Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 13 89 PC MinutesJune 13, 1989 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 13, 1989, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Mr. Tim Michel. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Planner; Mr. Rich Tarbell, Planner; and Mr. James Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Stark. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of May 30, 1989 were approved as submitted. CONSENT AGENDA Reynovia Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide 100 acres into 112 lots with an average lot size of 0..4 acres. Proposed development is to be served by new public roads. Property, described as Tax Map 90, Parcel 36 is located on the west side of Rt. 742 (Avon Street Extended) approximately one mile south of I-64. Zoned R-4, Residential in the Scottsville Magisterial District. Brookmill Phase III Final Site Plan - Proposal to locate 34 condominium units on 7.2 acres, with a resulting density of 4.7 dwelling units per acre. This site will have access through the extension of Millpark Drive and is to be served by 81 parking spaces. The property is located at the terminum of Millpark Drive approximately 300 feet south. Tax Map 61Z, Parcel 02-1. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Michel, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA-89-5 Ann Horner - Request to rezone 2.836 acres from R-2, Residential to C1, Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 56A1, Section 1, Parcel 46A, is located on the south side of Jarman's Gap Road at the intersection with Rt. 1201. White Hall Magisterial District. Deferred from May 16, Planning Commission Meeting. Before present the staff report, Mr. Keeler explained that staff had received a letter which questioned whether proper notice had been given for this petition, particularly that the property had not been properly posted. Mr. Keeler explained that the Zoning Ordinance requires that the property be posted at least 15 days prior to public hearing. The Chairman invited applicant comment on this issue. Ms. Virginia Gardner represented the applicant. She explained that the property had been posted prior to the original hearing but had not been posted again after the item was deferred. t3 June 13, 1989 Page 2 The Chairman asked Mr. Bowling to comment. (Mr. Keeler interjected that the item had been deferred to a date specific so readvertisement was not required.) Mr. Bowling determined that the posting had been made 15 days prior to the original hearing date. He stated: "The intent of the Ordi- nanceis to post notice to the public... and if the applicant certifies that the property was posted as required by the Ordinance then there has been a good faith attempt to meet the requirements of the Ordinance and that plus the published notice plus the letters sent to the adjoining property owners I think meets the intent and spirit of. the Ordinance and statutes. ... I think the Commission can proceed." Mr. Bowerman noted that Liie property should be posted again before the Board of Supervisors hearing. Mr. Bowerman also confirmed that adjacent property owners are re -notified when an item is deferred. Mr. Bowerman determined that the item was properly before the Commission. Mr. Keeler then presented the staff report. Staff's opinion was that "unrestricted C-I zoning may prove inappropriate to.the area and that CO Commercial Office zoning would be more appropriate." The Chairman invited applicant comment. Ms. Gardner addressed the Commission. She stated the applicant feels CO zoning was very limiting and some of the CO uses are not as appropriate as C-1 uses. She noted that the applicant is very concerned about neighborhood objection, and had authorized her to discuss some"restricted usage." She was uncertain as to how this could be accomplished. Mr. Bowerman explained the proffer process to Ms. Gardner. Noting that it was apparently the applicant's preference not to consider GO, but rather to pursue C-1 with restricted usage, Mr. Bowerman suggested that the applicant request deferral to allow time to consider the issue and present a written proffer. tics. Gardner asked for some assurance that this would not be a futile effort. Mr. Bowerman explained that he could not speculate on what the Commission's action would be on a different application. Ms. Gardner requested that the petition be deferred. She indicated she felt she understood the concerns and thought a compromise could be reached. M_x. Bowerman noted that he felt the Comprehensive Plan recommendation for Crozet was valid and he felt he "could look favorably on a request for commercial zoning in this area if it could be tailored in such way to be compatible with the surrounding area but recognizing that the plan calls for that." He stressed that he spoke for himself and not for the entire Commission. Mr. Jenkins expressed concern about the amount of negative citizen input and noted that his future action on this proposal would be influenced by how the proposal was received by the citizens. June 131 1989 Page 3 It was determined the item could be rescheduled for June 27 and Mr. Keeler asked that a written proffer be in staff's hands by June 20. It was determined there was no public comment. Mr. Jenkins moved that ZMA-89-5 for Ann Horner be deferred to June 27. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Rivanna Commercial Park Phase Two Preliminary Plan - Proposal to construct 146,000 square feet of service retail and warehouse use in two (2) buildings on 29.5 acres. Development is to be served by a proposed entrance off Northside Drive with 277 parking spaces. