Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 23 84 PC MinutesOctober 23, 1984 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, October 23, 1984, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,. Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr• Richard Cogan, Vice -Chair- man; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel and Ms. Norma Diehl. Other officials present were: Ms. Amelia McCulley, Planner; Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the August 28, 1984 and October 9, 1984 meetings were approved as written. CARRSBROOK FINAL PLAT (LOTS 3, 4, 5, 6 ON PROPOSED GLOUCESTER COURT) - Located on northern side of Route 1424, Gloucester Road in Carrs- brook Subdivision. Proposal to divide four lots ranging in size from 45,000 to 64,653 square feet. Tax Map 45B(2), Parcel 2-1, Zoned R-1, Residential. Charlottesville Magisterial District. DEFERRED FROM MAY 15, 1984. Ms. Scala gave the staff report. Mr. A.F. Edwards, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the applicant had no objections to any of the conditions of staff. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated his feeling that all the previous concerns of the Commission had now been addressed. It was determined that the sewer line for the project would be a new line -and would connect with the Hilton line. . Mr. Michel moved that the Carrsbrook Final Plat (lots 3, 4, 5, 6 on proposed Gloucester Court) be approved subject to the following conditions and with approval of a waiver of Section 18-8: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road plans; b. Road bond including street sign. 2. It is the intent of the Planning Commission that all lots 3-6 shall be served by public sewer and that the sewer easement shall extend to lot 2. 2 Af October 23, 1984 Page 2 Mr. Skove seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. MAMIE ADCOCK FINAL PLAT - Located on the east side of Route 680, -0.5 mile south of its intersection with Route 810. Proposal to create 2 lots of 2.18 and 2.61 acres, with ±99 acres residue. Request for waiver of 18-36f, so residue is not restricted to access from the private road. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 41, Parcel 20. White Hall Magisterial District. Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. in response to Mr. Cogan's inquiry, Ms. McCulley confirmed that a waiver was being asked for Section 18-36f {not 18-36d as referred to in Mr. Gale's letter.). Quoting from Section 18-36f of the Subdivision Ordinance, Ms. McCulley stated the following: Any lot fronting on any such road (referring to private roads) shall enter only onto such road and shall have no irimediate access onto any public street, except in such case in which the subdivider in accordance with Section 18-36(h) (waiver request) demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the Commission that due to existing development, topography, or other physical consideration as distinguished from a special privilege or convenience, alternative access would alleviate a clearly demon- strable danger of significant degradation to the envir- onment of the site or adjacent properties. Mr. Gale, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. Mr. Gould entered the meeting at this point. Mr. Gale stated that although this was not a family division, it was close, with the back lot going to Ms. Adcock's grandson. He stated that it was his understanding that a waiver was needed for the entrance onto the private road. He added it would be a hardship for the applicant to have to use the entrance that is shown with the two lots. Mr. Gale indicated some confusion regarding whether or not a waiver was needed for the lot size. Mr.,Bowerman explained if.the Commission did not grant the waiver (of Section 18-36f), a minimum lot size of five acres for each of the two lots would be required and the minimum lot size would have to be waived in this case because .it is only a 2-lot division. Mr. Gale said he understood that if the waiver is granted as requested, the lot sizes could be approved "as is". Mr. Cogan indicated this was his understanding also. psi October 23, 1984 Page 3 Mr. Bowerman asked for clarification regarding the "hardship" which had been referred to. Mr. Gale explained that if the applicant had to tie back into the existing road a considerable distance would be involved and a stream would have to be crossed. He added this would have a negative environmental impact. Ms. Scala explained the rationale behind not requiring five -acre lots stating that if three lots are on a private road, the Highway Department could possibly take over care of the road at some time, but with only two lots, the Highway Department would not take over care of the road even if the lots were five acres, thus there was no reason for requiring five -acre lots. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Skove and Ms. Diehl indicated they would be in favor of the waiver. Mr. Cogan indicated he would be in favor of the waiver because of negative environmental impact involved if the applicant had to tie back into the existing road. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question as to whether any kind of 1 precedent would be set if this waiver were granted, Ms. Scala responded that each case is different and the Commission could deal with these on a case -by -case basis. Mr. Cogan agreed that these matters would have to be dealt with on an individual basis because of the technical aspects involved. He added that he had no hesitancy in granting the waiver in this case since he could see a reason written into the Ordinance. Mr. Skove moved that the Mamie Adcock Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions and with approval of a waiver of Section 18-36f: 1. The following conditions must be met prior to signing the final plat: a. County Engineer approval of provision for runoff control, if deemed necessary; b. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of entrance. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. FEDERAL EXPRESS AND RETAIL OFFICE BUILDINGS SITE PLAN - Located on the east side of Route 29 North, on the south side of the South Fork of the Rivanna River. Proposal to locate a one story 24,500 sq. ft. building comprised of 14,000 square foot warehouse area, 7,500 square 0 October 23, 1984 Page 4 foot retail area., and 3,000 square foot office area; all served by 169 parking spaces on a 9.934 acre parcel.' Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Tax Map 45B1-6, Parcel 1B. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. She added the applicant was reluctant to changethe design of the entry because he was not sure what the Commission and Highway Department would accept. Mr. Bowerman indicated confusion regarding the cul-de-sac and the Highway Department's proposal. Ms. Joseph explained the radii being proposed by the Highway Department was larger than that proposed by the applicant. She added the Highway Department desires a cul-de-sac on the parcel in order to allow their snow plows to turn. She added the Highway Department had indicated they could approve the entrance as proposed, as a permanent entrance. It was determined there was no cross -over on Rt. 29 at this point, and that traffic would have to go north across the river and turn.. Mr. Gould expressed concern over putting another entrance onto Rt. 29 at this point, referring to the high speed at which this highway is travelled. Mr. Michel stated the Highway Department's proposal was an improvement over the original since it allowed more room. It was determined that if either of these two proposals was approved, the cul-de-sac would not be built. Ms. Joseph confirmed that she was recommending deferral of this proposal because she felt there were many problems that still needed to be worked out. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. A.F. Edwards, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated that, with the exception of Condition No. 1 (Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of service road design and entrance to Route 29N.), he did not feel any of the other conditions of staff created any problems that would call for deferral. He added the developer would prefer the Highway Department's proposal for the entrance (rather than the cul-de-sac approved by the Board). He added that he felt the entrance would mostly be used for ingress since once the service road was built, it would be used for egress. in relation to the pond, Mr. Edwards felt the applicant's proposal would improve this situation rather than aggravate it since a larger pipe would be installed. He stated the Fire Officer had given verbal approval of the hydrant location. 91 October 23, 1984 Page 5 Mr. Wendall Wood, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He emphasized the proposed entrance was the Highway Department's recommendation. He felt the proposal was better for ingress and egress onto the property than trying to funnel all the traffic from the existing cross -over onto land that is only 180 feet deep. He stated it was a distance of approximately 1,000 feet from the cross -over and had a 1/4 mile sight distance. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked for comment from Mr. Echols (Highway Department). Mr. Echols addressed the Commission. He explained that when the service road was discussed, most interest was at the Real Estate III end, and a termination point was chosen with a cul-de-sal to bring traffic back up to the Hilton cross -over. When this site plan was considered, it was decided for circulation purposes for the whole service road, that having an entrance at this point that would allow ingress and northbound egress would help with the traffic along this service road without making all traffic go back up to the cross -over. He stated a southbound cross -over would probably never be constructed at this point. He said one may eventually be built at Rt. 643. He added that a project is planned (within 1 or 2 years) to re -do the bridge on the southbound lane over the river and the cross -over that is currently closed will be re -done at that time. In response to Ms. Diehl's inquiry, Mr. Echols stated the Highway Department's top priority was to keep the traffic on Rt. 29N as unimpeded as possible. In regard to the tree planting, Mr. Echols said it should be insured that they were placed in such a way as not to interfere