Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 18 85 PC MinutesJune 18, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 18, 1985, meeting room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, VA. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Richard Gould and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Frederick Payne (entered the meeting at 8:25), Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Absent: Mr.Richard Cogan. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the June 4, 1985 meeting were approved as written. ZTA-85-8 - To amend the Zoning Ordinance to provide for a zoning district designed to accommodate residential facilities dealing with all aspects of preventive, adaptive and rehabilitative health services. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Mr. Keeler confirmed this is contemplated as a use in the Rural Areas only, by special use permit. He explained that staff had originally proposed a special district for this use, but Mr. Payne was in favor of the use being handled through a special use permit approach. Mr. Keeler confirmed that the majority of the guests would be "overnight", with the length of the stay dependent on the regimen of the facility. Mr. Michel stated he felt the proposal should provide for overnight use so as to avoid the possibility of a "grand sports club" developing. Mr. Bowerman stated the proposed wording seemed to be designed primarily for the rural areas, though the use could work in other areas as well. Mr. Keeler stated staff had originally contemplated the same type of use with two different intensities. He stated the current proposal has a rural character while others that have been discussed were more intensive uses which take on a more commercial aspect. Mr. Bowerman asked if the proposed language would work for an urban -type setting. UrA June 18, 1985 Page 2 Mr. Keeler responded that he was unsure as to whether or not the language would accommodate the other types of uses as suggested by Mr. Bowerman. The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Bain, who represents the current applicant for this type of use. Mr. Bain stated he would like for "dining facilities" to be added under Supplementary Regulations, Accessory Uses (2.b). He stated that it makes no difference to the applicant if this is handled as a special use or through a special district. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Keeler stated if the Commission wishes to go with the special permit approach, the issue must be re -advertised, and can be placed on the July 9 agenda. Mr. Keeler explained that staff views this proposal as a rural resort similar to the Greenbrier. He said the others which have been discussed are similar to hospitals. Mr. Gould asked if it would be up to the Commission's discretion to require public water for such facilities. Mr. Keeler stated it would be up to the Board to determine where public water and sewer would be permitted. Mr. Skove indicated he was also concerned about this issue since it seems that a small village is contemplated and most rural areas are not served by public sewer and water. Mr. Keeler stated that the Board has, from time to time, extended the jurisdictional areas. Mr. Bowerman stated he had spoken with Mr. Payne about this issue and Mr. Payne felt that because this is not a use for several residences, the service authorities might not want to get involved and the jurisdictional areas would not have to be extended. A private facility could be operated independently and if it should fail, the institution would either have to correct the situation or close down. Mr. Skove stated this raises two main questions: (1) Should the service authority be extended to such a use; and (2) Should small seperate treatment facilities be approved. Mr. Keeler pointed out that only one owner would be effected if a seperate water or sewer system should fail, rather than several owners as in the case of a subdivision. Mr. Bowerman indicated this was his view also. 9-" June 18, 1985 Page 3 Mr. Bowerman stated he was leaning towards the special permit approach since he feels it gives the Commission and the Board more control. He added, however, that he would like for the language to be applicable to other than the rural areas, with those zoning types clearly defined. Regarding the accessability to public streets, Mr. Keeler stated it would be up to the Commission to determine whether the streets were adequate, and the same type of review would be employed as with any type of development. Mr. Michel stated he agreed with Mr. Bowerman that a special permit approach is preferable. However, he stated he felt this is specifically geared to a rural resort only, and he added he felt this is very different from what might occur in the urban area. Mr. Keeler suggested that the Commission move forward with this proposal at this time and if a firm application is received for the urban area at a later time, different language can be developed at that time. In response to Mr. Skove's question, Mr. Keeler stated he felt the special use permit would address the concern of minimum lot size. Ms. Diehl moved that a Resolution of Intent be adopted to treat vacation fitness resorts as a special