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcels 22, 22C and 22M, is located on the south side of Northside Drive off the west side of Rt. 29N. Zoned HI, Heavy Industry with ZMA-87-19 with proffer. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. In addition to the staff report Mr. Fritz explained that the Zoning Admin- istrator feels "service retail" may not be appropriate for this district but staff feels the applicant is referring to "distribution", which is allowed. Nis. Diehl asked if there should be a condition requiring Health Department approval. Mr. Fritz explained that the .Health Department has already given approval for 81,540 square feet and the applicant is requesting "that he be able to build 81,540 square feet -in either Phase I or Phase II and use the area that was approved for Phase I as his drainfield." Discussion dealt primarily with road improvements. The Virginia Department of Transportation was recommending "upgrading the existing left turn lane to a 200 foot long 12 foot wide turn lane with a 200 foot taper lane in the northbound lane of Route 29" and staff supported this recommendation. There was a brief discussion as to how proffers are enforced, i.e. how is the County aware that proffers are complied with? Mr. Fritz explained that other County departments (Zoning, Engineering, etc.) deal with the enforcement of proffers. Mr. Bowerman added that any site plan reviewed by the site review committee and planning staff has to reflect the proffers or it can neither be recommended for approval to the Commission nor administratively approved. Mr. Keeler added that it was the Zoning Administrator's responsibility to interpret proffers. Because the applicant had not yet arrived, the Chairman delayed the continuation of this item for a short period. Resolution of Appreciation -- Mr. Bowling presented the Commission with copies of a Resolution of Appreciation for Mr. John Horne, former Director of Planning and Community Development. The Commission approved the resolution and directed Mr. Bowling to proceed. The meeting recessed from 8:25 to 8:30. ,�d June L4 1989 Page 4 After the recess the meeting resuned review of the Rivanna Commercial Park. The Chairman invited comments from Mr. Jeff Echols, representing the Virginia Department of Transportation. :sir. Echols commented on the crossovers and also on the improvements to Rt. 1570. There was brief discussion about the history of Rt. 1570. M.r. Echols explained that when the road was built it had been based on 75 vtpd and the current traffic on the road is less than what it was originally designed for. In response to Mr. Bowerman's questions about staff's position, Mr..Fritz explained that staff will require that improvements to 1570 be made once development exceeds 19 acmes, but staff "may" not agree that improvements be based on 75.6 vtpd/acre. Mr. Fritz explained that VDOT and the applicant will need to get together to determine what figures should be used. fir. Bowerman added: "And beyond 19 acres the level of improvements will be based upon the actual traffic that can be expected to be generated from 19 then the 27 acres plus what's already there, rather than this calcu- lation worked out by the applicant." The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Blake Hurt addressed the Commission. His comments included the following: --The current proposal is for the second phase of the development though the first phase has not yet been built. --He explained his reasoning behind his proposed phasing of the project. --A site easement has already been secured from an adjacent property owner. --Regarding improvements to 1570, he stated: "Once we have exceeded industrial zoning we would look at the necessary improvements. At that time we would have a much better idea of what would be required." --Regarding the vehicle calculations for Rt. 1570, Mr. Hurt expressed some uncertainty as to staff's methods and position. (Mr. Keeler explained: "The Planning Staff and the Zoning Administrator are in agreement that given the wording of the proffer that you are entitled to develop 19 acres before any further discussion of road improvements -on 1570. We are not endorsing —this 75 trips per acre. That was just a general figure that the Highway Department used some 10 years ago....") Mr. Hurt stated: "I don't have any problem with a reasonable stance; I would like not to have to give up my bargaining position with the Highway Department If reasonable engineering expectations on how the road should be improved are presented, I think they will be acceptable. I'd like to be able to negotiate that with the staff and the Engineering Department but I don't have real conceptual problems withwhat they've said." --Regarding the crossover, he stated: "I don't have a real problem with doing some improvements to Rt..29 to make trucks more accessible to my project after I have completed 81,000 square feet and am ready to consider the next phase. The project should be able to handle the additional expense at that point." He noted he would like to be able to negotiate the placement of the crossover with VDOT. June 13, 1989 Page 5 --He explained his request: "The concept I would like to have approved, which staff objected to, is I would like to be able to develop 81,000 square feet somewhere on the two phases projected." He interpreted staff's position was that he had to build the front phase before he would be required to build the turn lane. He stated: "I don't want to do that. I would like to build 81,000 square feet out