Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA198700007 PC Minutes Zoning Map Amendment 1987-08-18August 18, 1987 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 18, 1987, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Richard Cogan, Chairman; Mr. Richard Gould, Vice Chairman; Ms. Norma Diehl; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials present were: Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. David Benish, Planner; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; and Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Bowerman, Michel and Wilkerson. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. The minutes of August 4, 1987 were approved as submitted. Jacob's Run Agricultural/Forestal District - Proposed agricultural forestal district located north of Earlysville Village and Rtes. 743 and 664 with other parcels located on Rt. 665 at Rt. 664; on Rt. 743 at Rt. 660; and on Rt. 743 near Rt. 664. The total acreage is 737.212 acres. Note that a portion of the proposed district lies within Earlysville Village. Ms. Scala presented the application to the Commission. The Commission accepted the application. No action was required at this time. 111w Montdomaine Winery Temporary Office Trailer - Request for Extension - Proposal for a twelve (12) month extension to the use of an office trailer for office space and public tasting area. 5.9 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, located on a private road off the north side of Rte. 720, off the west side of Rt. 20, ±0.5 mile south of Carter's Bridge. Tax Map 112, Parcel 18F. Scottsville Magisterial District. Pq Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The applicant was represented by Mr. Chip Rouse. In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Rouse stated that it was hoped the permanent structure would be completed within 12 months, but an 18-month extension, as recommended by staff, was probably wiser. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was decided a condition should be added requiring the removal of the trailer within a specified period of time after the completion of the permanent structure. Ms. Diehl moved that the Montdomaine Winery Temporary Office Trailer Request for Extension be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. This approval is valid for a period of eighteen (18) months or until the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the permanent structure. e AJ August 18, 1987 Page 2 2. Trailer to be removed within 10 days after issuance of CO for permanent structure. 19 Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Bascom Car Wash Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to locate a 4,768 square foot car wash to be served by 15 parking spaces. Total area of the site is one acre. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property, is located in the southeastern corner of the intersection of Rt. 250 and Riverbend Drive. Tax Map 78, Parcel 17F(2). Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. Mr. Cogan recommended that it be suggested to the Highway Department that a "No Left Turn" sign be installed to prevent westbound Rt. 250 traffic from turning left. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Mark Keller was present to represent the applicant. He introduced several other representatives of the applicant. No additional comment was offered. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl expressed a lack of understanding of the term "Armoral of specific areas" which was found in a letter describing the detailing bays. It was explained that Armoral was a trade name for a protective coating that is used on cars. Mr. Stark moved that the Bascom Car Wash Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions are met: a. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plan and calcu- lations; C. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements and issuance of commercial entrance permits; d. Issuance of an erosion control permit; e. County Engineer approval of retaining wall design; f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water plans and sewer lateral sketch; g. Planning staff approval of landscape plan. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The Commission asked staff to advise the Highway Department of their desire for a "No Left Turn" sign to be installed. August 18, 1987 Page 3 SP-87-63 Stephen K. vonStorch - Request in accordance with Section 10.5.2.1 the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for 161%rw the division of two existing parcels of 7.68 acres and 21.25 acres to create a total of three lots of approximately 14 acres, 11 acres, and 10 acres in size. Property described as Tax Map 76N, Parcels 13 and 14, Tax Map 76, Parcels 49D (part of) and Tax Map 89, Parcel 73 (part of), is located within the Sherwood Farms Subdivision on Chestnut Oak Lane. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Deferred from August 1987 meeting. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The staff report concluded: "This request adequately complies with the Special Use Permit criteria for requests for additional lots in the Rural Areas District. Further, the Comprehensive Plan recommends a density of one dwelling unit per five acres within areas of active agricultural, horticultural, or forestal use. The proposed would be one dwelling unit per ll+ acres. The staff, therefore, recommends approval of this request." of 4, Mr. Benish pointed out that if the Commission grants administrative approval of the final plat, it would be acknowledging that "this road is still adequate to be a private road." He reminded the Commission that this decision had been made previously with the review of the subdivision. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. vonStorch addressed the Commission. He stated he felt the proposal was consistent with the existing neighborhood. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Mike McMahon, an adjoining property owner, addressed the Commission. He stated he had no objection to the proposal. However, he asked that the deed reflect that the 5th parcel share in the responsibility for the maintenance of the private road. Mr. Payne explained that this is typically addressed at the subdivision stage and it is an appropriate concern. In response to Ms. Diehl's question, he stated that it could be added as a condition if so desired by the Commission. He suggested the following wording for such a condition: "County Attorney approval of amendment to existing road maintenance agreement to include all lots as finally approved." There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl noted that she was a resident of Sherwood Farms, though quite a distance from the property in question. She asked Mr. Payne if this presented a conflict of interests. Mr. Payne responded: "I don't see any conflict in that." Ms. Diehl moved that SP-87-63 for Stephen vonStorch be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following conditions: .g9.L August 18, 1987 Page 4 1. Administrative approval of the final plat. 2. County Attorney approval of amendment to existing road maintenance *40 agreement to include all lots as finally approved. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board on September 2, 1987. ZMA-87-10 Louise Putman -Stoner - Request to rezone 3.976 acres from R-1 Residential to RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 76, part of parcel 49 is located adjacent to Sherwood Farms Subdivision. The parcel is to be added to an existing parcel in Sherwood Farms. Proposed to be accessed through Sherwood Farms. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Benish gave the staff report. The report explained: "The applicant wishes to add the acreage to an existing lot within the Sherwood Farms Subdivision. Approximately .8 acres of this land may become a portion of a new lot adjacent to existing lot in Sherwood Farms (subject to approval of SP-87-63)." Staff recommended approval. The applicant was represented by Mr. vonStorch. He stated the applicant feels "it will improve the neighborhood to have land that is on top of the mountain, which is part of the neighborhood, downzoned so it will only contain one house where it might actually have been able to contain three or four with the current zoning." There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Stark moved that ZMA 87-10 for Louise Putman -Stoner be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval. Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The matter was to be heard by the Board on September 2, 1987. Ms. Diehl pointed out a mistake in the description for this item listed on the agenda. The agenda stated that "the parcel is to be added to an existing parcel in Sherwood Commons." This should have stated "the parcel is to be added to an existing parcel in Sherwood Farms." It was decided Mr. Keeler would present the staff reports on Berkmar Drive Extended Relocation and ZMA 87-7 for Jefferson Square Shopping Center consecutively since if the ZMA was not approved there would be no reason for the Berkmar Drive Extended to be relocated. Berkmar Drive Extended - Review for Compliance with Comprehensive Plan - Proposed relocation of a portion of Berkmar Extended about 450 feet to the west of its original alignment as well as realignment of the Woodbrook connector sA ae August 18, 1987 Page 5 road between Berkmar Extended and U.S. Rte. 29N. Charlottesville Magisterial District. AND ZMA-87-7 Jefferson Square Shopping Center - Request to rezone 37.5 acres from Highway Commercial to PDSC, Planned Development Shopping Center for a regional shopping center. The preliminary plan proposes a total of 274,986 square feet in several separate buildings, served by 1,512 parking spaces to be served by a total of three entrances to Rt. 29, two of which are shared entrances with adjacent property. Property, is located on the west side of Rt. 29N southbound lane, adjacent to the north of Colonial of Charlottesville development under construction, and across from Woodbrook. Tax Map 45, Parcels 93C, 93A, 94, 94A and 108. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Regarding the Berkmar realignment, the staff report concluded: "While the proposed realignment would increase cost (approximately $42,250 for the southern portion which would likely be built by the County) for a short section of Berkmar Drive Extended, construction costs were not a major consideration in determining current alignment. These increased costs (when viewed in the over context of the entire roadway) are not a serious problem. The proposed realignment would displace several mobile homes and possibly result in discontinuance of Greenfields mobile home park. Due to rising land values in the area, staff would recommend that Greenfield park not be viewed as a permanent use. ... For reasons stated earlier in this report, staff recommends that the four commercial lot remnants created by road realign- ment be rezoned from Commercial to R-6, Residential. Staff, therefore, recommends that the Planning Commission find this realignment to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan, subject to the above rezonings." Regarding the suggested rezoning for the four commercial lot remnants which would be on the west side of Berkmar Drive Extended as a result of the applicant's proposed realignment, staff explained that the recommendation for rezoning from Commercial to R-6 was based on keeping strip development from occurring on those properties. in the review for the Shopping Center rezoning, the primary issue of discussion and the major point of contention between the applicant and the staff revolved around points of access. The applicant was proposing three points of access to Rt. 29N: one at the Woodbrook crossover; another as a shared access with Colonial Pontiac -Cadillac; and a third which would be located approximately 3,000 feet north of the Colonial entrance, just north of Outlot C. The Planning staff, County Engineer, and VDOT were recommending that the middle entrance not be permitted. The staff report included the following explanation on this issue: VDOT comments: "The Department believes this acreage can be adequately served by two access points. We will allow access only at the Wood - brook crossover and at the existing entrance planned to serve Colonial Cadillac. The (middle) entrance proposed infringes on the southern entrance turn lane and will not be allowed." Though the applicant had modified access proposals (verbally), including limiting the middle entrance to ingress only, staff and VDOT continued o� August 18, 1987 Page 6 to recommend its deletion based on the following: "l. The middle entrance would intrude on the deceleration lane for Colonial Cadillac -Pontiac. 2. The middle entrance would foreshorten the right -on -red acceleration lane. 3. Traffic entering by the proposed middle entrance could access at the Colonial entrance located 300 feet to the south. 4. It is County policy that access points (particularly to U.S. Rt. 29N) be limited to the minimum necessary to provide safe and convenient access to property which in staff opinion would be provided at the Woodbrook crossover and at the Colonial entrance." Regarding the issue of the middle entrance, staff concluded: "Unless the developer agrees to delete the middle entrance, staff recommends disapproval of this zoning petition. While staff acknowledges several improvements offered by the applicant, the position of the Planning staff, County Engineer, and VDOT is that the middle entrance is unnecessary and contrary to the public interest." For the shopping center rezoning, the staff report concluded: "Section 8.5.4(d) permits the Planning Commission to recommend approval subject to stipulated modifications. The staff recommends that the Planning Commission make a positive finding that the proposed Jefferson Square Shopping Center is consistent with the required findings of 8.5.4(a) and (b) subject (to certain modificatons to the application plan and agreements made by the County and the applicant)." Additional comments made by Mr. Keeler included the following: --Traffic generation: The report stated that traffic generation figures for outlots A, B and C were based on. sit-down fast food restaurant and walk-in bank uses. Mr. Keeler stressed that a change to drive-in restaurant or bank could increase traffic above existing zoning and would require special use permit. However, Mr. Keeler pointed out several times that if the properties west of Berkmar Extended are rezoned from commercial to residential, thereby reducing significantly the traffic generation from those properties, the difference in the traffic generation could then be allocated to the shopping center and this would provide additional flexibility in the future to the developer in regard to uses for Outlots A, B and C. --Stormwater detention: Though the staff report stated that the applicant had agreed to special detention measures including detention/ discharge design for the 2, 10, 25, 50, and 100-year storm, Mr. Keeler reported that it was his understanding that this was incorrect and this was not the applicant's intention. (Mr. Creswell, representing the County Engineer's Office, addressed this issue later in the meeting.) R +) 61ry August 18, 1987 Page 7 The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Steve Creswell, representing the County Engineer's office. He stated that at the time of site review the problems with downstream channels had been discussed with the applicant along with State ordinance requirements which require detention for a 2-year storm and County ordinance requirements for detention for a 10-year storm. The applicant had also been made aware of the concern of the the possibility of a 100-year storm "overtopping" Rt. 29. He explained that though the applicant had submitted very preliminary figures on routings for the 2, 10, 25, 50 and 100-year storms, it was not the applicant's intent to provide detention for all those storms. Mr. Creswell stated that the following agreement had been reached with the applicant's consultant: "Agreement to construct stormwater detention facilities in compliance with state and local code requirements. Design storm recurrance interval shall be for the 2 and 10-year