use in the rural areas. Mr. Bowerman confirmed that this would include dining facilities. Mr. Skove seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Greene Gardens Nursery Site Plan - Proposal to create a total of 4,620 square feet of retail space, 16,649 square feet of greenhouse sales space, 40,000 square feet of exterior nursery sales space served by 95 parking spaces. Acreage of site is 6.37± acres, zoned C-1 Commercial. TM 45, parcels 104 and 104B, located on the east side of Rt. 29N just north of intersection of Rt. 29N and Rio Road, Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. Ms. Joseph confirmed that full frontage improvements are contemplated from Albemarle Square to Woodbrook Village. There being neither applicant nor public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Joseph stated that staff is suggesting that the Commission require the applicant to use public water to water the stock so as to prevent the possibility of the water lines becoming intertwined and contaminated water getting into the public water system. 9O June 18, 1985 Page 4 Ms. Joseph confirmed that condition (l.e.)--Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans, including purging the *490 existing water lines within the building with disinfectant -- requires connection to public water. Ms. Diehl recalled that the applicant had been concerned about using public water to water stock since sewage charges are based on the amount of water used. It had been suggested to the applicant that it might be possible to work out some sort of arrangement with the Service Authority to make adjustments for this. A representative of the applicant stated that there are also problems with the water supply and the applicant is looking to the Commission for guidance as to the best course to follow. Ms. Joseph pointed out that the applicant had been required, at the time of the last site plan approval, to connect to public water for domestic use (within the building), but that has not been done. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the Service Authority has stated that under no circumstances is any of the well water to get into the public system. However, he stated that it might be possible for the applicant to work something out with the Authority to use the well water to water the stock. Mr. Keeler suggested that condition (l.e.) might be changed to read: "Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans and connection to same." Ms. Joseph confirmed that the County Engineer feels the detention concerns can be addressed. It was determined that the requirement for connection to public water should be placed on the certificate of occupancy rather than on the building permit. Thus, rather than changing (l.e.), (2.b.) should be added as follows: "Connection to public water and sewer." Mr. Gould moved that the Greene Gardens Nursery Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit can be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and computations; b. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and computations; C. Issuance of an erosion control permit; d. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of entrance and closing of existing private entrance; e. Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans, including purging the existing water lines within the building with disinfectant; G� June 18, 1985 Page 5 f. Fire Official approval of hydrant locations and dumpster location; g. Planning staff approval of technical items and land- scape plan. 2. A certificate of occupancy can be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Official final approval of fireflow and hydrant location. b. Connection to public water and sewer. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Eastham Agricultural District - Proposal to locate a new agricultural/ forestal district consisting of 764.75 acres on the east and west sides of Rt. 20 North and on the north and south sides of Rt. 612 near Eastham. Tax Map 63, parcels 1, 1A, lAl, 2, 4, 26, 27 and 28. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Scala gave the staff report. She stated that the Commission must take action at this time. She added that after a report is received from the Advisory Committee, around July 16, a public hearing will be scheduled in August. In response to Mr. Skove's questions, Ms. Scala confirmed w that there is quite a bit of development on Rt. 20 up to this point. She added that there are two state roads located within this proposal, both of which have very poor sight distance. M Ms. Scala stated that staff will also make a report on this proposal which will be ready at the time of the public hearing. Ms. Diehl moved that the Eastham Agricultural/Forestal District be referred to the Advisory Committee. Mr. Skove seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Gray Bryan Final Plat - Proposal to divide one 4-acre parcel on a private access easement leaving 8.03 acres residue, located on the northeast side of Rt. 654 (Barracks Road) adjacent to Montvue Subdivision. Tax Map 60, Parcel 69A, Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Ms. Scala gave the staff report. She added that after reviewing this proposal she did not think any of the problems would materialize. She stated also that Health Department approval has been received and a maintenance agreement for the private road has been approved by the County Attorney (thus condition 2. is no longer needed). .