of all the square feet I've shown here, and as soon as I cross that line be obligated to do the improvements that you are going to require on the second phase." He indicated his reasons for his approach to the development were economic ones. He asked that the three buildings be considered as an "envelope for future construction." He explained his proposal: "I can pull out 81,000 square feet and have associated with that the requirements you put on me for Phase I; anything in addition to that would trigger the requirements for Phase II. From a project standpoint, ideally, the middle building is the one that should be developed first." --The building will be masonry with a metal roof and the tenants envisioned will use between 5,000 and 15,000 square feet. --He stated he objected to the Engineering Department's requirement for very thick pavement for the parking lots. (Mr. Bowerman commented that he felt the specifications for pavement were based on certain criteria. ) --He felt that the road serving the project should not have to be built to its ultimate standard until the project is complete. He stated he would like to be able to increase the pavement as the project develops, i.e. "on -site pavement." (Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the design of the paving is not solely a function of the surface layer of asphalt and thus improving the pavement may involve more than just adding asphalt to the top.) There was some discussion about pavement requirements. Mr. Bowerman noted: "There should be a standard that the County follows either to require full up -front or a phasing of the pavement strengths which should be consistent throughout all of the approval process." He stated he felt it was the Commission's role to see that the requirements are carried out, but not to determine the standard. Mr. Fritz quoted the following from the Engineering Department's site review comments: "The on -site pavement sections are to be based on traffic volume generated by the most intense use permitted with this zoning. We recommend that the applicant schedule a meeting with our department to discuss just what this will entail in the way of engineering design." Mr. Fritz was unaware of whether the applicant had met with the Engineering Department. Mr. Hurt stated he was not objecting to "how we get it to the most intense use but the fact that they are requiring it up front. I am sure we can agree on what the most intense use is." Regarding this issue, Mr. Keeler noted there were two operative sections of the Ordinance. He quoted the following from Section 4.12.6.1 of the Ordinance: June 13, 1989 Page b "... In the event the Zoning Administrator, after consultation with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation and County Engineer, determines such ingress and/or egress to public roads to be in a state of disrepair which may reasonably result in a hazard to public safety, he shall require repair and/or correction of such ingress or egress facility. ..." Mr. Keeler stated he was referring to the "parking area in the vicinity of its entrance on 1570." He confirmed this was like an "internal driveway." Mr. Keeler interpreted.that the intent of that section of the Ordinance was that the road be constructed so as not to cause any danger to the public, and that the public be able to get off the public road.in a safe and convenient manner. The second applicable section referredto by Mr. Keeler was Section 32.7.2.7. He explained: "The Site Plan Ordinance authorizes the Planning Commission to waive or modify any provision of 32.7. There's a provision established in here which requires the applicant at the time of the revised site plan, at that deadline, to submit his written request and his reasons and justifications, etc." He quoted the following from 32.7.2.7: "On -site parking and circulation shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Section 4.12, Off-street Parking and Loading Re- quirements,.subject to County Engineer approval in accordance with sound engineering practices, including but not limited to grade, drainage and paving specifications; and (planning staff) approval of the safe and convenient vehicular circulation patterns." Mr. Keeler explained that Mr. Hurt was asking the Commission "to set that aside, but you don't know what you'd be approving. If you set that section aside and say the County Engineer does not have.the authority to approve this, then we don't know what the specifications will be." Air. Keeler suggested the following: "Go ahead and act on the plan with the conditions as they are written; let Mr. Hurt follow the procedures that are in the Ordinance --let fir. Hurt make his proposal for specifications ...and get with the Engineering Department on this phasing concept. If he can't work something out, he can always come back and seek relief from that condition." Mr. Bowerman stated his main concern was that the Ordinance be consistently applied to all applicants. Mr. Bowerman summarized the two main issues to be determined: "(1) Will the Commission allow you to build in Phase II? and (2) If we allow that will it .somehow go along with the original approval and not require approvals to the crossover?" Mr. Hurt again noted: "I'm willing to do the crossover as soon as I get past 81,000 square feet. ... I'd like to do 81,000 square feet in Phase II and soon as I get over top of that I will do the turn lane. I may come back to move the crossover." /8 June 13, 1989 Page 7 The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Carroll Goode addressed the Commission. He commented briefly about the location of existing crossovers and taper lanes. There were very brief comments about the feasiability of tractor trailers being able to make U-turns at the crossovers. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Referring to the staff report statement that "this development will occasion the need for the existing left -turn lane to be upgraded," Mr. Rittenhouse noted: "This statement seems to key that need to this particular development." He asked if this statement was at odds with previous actions on this project. Mr. Fritz explained that this statement was "verbatim" as it had been on the staff report for Phase I. He added that the Commission had not required a turn lane at that time. Mr. Bowerman recalled what had transpired during the review of the first phase at which time the Commission had not -required the improvements to the crossover until 81,000 feet had been developed. Mr. Bowerman indicated it was his understanding that the applicant was now agreeing to make those improvements when 81,000 feet has been developed. He recalled that he and Mr. Rittenhouse had been in favor of requiring the improvements at that time but the vote had been 4:2 not to require them. The Commission then later determined that it had been a mistake not to require the improvements with the first phase. He concluded that the present application brings up the same issue. He stated he had no problems with the rest of the application. Mr. Bowerman interpreted that it was the applicant's position that if the Commission was "willing to do it the first time (they) should be willing to do it again" because nothing has been changed. Mr. Bowerman felt the argument against that position was that the Commission had made an error the first time. He stated he was in favor of requiring the improvements with this application. Mr. Bowerman stated he would like for it to be determined now whether a better access point was preferable, i.e. he did not want to see improvements to the existing crossover and find at some future date that that crossover should be closed and a new one constructed. Mr. Hurt noted that if the Commission requires that the turn lane be built with Phase II, he would be forced to build Phase I first and "not to plan the project as well." He stressed that he was volunteering to make the improvements when the development goes over 81,000 square feet. Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Hurt would agree to re -locate the crossover at the beginning of Phase II, "period?" Mr. Hurt responded: "I thought that was going to be the requirement." B� June 13, 1989 Page 8 The Chairman asked Mr. Echols to comment. He explained that the Corridor Study (1979) had addressed all the crossovers from Hydraulic Road to the Greene County Line and the crossover in question (north of this site across from the trailer park) was to remain. He stated that to change crossover locations would require a revision of the Corridor Study and would involve public hearings, etc. It was determined the possible relocation of the crossover had not been discussed with staff. -Mr. Rittenhouse felt the crossover issue "hinged on the viability.of moving the crossover." He stated: "I think if moving the crossover were a viable alternative and worth exploring, I could look at this application from the standpoint of deferring the improvements to the existing left turn lane. But if relocating the crossover is not a viable alternative; then I remain in favor of improving the existing. crossover if it is to stay there, as quickly as possible for the same reasons that I supported that recommendation of staff in the first place -- because I am concerned with the safety and I am concerned with L-turning movements on Rt. 29." Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Hurt if he would agree to a deferral to allow this question to be explored. Mr. Hurt indicated he was not in favor of a deferral. He stated: "What I'm proposing is to do one or the other... that is, I will either move the crossover and put the lane in so that it would come directly to 1570, if that's possible, or, if that's not possible, to goahead and put the taper lane in." Mr. Rittenhouse stated that the question then becomes one of timeliness, i.e. are we willing to wait until all that development reaches the 81,000 square feet point? Mr. Bowerman responded: "I didn't hear that. I heard whenever the question is answered to the satisfaction of the Highway Department and the adjacent user of that, and whatever has to be worked out is worked out and at that point either we agree to build it in a new location or to improve the other one." fir. Hurt added: "After 81,000 square feet." Mr. Bowerman stated he had not heard that part. Mr. Hurt stressed that everything was "after 81,000 square feet because that's when I end up having enough money to pay for this." Mr. Ritten- house noted --"That was my objection in the first place because.