Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 17 85 PC MinutesSeptember 17, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 17, 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; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex- Officio. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the September 3, 1985 meeting were approved as written. SP-85-61 Kenneth & Barbara Lape - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2.19 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow for a private airport on a 147.5 acre parcel, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, located on the north side of Rt. 712 approximately z mile north of intersection of Rt. 712 and Rt. 719 (near Alberene). Existing use residential (7 existing structures). Tax Map 111, parcel 5, Scottsville Magisterial District. Mr.Keeler informed the Commission the applicant had requested indefinite deferral. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the applicant's request for indefinite deferral be approved. Mr. Gould seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. SP-85-62 Donald Wyland - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(10) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to locate a double -wide mobile home on property described as Tax Map 126, parcel 10 (part of) L-2. Scottsville Magisterial District. Property, located on the east side of Rt. 630 ± .5 mile north of its intersection with Rt. 721. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. It was determined one letter of opposition had been received (from Mr. Sharp) who felt the mobile home would cause a depreciation of property values in the area. (Mr. Keeler read the letter to the Commission.) The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Wyland addressed the Commission and stated he had lived in the area all his life, but did not know the complainant. Z35 September 17, 1985 Page 2 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined the application was for a double -wide unit and therefore, it was not necessary to add a condition requiring that the unit be a double -wide. Mr. Payne explained that Mr. Tompkins (Zoning Administrator) interprets such applications as applying to either single or double -wide as they are applied for. Mr. Skove moved that SP-85-62 for Donald Wyland be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The matter was scheduled for the Board of Supervisors on September 18, 1985. SP-85-57 Marshall D. McKenzie - Request in accordance with Section 10.2..2(10) of theAlbemarle County Zoning Ordinance to locate a single -wide mobile home on property described as Tax Map 41, parcel 37C, White Hall Magisterial District. Property, located on the north side of Rt. 614, ±2 mile west of its intersection with Rt. 810. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He made a correction to the staff report as follows: "The applicant has requested this mobile home for parental use, but does not desire restriction on occupancy." Mr. Keeler stated a letter of complaint had been received from Mr. and Mrs. James Hahn whose property "comes to a point" with the applicant's property, and is, in fact, separated by another tract of land which lies between. He added staff felt the mobile home would not be highly visible from the Hahn property. The Hahn's were opposed for the following reasons: (1) Unit will be visible from Rt. 614, one of the most scenic in Albemarle County; (2) Unit will overlook the Moorman's River, the County's only designated scenic river, and may be visible to canoeists ; (3) Unit will be visible from a valuable 12 acre parcel of land owned by the Hahn's. The Hahn's letter indicated they would not oppose the unit if it were to be used solely for relatives of the owner (the parents of Mrs. McKenzie) with the condition added that the unit would be removed when the parents no longer occupy it. The applicant presented photographs showing the proposed location of the mobile home. 14 Z3& September 17, 1985 Page 3 Mr. McKenzie stated he did not feel the unit would be visible from the river because of the steepness of the lot and the thickness of the underbrush and woods. The Chairman invited public comment. There being none, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined there is only one other mobile home in existence in the area. Mr. McKenzie confirmed the mobile home was for the use of his mother and father-in-law, but because of the sizeable investment involved ($35,000), he asked that the use not be restricted so that he may have the option of renting the unit at some later date if necessary. He indicated that if a rental should occur, it would be done "in the right manner." Mr. Bowerman stated that he had no objection to the application, but it has been the policy of the Commission not to approve mobile home permits for rental usage. He stated he would be in favor of the application with some condition limiting its use. Mr. Cogan stated he was not enthusiastic about the application because of the uniqueness of the area. However, he indicated denial would be unfair because of other applications which have been approved. He stated he was in agreement with Mr. Bowerman about limiting the use of the home. Mr. Michel indicated he agreed with Mr. Bowerman and Mr. Cogan. He also stated he was concerned about setting a precedent in the area. Because the meeting was running ahead of scheduled agenda times, Mr. Bowerman re -opened the public hearing to allow Mr. James Hahn, who had just entered the meeting, to speak. Mr. Hahn stated he would hate to see a precedent set because of the very scenic nature of the area. There being no further public comment, the Chairman once again closed the public hearing. It was determined the applicant had chosen a single -wide unit because it fit the shape of the lot better. Mr. McKenzie also stated there are two mobile homes in the area rather than one as previously discussed. Mr. Cogan stated the existing units have been in place approximately 3 or 4 years. Ms. Cooke stated she would be interested in knowing under what conditions the existing units were put in place. 