with sight distance. It was determined the Highway Department was proposing a 200 foot turn lane and a 200 foot taper. Mr. Cogan stated that at some point a service road had been proposed to get traffic off Rt. 29N, but it now seems that no one wants to build this road, either individually or jointly. He indicated he would not be in favor of granting an entrance onto 29.for this applicant since a former applicant (Floor Fashions) had been denied such an entrance. He added it was his feeling that elimination of the cul-de-sac would not make any noticeable difference in the traffic and that allowing this entrance would be defeating the purpose of the service road. Mr. Michel indicated his agreement with Mr. Cogan and stated he would not be in favor of an entrance, with or without a cross -over. Mr. Wilkerson agreed. October 23, 1984 Page 6 The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Elrod, .County Engineer, regarding the pond and.erosion problems. Mr. Elrod indicated he had not received sufficient information yet. He confirmed that a detention basin was not needed.. Mr. Bowerman stated his feeling that it seemed to be the consensus of the Commission to stay with the approved service road, adding that no one seemed to be in favor of a second entrance. In response to Mr. Bowerman's inquiry, it was determined that the Industrial Waste Ordinance dealt with what materials were allowed in public sewers. Mr. Bowerman again stated that it.was the consensus of the Commission that the design standard for the service road be left in tact with the cul-de-sac, and that as many of the conditions of staff as listed in the staff report be completed before action is taken on this matter. Mr. Wood stated he was under a time restraint with. Federal. Express and would like to be able to start construction as soon as possible. Ms..Diehl moved that the Federal Express and Retail Office Buildings Site Plan be deferred indefinitely until further.information is furnished to staff. Mr. Gould seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. .Lr. Bowerman explained to the applicant that this meant the matter was deferred until such a time as the staff is satisfied that the conditions have been met, and it will be reviewed by the Commission at that time for approval or denial. He again stated it was the clear desire of the Commission that only one entrance serve the site, i.e. the existing one at the cross -over, and the other end be a cul-de-sac as originally approved by the Board.. FALL FIELDS PRELIMINARY PLAT.- Located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of Route 20 on the east side of Route 649 and adjacent to the west bank of the North Fork of the Rivanna River. Proposal to locate 8-five (5.0) acre lots on a 110.4 acre parcel, leaving 70.4 acres residue. Zoned RA, Rural Areas, granted special use permit SP-84-38. Tax Map.47, Parcel 8. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. She added that although this matter will be deferred until October 30, she was seeking comments from the Commission, particularly in regard to the residue which could, at some future time, become Lot 9. October 23, 1984 Page 7 Ms. McCulley confirmed that the applicant was not proposing nine lots, and that the residue piece was proposed for use as a bridle path and other common easements for the enjoyment of the other lots. She confirmed that a special use permit would be required if the residue acreage was ever proposed for further subdivision. Mr. Payne explained that "parcels" which are physically seperate from the other lots are difficult to keep track of, and that at some point in the future they have typically been viewed as seperate parcels. He further explained that since these are zoned RA, there is actually no such thing as common area or a cluster subdivision. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if this could be approved without. an amendment to the special use permit. Mr.. Payne responded that he had not considered this -question, but he felt that determination was up to the Commission. He added the Commission would need to determine what the essential elements of the special use permit are. Mr. Payne said he felt problems could occur in the future if an owner of one of these "seperate parcels" decides the land is unuseable because it is cut off from the other parcels, so he sells the parcel. Mr. Payne stated further that he felt subdivision plats should depict all lots, including residue parcels, though historically the Commission has not required a residue of this size to be depicted. He added that while he felt that to be a reasonable rule, it con- ceivably could lead to these seperate parcels being ignored during consideration of such proposals. In response to Ms. Diehl's inquiry as to how this proposal differed from the original (for the special use permit), it was determined the road alignment was different, having been revised due to steep grades, and the residue parcel was different. Mr. Bowerman invited applicant comment. Mr. James Johnston, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the new road alignment was preferable to the previous proposal. He also explained that what the Commission was con- sidering as residue was actually the farm which he still occupies. He emphasized that he did not consider this as residue since all of it is part of the farm and not a part of the subdivision. He said the so-called Lot.9 was not a part of the farm that was ever intended for sale, but when the Commission had required that the size of the lots be expanded, the current revisions had resulted. He indicated he did not feel it was right that anyone could require him to sell more of his land than the law requires, but that he had tried to cooperate and meet all the requirements. Mr. Bowerman determined, and Mr. Johnston confirmed, that Mr. Johnston felt there was only one piece of residue, the farm itself, and .