(the usage of this property is still not certain)." Ms. Diehl noted that she probably would have supported staff's recommendation for Phase I (she had not been present at that review) and.she agreed with Mr. Rittenhouse's position at this time. Mr. Hurt indicated a lack of understanding of the Commission's question. -Mr. Bowerman attempted to summarize the Commission's position: "We believe the staff's original recommendation, that the turn lane and taper be improved to the crossover, be implemented at this phase." (Mr. Hurt interjected: "Phase II.") Mr. Bowerman responded: "Right now --that it be imposed, period,unless you would be willing to defer it to ascertain whether or not you would want to relocate the crossover. In the event that you would be willing to relocate the crossover and it worked out, at 81,000 square feet we would require you to build the crossover but W June 13, 1989 Page 9 in exchange for that we would not require the improvements to the existing crossover until the 81,000 square feet was built." There was some discussion about the possible relocation of the crossover. Mr. Hurt pointed out that he did not feel he had much of an argument to move a crossover that currently has high usage to a location where it would be used very little. He thought there was little chance the Highway Department would agree to that. Mr. Echols explained that changing a crossover location would involve public hearings which could take a considerable amount of time. Mr. Bowerman noted: "'Then as far as I am concerned, this is 81,000 square feet before us for the first time." Mr. Hurt.expressed a lack of understanding. He felt it shouldn't matter to the County or the Commission "which 81,000 square feet I use." Mr. Bowerman explained: "The Commission recognizes that an error might have been made by it upon the first approval a year ago which caused a subsequent change of another condition where we required it and recognized at that time that we should have required the turn and taper improvements from the beginning and that being the case, since this is new business back here again, we have the option of imposing that condition just as if it were new business." Mr. Hurt asked: "You're not saying: '(A) We're not approving Phase II and (B) We're changing our approval of Phase I?" Mr. Bowerman replied: "No, Phase I stands, but we're saying the current request, to build in Phase II, is new business." Mr. Hurt explained: "The amount of .dirt required to do Phase I without a hope of a tenant would prohibit me from being able to finance the project, so by making that determination I will be forced to do Phase I. You can say: 'We hope you are going to build in Phase II because that means we will get the turn lane today,' but ... I can't afford to do that. If I get 81,000 square feet and the project's successful, I am in a good position then (A) to explore whether I can move (the crossover) and (B) to build that turn lane. I have to build 81,000 square feet in order to finance the project, so I'm stuck with Phase I, and I thought in the interests of good planning I would suggest the envelope idea because I don't think it makes any difference to the Commission other than as a lever to get me to do the turn lane.. I'm telling you that lever won't work because my banker won't go along with it. I don't want to mix up good planning with trying to make up for past errors." Mr. Bowerman responded: "I personally think good planning, based on my interpretation of it, requiral the improvements to be made a year ago on the Phase I approval. Being unable to reach.any other resolution of what we could be doing here with another crossover and improvements, I am forced to come back to the same decision I, personally, made a year ago." He noted that Commissioners Rittenhouse and Diehl seemed to agree with this position. .2/ June 13, 1989 Page 10 Mr. Hurt asked: "On Phase II?" Mr. Bowerman responded: "On Phase II, yes." Mr. Hurt responded: "I am happy to do Phase II. Understand? I'm not building Phase II first, though. In that case I've got to build Phase I." Mr. Bowerman interpreted: "He's saying that if we approve it the way he's asking for it, with the turn and taper lane, he can't afford to build it. So he'll have to go back and build Phase .I." Mr. Hurt confirmed this was correct. Mr. Bowerman explained the result of the approval of this request would be that the applicant would have two approved plans, "Phase I without the improvements and Phase.II with it." Ms. Diehl stressed her main concern was public safety and not the envelope for the building, thus her position remained uncharged. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that he felt there was a third option, i.e. to investigate the moving of the crossover. Mr. Hurt indicated he was willing to investigate this possibility but cautioned that it would be a long-term process. Mr. Keeler asked for a clarification of the Commission's position and asked if it was the Commission's desire that a determination about the crossover.be made before taking action on the request for Phase II. Mr. Bowerman stated the applicant was not willing to do that because of the amount of time involved. Mr. Keeler noted that it might be possible to simply determine if the Highway Department was amenable to the relocation of the crossover, setting aside the issue of the public hearings and the other property owners involved. 11r. Bowerman stated he did not think the Highway Department could make even a preliminary determination without having received public input. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the Highway Department could at least determine the engineering feasibility before the public hearing process. The Chairman called for a motion. GIs. Diehl moved that the Rivanna Commercial Park Phase Two Preliminary Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final site plan will not be signed until the following conditions are met: a) Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b) Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations; c) Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; d) Virginia Department of Transportation approval of Route 1570 drainage improvements; Zf June 13, 1989 Page 11 e) Virginia Department of 'Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements; to include the upgrade of the existing left turn lane to a 200-foot long, 12--foot wide turn lane with a 200- foot taper lane in the northbound lane of Route 29; f) Planning staff approval of landscape plan to include protective measures adjacent to parking spaces with a depth of 16 feet; g) Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water plans; h) Note on the final site plan that total development of Phase I and Phase II shall not exceed 81,540 square feet without approval of the Health Department. In no case shall development exceed 225,000 square feet without connection to public sewer. 