Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 20 85 PC MinutesAugust 20, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 20, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. James Skove and Ms. Norma Diehl. Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Absent: Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; Mr. Tim Michel; Mr. Richard Gould. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the August 6, 1985 meeting were approved as written. Taylors Auto Body Shop Revised Site Plan - Approval of the landscape plan by the Planning Commission. Property, located on the east side of Brookway Drive, off the west side of Rio Road and adjacent to Meadowcreek. Tax Map 61, parcel 168D and 168E. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. She presented some photographs of the site. She added that it is difficult to review the screening at this time and asked that staff be allowed to determine the location of plantings after the leaves have fallen. She suggested that this be made a condition for the certificate of occupancy so as not to hold up the building permit. Regarding lighting, she stated no lighting proposal was shown on the plan, but the required note stating that lighting will be directed away from adjacent properties is on the plan. She confirmed that staff is satisfied with the types of trees and the number of trees proposed, but wishes to reserve judgment on the placement of these plantings until Fall so as to better determine where they will be most effective. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Ms. Taylor, representing her husband, addressed the Commission. She stated their only concern was that it would be difficult to plant the trees at this time because of the dense foliage. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Garrett, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission. He was concerned that the wooded area be preserved and questioned the proposed location for the white pines. He also expressed concern about the lighting and the hours of operation. / 5'/ August 20, 1985 Page 2 Ms. Diehl indicated she was in favor of staff's suggestion that the location of the plantings be determined after the leaves have fallen. She added that the white pines would offer more effective screening if they are planted closer to the building. She also suggested that a condition be added stating that the wooded area would remain substantially as shown on the plat to insure that the large hardwoods would not be removed. It was determined the following condition could be added: • No live tree removal beyond grading limit shown on site plan It was determined the applicant will erect a fence around his property, thus preventing a neighboring business from parking on his lot. Ms. Diehl moved that the Taylors Auto Body Shop Revised Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. No parking on lot six may overhang the access drive; b. Pavement marking and signage to direct one-way travel on access drive; C. Planning staff approval of landscape plan. 2. No live tree removal beyond grading limit shown on site plan. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Mr. Keeler added that the applicant, in a letter of April 22, states that the hours of operation will be 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. and that there will be no all-night lights brighter than existing street lights. He advised that the applicant should meet with staff and the Zoning Administrator regarding the type of lighting to be used so as to avoid "corrective measures" being required at a later time. Montdomaine Winery Temporary Office Trailer Public Tasting Area - Proposal to locate a temporary office trailer to serve as public tasting area for a period of 24 months. Property, located on a private road off the north side of Rt. 720, off the west side of Rt. 20, ±0.5 mile south of Carter's Bridge. Tax Map 112, parcel 18F. Scottsville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. 4 i 9z, August 20, 1985 Page 3 It was determined the size of the trailer was 14' x 60' (not 5'), though the plan had shown it as 14' x 60". Ms. Patterson explained this review is for the site plan for the public tasting area; the farm winery does not require a site plan. She further explained the Director of Planning has authority to approve a public tasting area, but because this will be a mobile office (trailer), it requires review by the Commission. The applicant explained that only a portion of the trailer will be used as a tasting area with most of the space being used for offices. He stated the area for tasting would be 14' x 21' (294 sq. ft.), which will require three parking spaces. It was determined the gravelled area could accommodate the parking requirements. Mr. Cogan indicated confusion as to how the discrepancy in the size will affect the application, particularly since the staff report stated that "Structures, including vehicles, shall not exceed 600 square feet in aggregate floor area." Ms. Patterson stated she did not feel there is a problem. However, if the area does exceed 600 square feet then the applicant must apply for a special use permit. Mr. Cogan stated it does not matter how the trailer is broken down, i.e. how much is for office and how much for tasting, the single structure is over 600 square feet. Mr. Keeler stated it is the area that is devoted to that particular use. He explained that the use can be within a larger structure, but the area that can be used for that particular use is limited. He compared the issue to "home occupation." Mr. Cogan indicated he was satisfied with staff's explanation. It was pointed out this is an office trailer as opposed to a residential trailer --it has no kitchen. Mr. Keeler explained there is no provision in the ordinance for this but the Commission has historically approved such uses in order to accommodate applicants' time schedules with a time limit placed on the use. It was determined the issue is before the Commission solely because the structure is a mobile unit. Mr. Keeler stated that if the applicant were to build a structure with these dimensions Commission approval would not be required since it could be approved administratively. /9.3 August 20, 1985 Page 4 The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant emphasized that the structure is a mobile office and not a mobile home. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Skove moved that the Montdomaine Winery Temporary Office Trailer Public Tasting Area be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Health Department approval; b. Zoning Administrator approval of compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. This approval is for a period of 24 months. This approval does not include "Future expansion" area designated on plan. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Ms. Diehl again indicated confusion and Mr. Keeler explained that it is not the use that is being approved, but the structure. The previously stated motion for approval was unanimously approved. SP-85-52 Virginia Land Trust (C.W. Hurt) - Request in accordance with Section 22.2.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for the construction of a bicycle racing track for boys and girls ages 5 years and older. Property, located behind Riverbend Shopping Center on Pantops Mountina. Tax Map 79, parcel 17E. Zoned, C-1, Commercial. Acreage of site is two acres. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He added that parking for the use would be provided at the shogAng center. He stated the applicant is proposing that the track will only be used Saturday and Sunday. Mr. Wilkerson asked if insurance coverage was for weekend use only, or would it include the entire week. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Larry Lippencott, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained the insurance, through the American Bicycle Association, is just for racedays. However, he stated he would not be opposed to providing liability coverage for the remainder of the week. He stated the track may be used for teaching and practice sessions on Wednesday nights (as daylight permits). He stated all races will be operated and /qj,/ August 20, 1985 Page 5 sanctioned by the ABA. Use of the track will be limited only to ABA members. He stated the track is strictly for non - motorized bikes and because of its size and design does not invite usage by motorized vehicles. Mr. Wilkerson explained he was concerned about the possibility of small children using the track, unsupervised, and the danger in crossing Rt. 250. Mr. Lippencott stated the track is relatively hidden from view and did not think this would present a problem. He stated he would be glad to post No Trespassing signs. The Chairman invited public comment. The following citizens addressed the Commission and stated they were in favor of the proposal: Mr. Glen Sanford and Ms. Lauren Howard. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman stated the applicant had addressed his concern in relation to motorized vehicle usage. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-85-52 for Virginia Land Trust (C.W. Hurt) be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. No motorized vehicles. 2. Use to be limited as outlined under "Applicant's Proposal;" 3. County Engineer approval of improvements to floodplain in accordance with 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. It was determined a fourth condition should be added as follows: 4. Signs posted: "No motorized vehicles allowed." Mr. Wilkerson amended his motion to include this addition and Mr. Skove seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. (Mr. Bowerman excused himself from the meeting for the next two items due to a conflict.) SP-85-53 Tom J. Curtis - Request in accordance with Section 10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the subdivision of 37 single family residential lots, minimum lot size of 21-2 acres, average lot size is 7.68 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 80, part of parcels 61, 8, 60A, 62, 70, 31, 8Z, and on Tax Map 94, parcel 42. Total acreage of site is 284.11 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Rivanna Magisterial District. Property, located /9M August 20, 1985 Page 6 on the south side of Rt. 616 at I-64 interchange and adjacent to existing golf course. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He pointed out that the applicant is proposing the same number of lots as permitted by right, but since a change of lot size is proposed, a special use permit is required. Mr. Cogan, acting as chairman in Mr. Bowerman's absence, invited applicant comment. Mr. Roudabush, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He explained the proposal using the drawing and. offered the following comments: --37 additional lots are proposed. --The access to the subdivision would be just off of I64 on Rt. 616 with a new subdivision street connected with a cul-de-sac where the state maintenance will end and then connection to the existing private road would be made. Two other state -maintained roads with cul-de-sacs will be constructed. An existing right-of-way which has been designated would be abolished and a connection made with a private road. --Two large 30 acre tracts would have no new streets constructed to serve them but would use existing right-of-ways as driveways. --No increase in density is proposed. --Soil tests made on the properties east of Carroll Creek have shown that the soil is generally acceptable for septic tank. No percolation tests have been made. --Water will be obtained from two recently drilled wells which preliminary tests have shown get 60 gpm. An existing permit for a central water system to provide service to 30 lots will be amended (if this proposal is approved) to include the 26 existing lots that the applicant owns in the existing subdivision, plus the 7 additional new lots west of Carroll Creek. --The owners of the existing 26 lots will be required to participate in the road maintenance agreement which now exists for the maintenance of the private roads in the existing subdivision. In response to Mr. Cogan's question as to why the lot sizes have been changed, Mr. Roudabush explained the sizes have been changed to create a more consistent pattern and better geometric layout. It was determined some of the lots on Rt. 616 have double frontage and will require a waiver. The Chairman invited public comment. 