suggested by Mr. Reiley would be a requirement for a public road. Mr. Rieley responded affirmatively. Commissioners Tice and Rooker said they could support this amendment to the motion. Mr. Finley asked for staff comment as to whether or not such a condition is "reasonable." Mr. Kelsey responded: "Since this is a primary access into the subdivision, it is something we consider anyway. But I would appreciate having the clarification in there. There is a provision in the Ordinance that talks about the primary access into developments and originally the intent was that it was put in there to make it applicable to any development whether a site plan or a subdivision. It has been called to task and it is questionable as to whether it is truly applicable to subdivisions or not. We have always felt it has been and it has been consistently applied that way. We would go ahead and �l 1-13-98 10 apply it in this case since we would be reviewing the re -construction of the dam. Having that language in the approval would just clarify that so it is not argued later." Mr. Finley and Ms. Washington agreed to include this language in the motion. However, before the vote was taken, the applicant's representative, Mr. Ray, asked to address the Commission. Mr. Ray said he does not have engineering calculations at this time, but he thinks a requirement to construct a passage that would accommodate a 100-year storm under the road would require that a bridge be built on top of the dam. He said he has been involved in the construction of many rural roads and only a 10-year storm must be accommodated. Any storm above that anticipates occasional flooding of the roadway. He concluded: "If you require the 100-year passage under the road, then I'm not sure the applicant can accomplish that at all." Mr. Reiley asked about the drainage area, but Mr. Ray said he had not yet done those calculations. He guessed there would be several hundred acres of drainage area to this point, so it would take a sizable structure to accommodate a 100- year flood. Mr. Reiley pointed out that one of the points made in the VDOT requirements says clearly "flow of water over the roadway is not acceptable as an emergency spillway". He said he feels this is even more important when the roadway is unpaved. He stressed this is the only access for four lots and raises there is the possibility that the road could be washed out and have to be re -built every few years. Mr. Rooker asked: "The VDOT standard is based on the 100-year flood standard?" Mr. Reiley replied: "No. The VDOT standard is that no water whatever goes over the top --the roadway cannot be used as an emergency spillway." Mr. Ray addressed this statement: "But that's not for a regular road. That might be for a dam, but not for a regular roadway." Mr. Reiley agreed. Mr. Ray said he thought the applicant would be pleased to pave the road if it would alleviate the condition suggested by Mr. Reiley. The Chairman asked Mr. Finley if he wished to make any further changes to his motion. Mr. Finely replied: "I've done 100-year flood calculations and to build a viaduct for a 100- year flood would stop a lot of roads. When you are talking about a road over a dam, I don't have much experience in that area to say whether it would be feasible or not, but a 100-year storm is a lot of water and I can envision something high in the air to keep the cars out of the water in a 100-year flood. We've already said many culverts and even bridges flood in a 100-year storm. ... But for 5 lots it may entail more than is feasible. Are we going to put this requirement in here that could result in no road." Mr. Rooker said he had understood Mr. Kelsey to say it would be required in any case as a part of the approval of the dam structure. He asked if Mr. Reiley's suggested condition would impose something different than the Engineering Department would require. Mr. Kelsey responded: "This is the way we have been dealing with a sole and primary access to developments, that they either design stream crossings for a 100-year storm or that they have a second point of access into the development. That particular provision is under the Streets and Roads section of the Zoning Ordinance and even though it has been applied for all developments, not just site plans, but residential subdivisions, it's been questioned on one other particular plan whether it was legitimate to apply that particular 1-13-98 11 provision in the case of a subdivision. Our department feels it still is important, especially since this is a primary access into a subdivision. That is why we would support that language being included." Mr. Kamptner added: "What you have before you is approval of a private road which is within your discretion. You can impose conditions. Really what the provision in the Zoning Ordinance does is give you a standard you can look to in fashioning conditions." Mr. Nitchmann asked who owns the pond. The applicant, Mr. Popkin, said he owns the pond. Mr. Nitchmann suggested: "So if you just wanted to drain the pond, put a pipe through there and put a road over it you could do that." Mr. Rooker said the applicant does not know at this point what engineering requirements will have to be met to meet the suggested condition. He could seek relief from this condition at a later time. The Chair attempted to clarify whether or not Mr. Finley and Ms. Washington had agreed to amend the motion to include the additional condition proposed by Mr. Reiley. Mr. Finley said he feels in the dark at this time, without drainage calculations, as to whether or not the condition could be met, but if the applicant can seek relief from the condition at a later time, then he can accept it as part of the motion. Mr. Rooker said he would be uncomfortable approving this request without the added condition. If the applicant finds that some type of immense structure will be needed, he can come back to the Commission to seek relief from the condition. Mr. Nitchmann suggested the applicant might want to request a deferral, rather than having to worry about whether or not he might have to try to get relief from the condition at some future time. The applicant was asked his preference. After conferring with is client, Mr. Ray, on behalf of the applicant, asked for a deferral so as to allow time for engineering calculations to determine the 100-year floodplain to be performed. Mr. Finley and Ms. Washington withdrew the motion for approval. Because it was impossible to know how much time the applicant would need, it was decided an indefinite deferral was in order. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the Starfield Preliminary Plat be indefinitely deferred. The motion passed unanimously. 15-13 1-13-98 MISCELLANEOUS 12 Mr. Loewenstein commended staff for their work on the Design Workshop conducted at Sutherland Middle School. Mr. Loewenstein noted that Greyrock Farm Subdivision is scheduled for the February 3rd Commission meeting. A community meeting, including the developers, adjoining property owners, and the Crozet community, will be held on this proposal at the Meadows Community Center on January 29, 7:30 p.m. Commissioners are invited. Mr. Cilimberg distributed a list of Committees. He asked Commissioners to look at the list with the intent of finalizing it in the next couple of weeks. Two additions were suggested: Design Standards Manual Focus Group and the Purchase of Development Rights. Mr. Nitchmann asked if staff can keep the Commission better informed of the dates for all committee meetings. A monthly calendar, distributed a month in advance, was suggested. Mr. Tice asked if Mr. Kamptner could, at some future meeting, update the Commission on the Attorney General's opinion on localities' ability to require proof of the availability of groundwater. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m. O: OR 57