2. A building permit will not be issued until the following condition has been met: a) Virginia Department of Transportation issuance of a commercial entrance permit. 3. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a) fire Officer final approval; b) Submittal of a certified engineers report in compliance with Section 26.7 of the Zoning Ordinance for each use of an industrial character. 4. Administrative approval of the final site plan. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Dunlora Phase 2 Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 118 lots from 135.7 acres, with a minimum lot size of 0.25 acres. Phase 1 (not yet signed) consists of 157 lots from 122 acres. Dunlora Phase 2 preliminary plat was originally approved December 1987 and has since expired. Property, described as Tax Map 62, Parcel 16, is located on the east side of Rt. 631 (Rio Road) north of Pen Park and across from the CATEC Center. Zoned R-4, Residential. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report which explained that the applicant was requesting reapproval of the preliminary plat for Phase II which had expired. The report concluded: "Staff opinion is that there has been no change of circumstance to warrant any change in conditions of approval. Staff recommends approval subject to original conditions of December 15, 1987." The applicant was represented by Ms. Susan Riddle. She stated that final construction plans for the final plat for Phase I had been approved and construction should commence moths: a couple of months. She explained that right-of-way had been acquired along Rio Road in order to provide a left turn lane into Dunlora Drive off Rio Road. She stated also that final road plans and final lot layout for Phase II have been reviewed by the Department of Engineer and VDOT and comments have been received, but final approval had not yet been granted. -1.4 June 13, 1989 Page 12 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. fir. Bowerman noted that the contract purchaser of this property has agreed not to buildinthe potential.right-of-way of the proposed :ifeadowcreek Interchange until the County is able to determine what the alignment is going to be. (This was not the case when the original Phase I was approved.) Mr. Michel moved that the Dunlora Phase 2 Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. County Engineering approval of public road and drainage plans and calculations; b. County Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations, as applicable; c. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of: 1. Road and drainage plans and calculations including turn lanes; 2. Plat showing required sight easements and right-of-way. d. Issuance of an erosion control permit; e. Fire Officer approval, to include hydrant locations; f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans; g. County Attorney approval of homeowner documents; h. County Engineering approval of provision for emergency access; i. Planning staff approval of conservation. plan (Section 15.4.1) for density bonus of Maintenance of existing wooded areas. 3. Approval of and compliance with SP-87-96 Dunlora Development Group. 4. No construction is permitted on critical slopes without a specific modification of regulations (Section 4.2.5) by the Planning Commission. 5. Access to the Dunlora residue parcels (16A, 16C, and 16D) is to remain as shown on the plat until any development in the future. At that time, the existing Dunlora private road may be relocated in whole or in part. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Keeler noted: "Dunlora was approved in two phases. The first phase prior developer was somewhat more ambitious about what he wanted to do on a phase basis. Currently the applicant is proposing putting a sub -phase to record that consists of about 50 lots. It's our opinion that recordation of that sub -phase and compliance with other provisions in the Code of Virginia will keep the remainder of this project alive." Mr. Keeler confirmed he was referring to a "sub -phase of Phase I." He continued: "We have no objection to that in this particular case. However, that provision of the Code of Virginia is going to be important in the future and what we will do in the future with larger subdivisions in every case we will request a phasing plan to be approved by the Commission at t heb time of the approval of the preliminary or final plat and after tMe applicant will have to adhere to it. It's not a June 13, 1989 Page 13 problem in this case because they're putting a substantial number of lots to record." Mr. Michel asked: "Is there an opportunity for a developer, if they're approved in smaller phases than we have here, to come back and change the phasing a little?" Mr. Keeler responded: "He can do that. But the Commission would be basically reapproving a plat." There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. DS Acting Secretary a.'r I )