19 / gi August 20, 1985 Page 7 Mr. Gorden Wheeler addressed the Commission. He stated he had `✓ lived in the area for 30 years and is president of the homeowners group, with special responsibility for maintaining the road. He indicated there have been many problems with keeping the road maintained. He stated he, and his neighbors, are opposed to the state road connecting with their private road since this will greatly increase the traffic on their private road, thus increasing their maintenance costs. He felt this was the main objection that most of the neighboring homeowners have to this plan. Mr. Bill Bailey addressed the Commission. He indicated he felt the financial support that would come from the addition of the new lots would be advantageous to the maintenance of the roads. Little Mr. Pedar/addressed the Commission and indicated he too was opposed to the new development using the private roads. He pointed out that these people would be using the road without having to contribute to its upkeep. He indicated he was in favor of restrictions being placed on the two existing wells which serve the clubhouse. Ms. Pat Schuler addressed the Commission and expressed concern about the water situation. Mr. Hans Reinwald addressed the Commission and also expressed concern about the water supply. Mr. William Orr asked if each lot would be for single-family dwelling only. It was confirmed the current zoning would allow only single-family development. It was also determined there are no development rights for the two 30 acre parcels. Mr. Cogan asked how the residents of 26 of the lots would get to the clubhouse if the public road was not connected to the private road. Mr. Roudabush explained they would take Rt. 616 to Rt. 731 or Rt. 22. The Chairman invited additional comments from Mr. Curtis, the applicant. Mr. Curtis offered the following comments: --It was felt an internal use of this property was more feasible for family use than an. external use would have been. --The new 37 lots will be obligated to join in with the existing private road maintenance agreement, thus making more revenue for their upkeep. Mr. Little asked for clarification as to the planned usage for the two existing wells at the clubhouse . /97 August 20, 1985 Page 8 Mr. Curtis stated the use of the central well system will minimize the use of the existing wells. He stated he was willing to proffer limiting the use of the existing clubhouse wells to no more than is currently being used. Mr. Wheeler questioned the enforceability of Mr. Curtis' proposal to require the owners of the new lots to participate in the private road maintenance agreement. Mr. Laney Moore, a neighboring property owner and member of the Keswick Volunteer Fire Department pointed out that if the private road is cut off from the public road, the fire department would not be able to reach the new homes efficiently. He also stated cutting off the private road would eliminate the fire department's access to two ponds which it uses for water. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Bain (in the absence of Mr. Payne) to explain how residents on a state road could be required to participate in the maintenance of a private road. Mr. Bain stated this would be part of restrictive covenants and also that the Commission could make that a condition if it so chooses. He stated that has been the applicant's intent from the beginning, i.e. that they be required to help maintain all the private roads that currently exist since they will be using the roads. He stated that this could probably be done at the subdivision stage. Mr. Keeler stated that one option which has not been discussed is to make the road a public one in its entirety. He added that staff is reluctant to recommend mixing residential and commercial uses on a private road because of maintenance problems, and cost inequities. He also stated that the ordinance discourages situations where a private road connects to two separate public roads for these same reasons. Ms. Diehl asked if a public road could be required on the segment between the clubhouse and the new division. Mr. Keeler responded this would be possible only if the property owners along that road would dedicate the needed right-of-way. Mr. Keeler explained further that the next item on the agenda (an expansion of the clubhouse facilities) might require that that section of road be upgraded to state road standards anyway. Separate from the road issue, it was the consensus of the Commission that the application met the criteria for a special use permit. It was determined the road issue would be dealt with at the time of subdivision. August 20, 1985 Page 9 Mr. Skove moved that SP-85-53 for Tom J. Curtis be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to any subdivision plat review by the Planning Commission the applicant shall obtain the following: a. Virginia Department of Health approval of two septic drainfield locations on each proposed lot; b. County Engineer review of pump tests for two wells in southeastern portion of property in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Albemarle County; 2. Prior to subdivision plat review by the Planning Commission for lots southeast of Carroll's Creek the applicant shall obtain the following: a. County Engineer approval of construction activity in the flood plain of Carroll's Creek in accordance with 30.3 FLOOD HAZARD OVERLAY DISTRICT of the Zoning Ordinance; b. County Engineer approval of public and private road plans to provide connector road from Club Drive to Rt. 616; 3. All lots northwest of Carroll Creek shall be served by a central water system supplied by the two wells located in the southeast portion of the property or such alternative well locations as may be approved by the Board of Supervisors; 4. Development shall be in general accord with the preliminary plan submitted as a part of this petition and marked "Planning Commission; August 20, 1985" and initialled "RSK." Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. The Commission pointed out to the applicant that the Commission has great concern regarding the roads and their maintenance which will be addressed at the time of subdivision. The above -stated motion for approval was unanimously approved and scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on September 4, 1985. SP-85-54 Tom J. Curtis - Request in accordance with Section 10.5.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow six guest rooms in two existing cottages and thirty-six guest suites in a new structure adjacent to the clubhouse. Property, described as Tax Map 80, parcels 8, 8Z. Existing zoning RA, Rural Areas. Total acreage of site is 24.395 acres. Property, located on the east side of Rt. 744 at the intersection with Rt. 731. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. 199 August 20, 1985 Page 10 Mr. Keeler pointed out that staff's condition 3. requires the clubhouse to use the central well system; however, if the applicant wishes to continue using the existing wells at the clubhouse, and the Commission allows this, then the condition needs to be amended to accommodate the continued use of the existing wells. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Roudabush addressed the Commission. He stated all that is being added as the result of this application is the addition of 36 guest suites. The other facilities have been in existence for some time. He added that if an additional sewage disposal system is required (in the event septic fields cannot be located), it will serve only the club and not the residential lots. Regarding the continued use of the two existing wells, Mr. Curtis, the applicant, stated the wells would be used no more than they are being used at the moment, with the primary use being to fill the pools, which occurs only once a year. He emphasized that he was not offering to cap all wells and cease using them, but rather that their usage will not increase to greater than it is now. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Wheeler again addressed the Commission and stated most residents do not object to the traffic that will be generated by the six existing units, but they do object to the additional 36 units because of the increased traffic and road problems. Mr. Pedar Little, speaking on behalf of Mr. Kupke, asked that the existing wells be capped since filling of the pool has been shown to adversely affect his well. Mr. Little stated he did not feel it would be a hardship on the applicant to fill the pools from the central well system. Regarding the roads, Mr. Little stated he would be in favor of staff's suggestion that the road be a state one in its entirety, rather than half state roads and half private roads. Mr. Hans Reinwald again addressed the Commission and stated he was opposed to the idea of capping the wells since his well is on the same vein as the wells in question. He also indicated he was in favor of the additional 36 units since extended usage of the club would ensure that it is well maintained. Mr. Curtis, the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated the addition to the facilities is needed to provide the revenue required for the restoration of the clubhouse, etc. Regarding the road, Mr. Curtis stated that he was amenable to bringing the roads up to the standard that will be required to meet the traffic volume that the development will generate. The being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Psi August 20, 1985 Page 11 The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Echols, representing the Highway Department. Mr. Echols stated that the possibility of having a private road come off of a cul-de-sac is not a desirable situation. (He explained that all state roads must end in a cul-de-sac so that vehicles can turn around.) Regarding the issue of the private road becoming a state road, he stated the biggest problem would be upgrading the road and widening it. Mr. Keeler pointed out that this type of use (comparing it to rural inns) usually has very low traffic generation. He indicated traffic would be influenced by the seasons (e.g. golfing season). In response to Mr. Cogan's inquiry, Mr. Echols explained that a state road either must end in a cul-de-sac or tie into two existing state,roads. He said it is feasible that the road could be a state road since it could tie into Rt. 731 and Rt. 616. It was determined the following should be added at the end of condition 3.: • ...usage of existing wells at the clubhouse will not exceed present usage. Ms. Cooke indicated she would make the Commission's desires, regarding the usage of the existing wells,known to the Board of Supervisors. Regarding the location of the proposed 36 new guest units in relation to existing dwellings, Mr. Curtis stated he will use the closest existing home as a measuring point and will not place any new structures closer to residences than what currently exists. He pointed out, however, that the new units must be located so as to create a consistent pattern with the clubhouse facilities. It was determined the following should be added at the end of condition l.: ...location of 36 additional suites will be no closer to existing private dwellings than the current clubhouse. Mr. Keeler stated this is approximately 600 feet. It was the consensus of the Commission that the road should be a state road in its entirety. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-85-54 for Tom J. Curtis be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: August 20, 1985 Page 12 1. Expansion limited to renovation of six (6) existing suites in the clubhouse, six (6) guest rooms in two existing cottages, and establishment of thirty-six (36) additional suites; location of 36 additional suites will be no closer to existing private dwellings than current clubhouse. 2. Prior to Planning Commission review of the site plan the applicant shall obtain the following: a. Health Department approval of method of sewage disposal; b. County Engineer review of pump tests for two wells in southeastern portion of property in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Albemarle County. 3. All clubhouse facilities shall be served by a central well system supplied by the two wells located in vicinity of the Rt. 616/I-64 interchange or such alternative well locations as may be approved by the Board of Supervisors; usage of existing wells at the clubhouse will not exceed present usage. 4. Bonding and/or construction of the connector road from Club Drive to Rt. 616 and the central well system shall be required prior to issuance of building permit for the new guest rooms/ suites; provided that the six existing suites in the clubhouse may be renovated without compliance with this condition; 5. Compliance with the following conditions of approval of SP-78-76 Piedmont Vineyards, Inc.: a. Hours of operation are limited to sunrise until 11:00 p.m. for golf pro shop, swimming pools and tennis courts and all other outdoor recreational activity. All indoor activities, dining, special parties, etc., to end at 1:00 a.m.; b. All buildings to be subject to Building Code and Fire Code Inspections; C. No outdoor public address system including amplified phonographs, radios, and the like and including musical groups employing amplified instruments shall exceed 40 decibels at the nearest property line; this condition is subject to restrictions of condition A for outdoor uses; d. No off premises licensed sale of alcoholic beverages to be permitted. Ms. Diehl seconded the motion which was unanimously approved and scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on September 4, 1985. The meeting recessed at 10:00; reconvened at 10:15 p.m. Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting. 11641 aDa August 20, 1985 Page 13 Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler to bring the Commission up to date on the action of the Board and the MPO in relation to Rt. 29N. Mr. Keeler presented a report on the traffic needs in the 29N area which included comments from the County Engineer and resolutions adopted by both the Board of Supervisors and the MPO Technical Committee. (Copies of this report and both resolutions are filed with these minutes.) Regarding the County Engineer's recommendations in relation to the SPCA Road, Mr. Keeler stated he felt special engineering will be required to improve that road so as not to affect the reservoir. He added that in its present condition, it cannot support any substantial residential development, even though properties fronting on this road are zoned R-6 or higher density. ZMA-85-17 Dr. Charles W. Hurt - Request to rezone a total of 19.309 acres from R-6, Residential to HC, Highway Commercial, comprised of part of parcels 109 and 108A on Tax Map 45. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Property, located on the west side of Rt. 29 North, southbound lane, adjacent to Rivanna Amoco Service Station. The Chairman questioned whether this item should be heard since the applicant was not present. He stated the usual policy is to defer an item one time if the applicant is absent, and `A✓ recalled that this item had already been deferred once at the request of the applicant. Mr. Keeler stated that the first request for deferral had been the result of a consensus between the applicant and staff. The Chairman questioned what action could be taken even if the applicant were present in view of the actions taken by the Board and the MPO as just reported by Mr. Keeler. He stated it seems a review of the Comprehensive Plan may be undertaken to review this area with the possibility of changing it to a lower development standard. He asked if the applica- tion should be reviewed under the current Comp Plan recommendations, or should anything along 29N even be considered. Mr. Skove stated he was not in favor of doing anything at this time which would change the land use in that area to a point which would make later changes more difficult. In response to Ms. Diehl's question as to whether or not this proposed development would tie in with a 6-lane highway, Mr. Skove stated that even a 6-lane highway with grade -separated interchanges will not come close to meeting future demands, and some of the interchanges will still have an E or F service level at certain times of the day. Mr. Echols confirmed this. 203 August 20, 1985 Page 14 Regarding Mr. Keeler's statement that the Board had taken no action on the County Engineer's recommendations, Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. Cooke to comment. Ms. Cooke stated the comments had been discussed, but there is no money to do anything more than what has already been proposed, i.e. 6-lane highway, within the next 30-40 years. She stated that she had realized, after attending the last MPO meeting, what a futile attempt all these studies are in view of the fact that there will be no money available. She stated also that the current money that is available has a time limit on it and if it is not in use by a certain date, it will revert to some other project. She