• June 18, 1985 Page 6 Ms. Scala explained that if the applicant continues to use the existing right-of-way, then a waiver is needed (of section 18.36(f). However, if the applicant gives up the right to that right-of-way then a waiver will not be needed since he will be limiting himself to using only one entrance. The applicant stated he had no objections to giving up his right-of-way on the northwest boundary. He offered no further comment. The being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Scala suggested the addition of the following condition: "The applicant shall waive his right to use the adjacent right-of-way to the north." Mr. Michel moved that the Gray Bryan Final Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Future division of the residue will require a public road and a commercial entrance. 2. No additional entrances on Rt. 654 to serve residue. 3. Applicant shall waive his right to use the adjacent right-of-way to the north. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. North Pines Emergency Access Easement - Request to delete a portion of the North Pines Subdivision emergency access easement to Rt. 606. The applicant is proposing to delete the portion from Wisteria Drive across Lot 114. Tax Map 20, parcel 200. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Mr. Keeler confirmed that if the easement is abandoned in this section, the remainder of the easement is "worthless." He added that if the Commission wishes to deal with the entire easement, it will be necessary for the property owners involved to be notified and it will be up to them whether or not they wish to abandon the easement. (Note: Mr. Payne entered the meeting at this point.) The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. James Cosby, attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Cross, addressed the Commission. He explained that the easement is so close to the applicants' house that it prevents full use of the property, and since the easement is not needed, the applicants are requesting that it be deleted. WTO June 18, 1985 Page 7 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl indicated she was uncomfortable with the fact that the area will no longer have a secondary access in case of an emergency. Mr. Keeler stated a four -wheel -drive vehicle could probably reach the property, but not a large vehicle such as a fire truck. He stated there was no other possible access to his knowledge. Mr. Michel indicated he agreed with Ms. Diehl, but added that it does appear that the access is not functional. Mr. Wilkerson stated he was in agreement with staff and moved that the North Pines emergency access easement, across Lot 114, be deleted. Mr. Michel seconded the motion. Mr. Bowerman stated that he would not be in favor of deleting the easement if it were solely for the benefit of the applicant since he knowingly purchased the lot with the easement across it; however, he agreed that the easement does not appear to be functional. The above stated motion to delete the access easement was unanimously approved. Regarding the issue of the method to be followed in the abandonment of the easement across the other lots, Mr. Payne stated that the lot owners involved would need to propose an amended subdivision plat, and the Commission could authorize staff to approve such an amended plat. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff be authorized administrative approval of an amended subdivision plat showing deletion of the remainder of the easement. SP-85-31 Woodlane Partnership - Request to build a professional office building on a 1.492 acre site. In accordance with Section 17.2.2(11) of the Zoning Ordinance. Located on the east side of Rt. 743, 300 feet north of Whitewood Road. Zoned R-10. Tax Map 61, parcel 23B. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He added that this property does not abut any useable residential property. He also stated that the size of the building may be limited at the discretion of the Commission. (The Highway Department has indicated that a gross floor area of 8,300 square feet would be comparable to residential development of the property in terms of traffic development (100 vehicle trips/day). Mr. Keeler June 18, 1985 Page 8 stated that a gross floor area of about 15,000 square feet could be anticipated, which would increase the traffic generated to 180 vehicle trips/day. Mr. Keeler stated tYat the Comprehensive Plan was amended to show this area for commercial offices and four out of five parcels that were expected to be re -zoned have been re -zoned. He stated this is a use by special permit in the R-10 district, and is limited to professional offices, while if this were rezoned to commercial offices, any type of offices would be allowed in addition to several other uses by right. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Roudabush, representing Woodlane Partnership, addressed the Commission. He stated that numerous attempts to develop the property into residential use have not succeeded, primarily because it is surrounded by commercial property. He asked that the building not be limited to 8,300 square feet as recommended by the Highway Department. He pointed out that no other property in the area has had their floor area limited. He also pointed out that public utilities are available and the property is not in the watershed. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked if staff contemplated any screening or fencing in front of the cemetery if the rock wall is removed. It was determined the rock wall is in the Highway Department right-of-way, and Mr. Keeler stated he was not aware of any previous agreement between this property owner and the owner of the cemetery which required replacement of the wall. It was determined the rock tia71 is rct "between this property and the cemetery" but is across Rt. 743. Mr. Roudabush pointed out that the only part of the rock wall that will have to be removed to obtain sight distance is a small part across the front of this property, not what is in front of the cemetery itself. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Roudabush what is contemplated for the building if the gross area is not restricted. Mr. Roudabush responded that there are no definite plans at this time, but estimated that the building would be no more than 12,000 to 15,000 square feet. He confirmed that the 15,000 square feet referred to by staff would be the maximum. Ms. Diehl indicated she would not be in favor of generating more traffic than would be allowed at this time, but she added she would be in favor of allowing the applicant to increase the size at a later time after highway improvements have been made. 91 /n June 18, 1985 Page 9 Mr. Roudabush pointed out that the Highway Department's recommended floor area was based on gross floor area rather than net area. He stated that a limitation made on gross floor area is a "severe" limitation. Mr. Keeler confirmed that staff would expect that the maximum floor area would not be greater than 15,000 square feet. Mr. Skove stated if the condition is left as is, the applicant can ask for an amendment at the time the site plan is reviewed. Mr. Roosevelt (Highway Department) stated that this section of Hydraulic Road is not currently in the Six -Year Plan for improvement. Mr. Bowerman stated he was hesitant to limit the size of the building in view of the fact that the uses in this area are predominantly commercial and the fact that the zoning has not been changed on this property since tYe,: n=_w ordinance was adopted. He added that he felt this is a legitimate location for this type of proposal. However, he stated he understood staff's concerns about traffic generation. Ms. Diehl stated she felt it was justifiable to limit it based on traffic generation. She added, however, that she felt it should not be a permanent limitation, but only until road improvements could be made. Mr. Skove moved that SP-85-31 for Woodlane Partnership be approved subject to the following condition: 1. Office development limited to 8,300 square feet of gross floor area. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was approved (4:2), with Ms. Diehl, Mr. Gould, Mr. Michel and Mr. Skove voting in favor and Mr. Wilkerson and Mr. Bowerman voting against. The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board on July 17, 1985. The meeting recessed at 9:00; reconvened at 9.15 SP-85-32 Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority - Request to construct a hydropower generating station within the 100 year floodplain of the South Rivanna River, in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.1.6, reference 5.1.26 also Section 10.2.2.39, reference 5.1.26 of the Zoning Ordinance. Property, described as a 72-acre site, located on the west side of Rt. 29N adjacent to the South Rivanna dam at the South Rivanna Water Treatment Plant. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 45, parcel 66A, 67. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. 1 n2 June 18, 1985 Page 10 Mr. Keeler added that the application is in a "posture" to be approved. It was determined the pipe already exists, but the usage will be increased. Mr. Keeler stated the concern is about the oxygen content of the water downstream and the oxygen will be monitored at the Rt. 29 bridge, as recommended by the State. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. George Williams, Executive Director of the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority, addressed the Commission. He explained the purpose of the project is to utilize the water discharge from the dam and convert it to electricity, most of which will be used on site. He envisioned the project to be operational by fall of 1986. He added this would also serve as a standby generator in the event of a prolonged power outage. He stated the energy would be used to operate the pumping facility to get the water up to the storage tanks and to operate filters. He confirmed that some excess is anticipated and may be sold to VEPCO in the initial years of operation, but eventually it will all be used on site. He confirmed that the project will be financed by revenue bonds. He confirmed that Buck Mountain will discharge water to this plant by either stream or pipe and the plant will be expanded to accommodate that. He confirmed that to maintain more effective water quality control, some water will be going over the dam at all times. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Williams stated this project would have no effect on the "fall turnover." Ms. Diehl moved that SP-85-32 for Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. County Engineer approval in accordance with requirements of 30.3 FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT and 5.1.26 HYDROELECTRIC POWER GENERATION. 2. Staff approval of site plan after review by Site Review Committee. 3. Comments of this report to be considered in all approvals. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. Mr. Payne confirmed that a seperate review for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan is not required since that is understood to be considered at the time of the special permit review. The above stated motion for approval was approved unanimously. The matter was scheduled for Board review on July 17, 1985. ^17 June 18, 1985 Page 11 M ZMA-85-16 Hollymead Land Trust, Albemarle Bank & Trust - Request to rezone ±32 acres from R-1 Residential to HC, Highway Commercial with proffer as to limitation of access. Property, described as Tax Map 32, parcels 42 (part) and 36 (part) is located in the southeast quadrant of the U.S. Rt. 29N/Rt. 649 (Proffit Road) intersection. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report, which included staff's inter- pretation of a plan proposing certain limitations and measures. (An actual proffer document has not yet been submitted.) Staff's report also included a plan for phasing of improvements with certain recommended access points. This plan included the recommendation for the closing of certain existing crossovers. Mr. Keeler confirmed tYat the four steps recommended by staff do not necessarily have to be accomplished in that sequence. Mr. Keeler stated that staff's plan has attempted to tie the applicants' proposal for accesses to the Rt. 29N Corridor Study. Though Mr. Keeler had stated that no formal proffer had yet been made, Mr. Smith, representing the applicant, corrected Mr. Keeler and stated that a written proffer had been given to Mr. Keeler. After checking his files, Mr. Keeler confirmed that this was so and distributed copies of the proffer to the Commission. stated Mr. Keeler/that what has been submitted is a plan which shows four major points of access and an additional minor access to the Tri-Ton property. He explained that when future applicants wish to establish access to Rt. 29, they would be required to do so at one of these points. Mr. Smith confirmed that the plan which has been submitted conforms to the written proffer. Regarding the proposed third lane, Mr. Smith explained the concept was not to commit to building the full third lane (1,500 feet) when only a 200 foot lot will be used initially. In response to Mr. Michel's question, Mr. Smith explained that Tri-Ton needs two entrances, close together, because service stations must have an "in" and an "out", since tractor trailers will be using the stations. The Chairman invited further applicant comment. Mr. Smith addressed the Commission. He stated the applicant is concerned about that part of the staff's plan which recommends tha6 twhe developers close existing crossovers and construct/ones. He felt it should not be the developers' problem to change crossovers which the Highway Department has constructed. He also questioned the need to close the northern -most crossover which serves Mercer Carpets. It ^'a June 18, 1985 Page 12 Mr. Smith stated the proposed use for the property is a convenience store/gas station. He stated that it would not be a truck stop. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Mary Jo Lovelace addressed the Commission. She was concerned about the large tract of land that is involved in the request, i.e. 32 acres from Residential to Highway Commercial. She felt this was excessive. She questioned what the rest of the property would be used for if only five acres is to be used for the current proposal. Mr. Kenneth Maupin, owner of a service station located across from one of the crossovers that is proposed to be closed, addressed the Commission. He was opposed to the closing of this crossover being tied in with the granting of this application. Responding to Ms. Lovelace's remarks, Mr. Smith pointed out that the applicant had previously tried to rezone just the five acres but that had been turned down because the Commission had wanted to see the "whole picture." Mr. Dan Roosevelt, representing the Highway Department, addressed the Commission. He asked the Commission to be mindful of the process that would have to be followed if crossovers were to be closed, i.e. public hearings must be held by the Highway Department, and at that time the Highway Department would expect the County to support the closing of the crossovers. He also pointed out that the access to North Hollymead would fall somewhere along this frontage and he had heard nothing in tonight's plans which would protect this access. Mr. Wilkerson asked Mr. Roosevelt to explain what he meant by the statement that "the Highway Deparment would