storm. Design shall be sufficient to prevent overtopping of US Rt. 29 for a design storm with a 100-year recurrance interval. The applicant shall provide as much additional detention as is feasible within the capacity available at the site in the vicinity of the proposed basin shown on the ap- plication plan." He stated the applicant has expressed the willingness to work with the County on this issue. (Note: Mr. Payne pointed out that requirements for the 2-year storm are not a matter of State law, but rather taken from the Virginia Erosion Control Handbook which is the substative standard for the County Soil Erosion Control Ordinance.) The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Jeff Echols, representing the Virginia Department of Transportation. Mr. Echols reaffirmed the staff report and stated that VDOT feels two entrances are adequate. He stated that the middle entrance will interfere with both the de-cel lane for Colonial Pontiac and the possible acceleration lane at the Woodbrook access. Mr. Echols also pointed out that the right-of-way width suggested in agreement No. 2 between the County and the Applicant (i.e. 60 feet) had not yet been definitively determined and might possibly be more than 60 feet. It was noted, however, that the statement spoke to a "minimum of 60 feet." (Mr. Keeler advised that the applicant should wait until the Highway Department has determined exactly what rights -of -way will be needed before paperwork is finalized.) Mr. Horne asked Mr. Echols if his understanding was correct that the VDOT will not issue an entrance permit for the middle entrance. Mr. Echols responded, "That's correct. We will only allow two access points." Mr. Cogan asked for clarification of the circumstances under which VDOT will permit a commercial entrance at the Woodbrook Crossover, i.e.: 1. Reconstruction of the southbound lane north of the crossover to obtain sight distance; 2. No right -turn -on -red from the new entrance to the southbound lane of Rt. 29; 3. Construction of a third lane south of the crossover to serve as an acceleration lane to accommodate right -turn -on -red from the new entrance. It was determined that any one of these (not all three) was acceptable though all were less than ideal. Rggarding the three possibilities, Mr. Echols confirmed the following: !94t August 18, 1987 Page 8 (1) No. 1 is the most desirable, but because of expense is probably not feasible; (2) No. 2 would be difficult to enforce and would cause traffic to back up into the shopping center; (3) Though staff usually recommends against acceleration lanes, this one would be somewhat unique (similar to an interstate ramp) which would allow traffic to get up to highway speed before merging with oncoming traffic. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Robert Croner. His comments included the following: --He confirmed Mr. Creswell's representation of the stormwater detention issue to be correct. He confirmed the applicant's willingness to work with the County on some of the problems in the neighboring areas, specifically in the Woodbrook Subdivision. --The applicant does not feel two points of access to the property are adequate. --Designating the middle entrance as an ingress only will eliminate interference with the de-cel lane for Colonial Pontiac. --If the middle entrance is allowed, the applicant is not concerned about having an acceleration lane lc r. right -turn -on -red at the Woodbrook access. He felt this%eliminate the "crossover" about which Mr. Echols and Mr. Keeler are concerned. --Responding to Mr. Echols statement that VDOT would not allow the middle entrance, Mr. Croner pointed out that Mr. Echols had not been present at meeting with Mr. Bauer (VDOT District Engineer) who had given an indication that there is a "possibility" that VDOT would approve the mid -point access. (Later in the meeting Mr. Echols reaffirmed his original statement regarding this entrance.) (Note: 2-3 minutes of Mr. Croner's presentation were not recorded due to equipment failure.) --Mr. Croner asked that the middle entrance be approved "subject to VDOT approval." --Regarding the suggested rezoning of the properties west of Berkmar Extended, Mr. Croner stated the applicant would rather the property not be rezoned because of economic considerations. However, he stated the applicant would not want to hold up the application based on this issue. He confirmed the applicant would be satisfied with the rezoning if the difference in traffice generation could then be allotted to the shopping center (as suggested by staff). --He confirmed that the veterinarian has agreed to the relocation of of his access. The Chairman invited public_ comment. Mr. Preston Stallings, owner of Greenfields Mobile Home Park, addressed the Commission. Mr. Stallings was concerned about the implication that he would lose several of his trailers as a result of the Berkmar realignment. He asked for the right to relocate the trailers on his property since there is sufficient room. Both staff and the Commission indicated this was acceptable and noted there had been no intention to eliminate the mobile home park. rITM-7 August 18, 1987 Page 9 Ms. Mary Frances Rainey, a representative of Colonial -Pontiac, addressed the Commission. She was concerned that the extension of the entrance appeared to narrow as it goes up to Berkmar. She asked that the same width be required as is being built presently by Colonial -Pontiac. Mr. David Bader, architect for the applicant, responded. He stated the road does narrow due to the improper alignment of the road, but at the point it will connect to Berkmar, it will be the same width. Ms. Rainey also asked if the driveway parallel to Rt. 29 would intersect with the Colonial entrance. Mr. Bader responded, "Yes." Mr. Jim Schilser, owner of the property at the corner of Berkmar Drive, addressed the Commission. Mr. Schilser was concerned about what right-of-way width was going to be required for the Berkmar realignment. Mr. Horne responded that the connection to Rio Road was proposed to be 3 lanes (12 feet in width) and some additional right-of-way, over and above 50 feet, would likely be necessary. He was unable to give a precise answer since the intersection has not been designed in detail. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Commission first discussed the Berkmar Drive Extended realignment. Mr. Cogan pointed out that the additional expense resulting from the realignment would be offset by the fact that the applicant will build 1/4 of the total length of Berkmar Extended as well as all of the Berkmar/ Woodbrook connector. He noted the only other concern was the interference with the trailer park. Ms. Diehl stated she was concerned about leaving the four commercial lots to the west of Berkmar Extended "isolated," but the rezoning of this property, as suggested by staff, would address this concern. Mr. Stark pointed out that it appeared that the interference with the mobile home park could be worked out, as suggested by Mr. Stallings, the owner. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Berkmar Drive Extended realignment was acceptable, pending the approval of the rezoning for the Shopping Center. (Vote was delayed until action was taken on the ZMA.) The Commission then discussed the proposed rezoning for the Shopping Center. Mr. Gould indicated he was concerned about the indefinitiveness of stormwater detention plans. He noted particularly already existing downstream problems. Mr. Cogan stated that, according to Mr. Creswell, the applicant has indicated a willingness to work with the County. Mr. Creswell again read the statement that reflected his agreement with the applicant: "Agreement to construct stormwater detention facilities in compliance with state and local code requirements. Design storm recurrance interval shall be for the 2 and 10-year storm. Design shall be sufficient to prevent i3 eb August 18, 1987 Page 10 overtopping of US Rt. 29 for a design storm with a 100-year recurrance interval. The applicant shall provide as much additional detention as is feasible within the capacity available at the site in the vicinity of the proposed basin shown on the application plan." Mr. Croner, the applicant's representative, confirmed this was acceptable to the applicant. Mr. Payne advised that if this acceptable to the Commission, it should be substituted for No. 5 of the Agreements Made by the County and the Applicant. Mr. Horne clarified that with the statement read by Mr. Creswell, the County would be getting detention provisions for the 2 and 10-year storm and not overtopping Rt. 29 for the 100-year storm. What was not being definitely provided for was any additional storage/detention capacity over and above the 2 and 10-year storm. Mr. Payne agreed this was accurate. However, he added that he felt the language read by Mr. Creswell was going "to put the onus on the applicant to establish that it's not feasible to have additional storage in that area." Mr. Payne stated he felt that it would be feasible, based on the comments he had heard from the engineers. Mr. Vader, the applicant's architect, added that the applicant recognizes the channel problem "across the street" and feels he has a possible solution to the channel problem by providing extra detention in this area. He stated, "We are willing to sit down with the County to store as much possible extra water that we can on this site." Mr. Vader stressed that calculations thus far had been very preliminary and though it may be found that 100-year detention is possible, he was not in a position to make that statement before accurate engineering has been completed. It was the consensus of the Commission that the property to the west of Berkmar Extended should be rezoned to R-6, as suggested by staff. The Commission then discussed the issue of the middle entrance and the Woodbrook intersection. Regarding the Woodbrook Crossover, Mr. Cogan was not confortable with any of the three solutions, particularlyt�ie most acceptable (reconstruction of thesouthbound lane north of the crossover to obtain sight distance) was not feasible because of prohibitive cost. Ms. Diehl stated she did not have as much of a problem with the proposal to construct an acceleration lane. She suggested that it might be possible to put a STOP sign at the end of the lane as if done in some other states. She noted that this would also allow additional stacking room. Mr. Cogan expressed the following reasons for not favoring an acceleration lane: (1) Staff is normally opposed to acceleration lanes; (2) There are only two lanes both north and south and this would be creating a third lane in the middle; (3) Sight distance problem; (4) Conflict with the deceleration lane. Ms. Diehl felt this could be addressed in several acceptable ways. She stated she would much prefer an acceleration lane above a middle entrance. -9A/ August 18, 1987 Page 11 Mr. Cogan stated he was not considering it as an "either - or". **MW Mr. Gould stated that though he "did not particularly like it, (he) could live with an acceleration lane." M Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Echols if he had any experience with placement of a STOP sign as suggested by Ms. Diehl. Mr. Echols responded that he was not familiar with any such situation. He stated that, in Virginia, YIELD signs are usually placed on ramps of this nature, not STOP signs. He stated that this was a possibility. However, he noted that the main advantage, in this case, of an acceleration lane was to allow cars to build up to a speed before merging into traffic and placing a STOP sign at the end of the ramp will defeat that purpose. Mr. Echols noted that there are several similar situations which currently exist in the County, i.e. shared ac-cel and de-cel lanes, (e.g. Rt. 29N exit ramp from I64 East). He stated it is not the best engineered design. Mr. Echols confirmed that VDOT would allow the construction of that alternative. Mr. Keeler speculated on some designs that might be used for the acceleration lane. Mr. Horne pointed out that this issue is still under consideration by VDOT and the final design will be dictated by them. Mr. Keeler pointed out one other aspect of the proposed middle entrance is that it would not have a deceleration lane, i.e. it's deceleration lane would be the acceleration lane for the right -turn -on -red. Regarding the middle entrance, Mr. Echols again confirmed that VDOT would not allow a middle entrance. In view of this, Mr. Cogan stated that the issue was moot. Mr. Gould pointed out a primary purpose of the Berkmar Extended roadway was to limit the number of accesses onto Rt. 29 and it has been the Commission's policy to keep those accesses to a minimum. Mr. Cogan stated he would only consider a middle entrance if it could in some way alleviate the problems with the Woodbrook Crossover. Mr. Horne pointed out that the middle entrance could in no way help that crossover. The Commission went over the 5 agreements made by the County and the applicant: --No. 1: Acceptable with the Section number changed to 8.5.6.3. --No. 2: Acceptable with some amendment to the last two sentences. Right-of-way for Woodbrook connector was to be determined by VDOT. (Reference to "minimum of 60 feet'was eliminated.) --No. 3: Acceptable. --No. 4: Acceptable. --No. 5: Substitute statement read by Mr. Creswell and confirmed by applicant's representative. ?.I August 18, 1987 Page 12 The Commission went over the 2 modifications to the application plan suggested by staff: --No. 1: Acceptable. --No. 2: Amend to read: Note that any use involving drive-in windows on Outlots A, B and/or C is subject to special use permit approval. Ms. Diehl noted that the property was presently zoned HC and the applicant's proposal for rezoning to PD-SC was much better. Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-87-7 for Jefferson Square Shopping Center be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following Modifications to Application Plan and Agreements Made by the County and the Applicant: Modifications to Application Plan: 1. Delete middle access to Rt. 29N and access from veterinarian to Rt. 29N. Show internal access for veterinarian. 2. Note that any use involving drive-in windows on outlots A, B and/or C is subject to special use permit approval. Agreements Made by the County and the Applicant: 1. Agreement to develop property in general compliance with modified Application Plan. Variations may be permitted as provided in Section 8.5.6.3 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Staff approval of subdivision plat to include dedication of right-of-way on Rt. 29N as recommended by VDOT; property line adjustment or easement to insure access for property to north opposite first access off of Woodbrook connector. Notes on plat restricting access to Rt. 29N. Plat shall also carry notation as to dedication of right-of-way for new roads upon demand of County. Right-of-way for Woodbrook connector, Berkmar Extended and Colonial Pontiac shall be determined by VDOT. 3. Agreement to construct Berkmar Drive Extended and Woodbrook connector to ultimate VDOT standards. Agreement to construct Colonial Pontiac roadway to private road standards. 4. Agreement to rezone four commercial lot remnants on west side of Berkmar Drive Extended to R-6, Residential. 5. Agreement to construct stormwater detention facilities in compliance with state and local code requirements. Design storm recurrance interval shall be for the 2 and 10-year storm. Design shall be sufficient to prevent overtopping of US Rt. 29 for a design storm with a 100-year recurrance interval. The applicant shall provide as much additional detention as is feasible within the capacity available at the site in the vicinity of the proposed basin shown on the application plan. A - � August 18, 1987 Page 13 cm CR Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Mr. Gould moved that the proposed relocation of a portion of Berkmar Drive Extended be found in Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan subject to the rezoning of the four commercial lot remnants (created by the road realignment) from Commercial to R-6, Residential. Mr. Stark seconded the motion which passed unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. T167 Mr. John Horne, Secretary f DS O.A W 9 W"