emphasized that no work of any kind, including engineering studies, has been done in over a year in relation to the 6-laning of 29N. When the Board became aware of this, they decided to give some direction to the MPO, thus the adoption of the resolution presented by Mr. Keeler. Mr. Bowerman stated the 6-lane plan is the one that was dGcided on several years ago. Mr. Skove confirmed this. He added the dilemma faced by the MPO is the possibility that to go ahead with the 6-lane project will preclude any other solutions later because they are incompatible. Ms. Cooke added "Except at such time as the Eastern Bypass becomes a reality... and the Meadowcreek Parkway would also be some relief for 29N." She did not agree with Mr. Skove that 6-laning 29N at this time would preclude later solutions. She added that it could not be allowed to remain as it is for the next 40 years. Mr. Skove stated the basic issue is that land use has to be changed on 29N, or else there will be a hopeless situation. Ms. Cooke stated the Board also feels it is also necessary to come to an understanding with our neighboring northern counties, Greene County and Madison County, regarding their plans for development on 29N. She added that she feels the 29N problem is a local issue and should be addressed as such. She also felt that TSM measures must be employed and cooperation must be encouraged with the University of Virginia. Mr. Bowerman stated the issue before the Commission at this time is not only the current application (ZMA-85-17) but also other parcels along 29N and whether any action should be taken on such proposals until a re-examination of the Comp Plan has been made and it is determined what levels of density should be allowed along 29N. He questioned whether the Commission can take such a position, i.e. to not review applications along this area. He suggested there might be situations where some "tradeoffs" could be made in terms of development of an infrastructure within the site which could relieve some of the traffic problems along 29. 1 h41 August 20, 1985 Page 15 Mr. Skove pointed out this is going to be a big change, i.e. saying "no" to development along 29N and "yes" to development in other areas. Ms. Diehl stated that not only the 29N area is involved since as more development is amassed around the area, more and more roads are going to have unacceptable service levels. She stated this involves all the planning around roads that are probably never going to be built. Mr. Skove agreed and added that one road which is undercapacity and needs to be utilized more is I-64. I.e., development should be in areas that have easy access to I-64. Mr. Cogan stated the question remains how to deal with current applications in view of the fact that a review of the Comprehensive Plan is anticipated. Regarding the current application, he felt there would be justification for denial since the current Comp Plan says there is already more than enough commercial zoning in that area. However, he indicated there will be other situations where it is not so cut and dry. Ms. Diehl stated she felt the Commission needed legal counsel as to its options in terms of reviewing applications along Rt. 29N in the interim. Mr. Bowerman agreed and stated the questions to be answered are: (1) Do the applications have to be reviewed; (2) Does the current Comp Plan have to be used as the base; and any other guidelines. Mr. Cogan stated the Commission must be mindful of denying an application which may be in accordance with current requirements, based on the possibility of the requirements changing later. Mr. Keeler stated that in the past developers have based their plans on the Comprehensive Plan to the point where "wholesale" changes in the Plan may not be that easy to make. He stated utilities have been put in place in anticipation of development called for in the Plan and this will have to be considered also. He stated he felt the cooperation and contributions that have come from developers should not be overlooked. He pointed out that from the city limits to Rio Road three -fourths of the 6-lane highway is virtually complete as a result of development. He stated the Board's statement "to reevaluate the recommendations for increased densities in the Route 29 North corridor on lands which have not yet actually been zoned for higher density" means to him that the Board is not going to downzone existing properties, but rather consider changing the Plan to avoid upzoning properties. He stated the extent of the Board's commitment at this time is to look at the Comprehensive Plan, but not to start changing zoning. �06 August 20, 1985 Page 16 Ms. Cooke confirmed Mr. Keeler's interpretation was correct. 400 Regarding the current application, Mr.Keeler stated it appears the developers are prepared to take some of the measures recommended by the County Engineer. Mr. Keeler explained what the applicant is proposing, in relation to traffic patterns, using the drawing. Mr. Bowerman again emphasized that the Commission would like some guidelines from counsel as to their options. He suggested it might be possible for some of the property owners to put together a proposal which would satisfy some of the county's concerns in relation to limiting access to Rt. 29N and also limiting development on the property. Specifically, Mr. Bowerman asked if the Commission can impose a moratorium on additional rezoning requests or should some be reviewed and not others, depending on the content, etc. Mr. Keeler stated that, realistically, once zoning is put on the map, it will be difficult to take it off. The Chairman called for a motion on the current application. Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-85-17 for Dr. Charles Hurt be indefinitely deferred pending comments from the County Attorney and further work with the applicant. Mr. Skove seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. DS ZQ