expect the Commission to support the closing of the crossovers." Mr. Roosevelt explained that there would be public opposition to the closings and the Highway Department would expect the County to say we support the closing and re -location of these crossovers because it is in accordance with a plan that we have adopted for Rt. 29 North Corridor Study, or it is in accordance with a plan that we have adopted for the development of this 32 acres of commercial property and we support the staff's and Highway Department's recommendation that these crossovers be closed." He added that he did not think there would be any public support for these closings, nor any support from this developer. had Mr. Roosevelt stated he had not/time to study the proposal that has been presented by staff and the applicant, nor has he seEn the proffer. Mr. Roosevelt stated he was familiar with the two crossovers that are proposed to be closed and that they have less than adequate sight distance, i.e. if they were not already in existence the Highway Department would not allow them at this time. in< June 18, 1985 Page 13 In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question, Mr. Roosevelt stated he did not think the Highway Department would allow the construction of the newly proposed crossovers unless the two existing ones are closed because the spacing would be too close. Regarding the recommendation for a heavily -used commercial entrance close to these crossovers, the Highway Department would recommend that the existing crossovers at least be modified, if not closed. Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Roosevelt to comment on the entrances that have been proffered. Mr. Roosevelt stated the four entrances seem to meet the County's adopted policies, i.e. that the entrance be either at the cross- over or at least 500 feet from the crossover. He stated the fifth entrance was a surprise and would like to see a site plan before commenting. Mr. Roosevelt7iadthe traffic generation figure for the year 2000, for this area, was based upon the zoning as shown in the Comprehensive Plan, and it was his understanding that this area was proposed for Highway Commercial zoning. He added that a road system is being considered by the year 2000 which he did not feel there would be money enough to finance. Mr. Roosevelt stated that he felt the improvements that are proposed will alleviate the problems on this part of Rt. 29, but will do nothing to relieve problems at Hydraulic and Rio Roads. He confirmed that Highway Commercial zoning would definitely generate more traffic than Residential zoning. Mr. Michel asked Mr. Roosevelt if he would like more time to study the proposal. Mr. Roosevelt responded that he did not think the Highway Department should influence the County's zoning. Mr. Maupin once again addressed the Commission and asked that closing of the crossovers not be tied in with the rezoning at this time, but to at least wait until the time the site plan is reviewed. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Payne stated he did not feel the Commission should act on this proposal at this time for the following reasons: --The proffer is not adequate procedurally or substatively in this form. --The proposal contains a lot of ambiguity and does not tie down what it is addressing. --The phasing as recommended by staff is not reflected in the proffer. (He pointed out that neither the staff nor the Commission can tell an applicant what to proffer. ) ►s.TA June 18, 1985 Page 14 --The seperation requirement for crossovers is clearly specified in the Ordinance and the Commission does not have the authority to alter that requirement. --The file does not contain any evidence that Mr. Smith has authority from the applicant to make the proffer. Mr. Payne stated that if the Commission is contemplating denial of the proposal, then there is no problem, but if approval is contemplated, then these matters need to be tied down. Mr. Keeler indicated he would like more time to study the Highway Department's comments. He added that he would be reluctant to recommend approval of an application which is tied to the closing of a crossover which requires a public hearing by another body, i.e. the Highway Department. Mr. Keeler stated that the issue is scheduled for the Board on July 17 and staff could bring it back to the Commission on July 9. Mr. Bowerman indicated the date set for hearing the matter again should be based on however long it takes staff to adequately review the issue rather than being based on when it is to be heard by the Board. Mr. Michel asked if, in January 1984 when this was believed to be consistent by the staff, was that prior to Dr. Hurt's downzoning of several parcels in Hollymead. Ms. Diehl indicated, because of the large tract of land involved, that she would prefer to see a planned development approach. study It was determined that a traffic impact/was desirable also. Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-85-16 for Hollymead Land Trust be indifinitely deferred. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Mr. Keeler went over a preview of upcoming agendas. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. DS %A&MOA D n -AAAAAA ames R. onn 0 Secretary y, 9 /n 7