- the other areas indicated as residue are all contiguous to this farm parcel because they are all connected. WE October 23, 1984 Page 8 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if it would be possible for the record to show clearly, in terms of riparian rights and showing all the residue essentially connected, that the residue parcel in question was all one piece, even though one section seemed to be seperate. He asked if this would be a valid argument in terms of the question of the possible future sale or subdivision of.this parcel.. Mr. Payne replied he could still see the possiblity of problems occuring.. Referring to the proposed private road, Mr. Cogan pointed out that the applicant had enlarged the lots so that he could have a private road, and now the County Engineer has indicated that a public road would be.preferable. He invited comments from fir. Elrod, County Engineer. Mr. Elrod stated he had not finished reviewing the matter, but he was concerned that the .applicant had indicated the desire to use a gravel road and the Ordinance clearly requires that a road, public or private, be paved if it serves this many lots, and also because of the steep grade of the road in some places. He felt it would not be of any greater detriment to the envir- onment if it were a public road. He stated the width -difference was only four feet. In response to Mr. Michel's inquiry, it was determined that.the special use permit had given approval for the subdivision but not for a private road, as that was not an issue at the time. Ms. McCulley stated the special.use permit had shown the road to be a private one. Mr. Bowerman stated, and Mr. Michel agreed, that he would like to see the special use permit amended so as to deal with the possible future development of the residue parcel. Mr. Cogan stated his feeling that somewhere along this process, the applicant, through no fault of his own, had misinterpreted what was originally approved, and working under a.miscon- ception, had enlarged the lots to .five acres thinking.this was what was required for approval of a private road. He added that since the road would have to be paved in any case, he would be willing to approve a private road. He also felt that an adjust- ment of the lines on Lot 8 would satisfy any anxiety.about future development. Mr. Michel agreed that the Commission had probably given the applicant this impression. 91 October 23, 1984 Page 9 Mr. Cogan moved that the Fall Fields Preliminary Plat be deferred until October 30. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The meeting recessed at 9:10 p.m.; reconvened at 9:20 p.m. THE COMMONS AT GEORGETOWN SITE PLAN - Located southeast side of Georgetown Road (Route 656) near the intersection of Hydraulic Road .(Route 743) and Georgetown Road, adjacent to Georgetown Court and Westgate Apartments. Proposal to locate 57.•units on a ±6.1 acre parcel. Zoned R-15, Residential. Tax Map 60A1, Parcels 29, 35, 33, and 28. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. In response to Mr. Payne's inquiry regarding the "first phase" referred to in staff recommendation No. 2, Ms. McCulley confirmed this meant the first phase chronologically. Mr. Payne commented that he believed Common Law already gives the right of access to surviving.family members to a cemetary, even if it is not a matter of record. He added it was not possible to "cut-off" usage of a cemetary. Mr. Bowerman invited comment from the applicant. Mr. Charles Rotgin, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. Mr. Rotgin gave a brief history of the land and emphasized that the developers have greatly reduced the density from what it was in the beginning (going from 450 units.to 193 units). He stated the plan was.based on the developer's con- ception of the current housing market. Referring to Mr. Rotgin's mention of this being an alternative site plan based upon market perception, Mr..Payne pointed out that while it was possible to have two site plans, only one could be developed and when one is activated, the other is abandoned. Mr. Stan Tatum addressed the commission. He indicated that while most conditions of staff had been, or could be met, he showed concern over the following areas. He questioned why sidewalks would be required at this density when they have not been re- quired in the past. He stated confusion as to what the Highway Department was requiring in relation to the turn lanes and entrance to Rt. 656. Mr. Tatum reviewed the other conditions of staff. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. -Tatum confirmed that the proposed development would be townhouses for sale. Referring to Mr. Tatum's question as to why some of the conditions of staff were still being listed since he felt they had already been taken care of, Mr. Michel pointed out that unless the Commission has some sort of documentation on the matters, they must remain on the list. 9,9 October 23, 1984 Page 10 Mr. Don Wagner, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. In relation to the cemetery, Mr. Wagner said he would like to see some agreement that the property lines around the cemetery would not be held -against the developers in trying to meet set -back requirements. In regard to the Highway Department's recommendation that 26' of pavement from the center line of Rt. 656 to the curb be constructed along the frontage of this property and -tie into the existing curb and gutter at the Westgate property near. Rt. 743, Mr. Wagner stated he had discussed this with Mr. Echols of the Highway Department and understood that this figure was simply "out of a book" and did not necessarily refer to this paticular :natter, indicating -that it could possibly be changed. Regarding the taper lanes, Mr. Wagner felt the developers' proposal more than met what was required. In'regard to storm water detention, Mr. Wagner stated that it had been agreed by the developers some time ago.that when this land was developed the storm pipewhich is upstream from Solomon Road would be increased from 24" to 36" and it had also been agreed that the piece of pipe that passes.under Solomon Road would have an additional pipe placed on top of it. He emphasized that the developers had already agreed to do this. However, Mr. Wagner said the developers did have a problem with the suggestion that some sort of storm water detention be -installed on this property, since a lot of land.would be lost in the construction of such a system, making the entire project economically unfeasible. He indicated if this Happened, the developers would be forced to build apartments on this property at some time in the future with a much. higher density than the proposed townhouses. Mr. Wagner continued stating that it had been.pointed out at a previous meeting that if Solomon Court were sold, the current proposal would be void. To prevent this from happening, the developers of the Commons at Georgetown agreed to pay a pro rata share for the downstream improvements. He stated they were still willing to pay this money, which was approximately $4,715. for these downstream improvements, but the developers are not in a position to accept storm water detention. Mr. Rotgin summed up the applicants' proposal be stating the areas of most concern were: (1) Stormwater detention; (2) Sidewalk requirements; (3) Highway Department requirements for turn lanes and frontage improvements; and (4) Cemetery. There being no public comment, the.matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked for comment from Mr. Elrod, County Engineer. Mr. Elrod addressed the Commission and stated that when the Urban Drainage Study was being done, the possibility of providing regional -type detention basins or drainage improvements was given consideration with the requirement that developers would contribute to.those projects. He said there were two possible ways of handling this: (1) Either the Board would have to 99 October 23, 1984 Page 11 allocate the money for stream improvements or detention basins in advance (before problems actually exist) and then try to recover that money as developers develop the areas; or (2) Not to undertake these projects until after all the development is complete, possibly allowing the stream to be degraded to some extent. Mr. Elrod said a decision as to which of these options should be adopted has not been made. He said this particular proposal has not been reviewed because there have been no complaints since develop- ment has not yet occurred. He stated he has witnessed some prob- lems but the residents of the area have not perceived them yet. Regarding the developers' offer to contribute an amount to the downstream improvements, Mr. Elrod stated such a project does not actually exist at this time, creating the problem of what to do with the money that the developers are offering. Mr. Elrod added that the figure he had referred to in relation to such a project was speculative. He added he was not against such a contribution from the developers, but he pointed out that he thought they would be the only ones contributing to this project since they are the last to develop this area, indicating he did not know where the rest of the money would come from. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question regarding whether or not the developers had adequately re -directed drainage from the Bennington Woods area, Mr. Elrod indicated he had not finished reviewing the proposal. Mr. Elrod.stated he felt before money was accepted for this project, it should be determined if the Board was willing to provide the rest of the money. In response to Mr. Cogan's inquiry, Mr. Elrod stated there would definitely be future problems with the stream if a stormwater detention structure was not installed, or some mechanism was not provided for downstream improvements. Mr. Bowerman asked if an off -site contribution was accepted, could the money be held in some way. Mr. Payne responded that this -was probably not possible since the statutes say there must be an approved plan. Mr. Elrod confirmed that he had recommended on -site stormwater detention because there is currently no project for downstream improvements. The Commission indicated favor with the idea of a monetary contribution by the developer. Mr. Payne again pointed out that money could not be held without an actual plan, since a plan was needed in order to determine the exact amount needed. Mr. Bowerman suggested that a letter from the developers be obtained stating if a plan for downstream improvements was ever adopted, they would contribute a certain amount, said letter being binding only if the County adopts a plan for such improve- ments. Mr. Bowerman felt this would at least show the developers' intent. 94 October 23, 1984 Page 12 Mr. Payne stated this would better than nothing, but he questioned the enforceability of such a contract. Mr. Bowerman.asked for Highway Department comments regarding the applicants',proposal for improvements to Georgetown Road. Mr. Echols,.of the Highway Department, addressed the Commission and stated that in order to meet the requirement for having a 'eft turn lane, the road would have to be widened quite a bit. He felt the developers' plan did not allow enough transition to accomplish this. Mr. Michel stated he was hesitant to discuss the Highway Department's expertise on a road that is intolerable. Regarding the 2:y' right-of-way requirement, turn lane requirements, etc., it was the determination of the Commission that these matters be left up to the Highway Department. Regarding the sidewalk issue, it was determined these were privately owned. Ms. Diehl stated her feeling that by changing from apartments to townhouses for sale, a different type of clientele would be attracted, meaning more young children would be using these walks. She felt that sortie sort of walkways would be a good addition to the development. In response to ?pis. Diehl's inquiry, Ms. McCulley stated staff had envisioned concrete walks. The County Engineer indicated he would only approve concrete walks it it were up to him. The Commissioners indicated they were i.n favor of concrete also. It was determined concrete or asphalt would be acceptable. The applicants stated they had no objections. Regarding the cemetery, it was determined to simply leave it as is and show an access on the plat. The following amendments to staff's recommendations were noted: (1) 1(c) would be amended to deal with the improvements to drainage pipes; (2) 1(d) would have the words "construction to be approved by County Engineer" added; (3) l (1) , dealing with a monetary contribution by the developer for drainage improvements, would .be added; and (4) 2(c) would be changed to read "Record easement to cemetary on plat." Mr. Cogan moved that the Commons at Georgetown Site Plan be approved. subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued for any phase until the following conditions have been met: COUNTY ENGINEER APPROVAL OF: 9s- October 23, 1984 Page 13 a. Building on slopes of 25% or greater; b. Private road and drainage plans and computations; c. Applicant will improve drainage pipes at Solomon Road, north of Berkshire, by adding another culvert, and at a location 700 feet west of North Berkshire, by increasing the size, both projects with the approval of County Engineer, provided permission is obtained from owner of private property if the improvement lies within private property.. d. Sidewalks to be constructed along the south side of the entrance road, linking to the sidewalks of adjacent buildings, construction to be approved by the County Engineer. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION APPROVAL OF: e. Left turn lane and entrance to Rt. 656; f. Frontage improvements, to include the dedication of additional right-of-way; g. If possible, the right turn lane, to include reloca- tion of the existing driveway; h. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans, to include easements to adjacent property, if deemed necessary; i. Fire Official approval; j. Administrative approval of landscaping and recreation area plans; k. Revised plan to be submitted which meets conditions of approval; 1. County Attorney approval of contractual commitment by developer to contribute, pro rata, according to acreage of project in proportion to acreage of entire sub -watershed, to alleviation of flooding and drainage problems downstream to Inglewood Drive when and if plans are approved by Board of Supervisors, limiting amount of contribution to $5,000, and termi- nation 36 months from October 23, 1984. 2. No certificate of occupancy will be issued for the first phase until the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Officer final approval of fireflow and hydrant location; b. Planning staff administrative approval of the sub- division plat; C. Record easement to cemetary on plat. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:.50 p.m. A. - - - - A � DS James R. Donne , Secretary 96