7.3 7 September 17, 1985 Page 4 Mr. Cogan stated they had not come before the Commission during his term. He added that the current proposal would be far less visible than the two existing units. Mr. Cogan moved that SP-85-57 for Marshall D. McKenzie be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. This permit will expire upon the vacation of the mobile home by the applicant's mother and father-in-law.(later changed) Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. McKenzie indicated he was opposed to condition No. 2 and asked if the condition were to be included, could it be changed to "family members" thereby allowing his visiting children to use the unit from time to time. Both Mr. Cogan and Mr. Wilkerson were agreeable to the motion being changed accordingly. Thus condition No. 2 would read: 2. This permit will expire upon the vacation of of the mobile home by the applicant's family. Discussion: Mr. Diehl stated she was still concerned about the application and pointed out there are some rental mobile home units in the County. Mr. Cogan agreed this was true, but it is something that happens without Commission approval. Ms. Cooke asked for clarification of the motion, particularly whether it provided for removal of the mobile home from the property once it is no longer used by the mother and father-in-law. Mr. Cogan stated the motion states "this permit will expire" and if the permit does not exist, the unit would have to be removed. Ms. Cooke pointed out, however, if the unit is to be used occasionally by visiting children, as suggested by the applicant, this would not seem to reflect the requirement that the unit be removed. It was determined Ms. Cooke's interpretation was correct and the motion needed to be clarified further. C 7zo September 17, 1985 Page 5 Ms. Cooke stated she felt the Board would require that the names of the occupants of the unit be stipulated in the permit, and that the unit be removed after said occupants vacate the unit. Mr. McKenzie asked if it could be stipulated that the unit would be for "non -rental" and could only be occupied by family members. Ms. Cooke explained that has not been the usual position of the Board. Mr. Michel stated he felt Ms. Cooke's point was a good one and he could not support the motion presently on the floor. Mr. Cogan withdrew his motion; Mr. Wilkerson accepted this withdrawal. It was determined additional members of the public had just entered the meeting and, therefore, Mr. Bowerman reopened the public hearing. Mr. W.D. Maupin, an adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission and stated he would not object to temporary use for a family member, but he did object to the unit being permanent as he felt it would devalue his property. Mr. Hahn stated he did not feel there was a justifiable need for a "come and go" type use for family members and could only see justification for a permanent use by the applicant's in-laws. Ms. Cooke added that she did not feel the Board would approve an indefinite permit, i.e. it must be for a specific use and adhere to that use only. There being no further public comment, the Chairman once again closed the public hearing. Mr. Cogan moved that SP-85-57 for Marshall D. McKenzie be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Section 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Use of the mobile home is restricted to the applicant's mother and father-in-law and upon vacation of the unit by the applicant's mother-in-law and father-in-law the unit shall be removed within 90 days. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was approved (6:1) with Mr. Michel casting the negative vote. Ms. Cooke requested that staff present any information that might be available on the two existing mobile homes to the Board before this application is heard. 7_3 9 September 17, 1985 Page 6 This was scheduled to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on September 18, 1985. SP-85-66 Frederick F. Bainbridge, III - Request in accordance with Section 30.3.5.2.2(1) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow for construction of a dam and lake of 150± acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Existing use as farm land with residence, garage and barn on property. Property, described as Tax Map 57, parcels 79 and 79A, is located on the north side of U.S. Rt. 250W, approximately 1/2 mile east of Mechums River. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Edward Bain, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated Mr. Elrod, the County Engineer, has recommended approval of the plan and the applicant has no objections to the conditions of staff. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Dayton Peterson stated he was concerned about the size of the lots and what entrance would be used for the property. It was determined Mr. Peterson's comments were based on a rumor concerning a subdivision that might be contemplated for the property. However, Mr. Keeler explained that only the dam is before the Commission at this time. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. It was determined the size of the pond is 15 acres. Ms. Diehl moved that SP-85-57 for Frederick F. Bainbridge, III be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. County Engineer approval of dam and construction activity in floodplain in accordance with Section 30.3 Flood Hazard Overlay District of the Zoning Ordinance; 2. Watershed Management Official review of contractor specifications and grading permit to be guided by construction Best Management Practices as outlined by the Watershed Management Plan, the Comprehensive Plan and State Water Control Board; 3. Approval of appropriate local, State and Federal V. agencies. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. 7A4M September 17, 1985 Page 7 Mr. Michel stated he was in favor of the proposal, but he fir✓ hoped that in the future staff might be able to administratively approve such applications. Im Mr. Bowerman stated staff had been directed to look into this possibility at a previous meeting. The previously -stated motion for approval was unanimously approved. The matter was scheduled for the Board of Supervisors on October 2, 1985. In response to Ms. Cooke's inquiry, it was again clarified that the entire parcel is 150 acres, but the pond is only 15 acres. Since the meeting was running ahead of scheduled agenda times, a discussion relating to activities in the floodplain, etc. followed. It was determined staff would look into the issue and compose some language which would allow administrative approval of some applications with only those with problems or related to public use requiring Commission review. Mr. Bowerman reminded the Commission there would be a discussion of the Land Use Committee's Report at the September 24 meeting, prior to a joint meeting with the Board. He suggested that the Commissioners read the report. ZMA-85-22 Peacock Hill - Request to rezone 2.5 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas to PUD, Planned Unit Development, an addition to the existing Peacock Hill PUD and to amend 62 acres of the Pea- cock Hill PUD. Property, located on the north side of I-64 accessed from Rt. 708 and Peacock Hill Drive. Tax Map 73, parcels 29E2, 29J, 29K, 29 (part of) and 73A-2-2 (part). Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He added that in relation to the two aspects of the proposal staff considered more "non- conforming", the applicant has agreed to address these concerns, i.e. (1) to change the proposal from 196 units to 195; and (2) to include a "landscape protective zone" along Rt. 708 and to increase the setback to at least 35 feet. Mr. Keeler stated the four sections currently being reviewed have a total of 79 units. Ms. Diehl asked how close the development is to the aggregate of 102 units required for the upgrading of Peacock Drive. Z ,// September 17, 1985 Page 8 Mr. Keeler stated they may have already exceeded the aggregate. It was determined Turkey Ridge Road is already in the state system and Peacock Drive connects to Turkey Ridge Road. Mr. Keeler stated Turkey Ridge Road, Acorn Lane, Big Oak Road and Peacock Drive are in the state system. He also confirmed that the roads for sections 7, 3 and two close to section 5 are to be private roads. The road for section 6 is recommended to be built to state standards and actually dedicated, dependent on the type of development. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Bob McKee, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He read the following letter into the record (from Peacock Hill Community Association, written by Mr. Fred Landis, President of the association, addressed to the Department of Planning and Community Development): This is to confirm that the Board of Directors at a Board meeting of the Peacock Hill Community Association held September 14, 1985, reviewed the proposed amendment to the Peacock Hill Master Land Use Plan dated July, 1985 and have no objections to the amended plan. Mr. McKee stated the applicant accepts all the conditions of approval with the following clarification: the addition of the words being served by Peacock Drive to condition No. 4. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Steve Pack, representing the County Engineer's office, addressed the Commission. He stated his office feels all the roads in the development should be designed and constructed as public roads. Mr. McKee stated the development has a very good community association which has been maintaining all the roads which are private roads since 1973. He added that most maintenance problems have been with the state roads and not the private ones. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan asked if the Private Road Ordinance permits private roads in a PUD with lots less than five acres. Mr. Keeler stated there were five cases where private roads are permitted and these wouldn't qualify because of lot size and, technically, the cluster development would not qualify because it is not located in a growth area. Mr. Keeler stated he was not taking issue with the County Engineer's recommendation, but after having reviewed the proposal he felt it was half -way between the PUD as originally approved and ZA�Z September 17, 1985 Page 9 current regulations. He stated if the proposal was just being submitted as a completely new application, the circumstances would be different. Mr. Payne stated the Commission has enough latitude to approve the private roads if it finds they are appropriate. He added that it is not inappropriate to consider the existing character of the property since it is partially developed and this is just an amendment. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that two of the major concerns of staff had been addressed by the applicant in a positive manner and the remainding items make the proposal more conforming. He added that since the development was approved 12 years ago, he was not opposed to staff's recommendations for the three other roads to be private. Ms. Diehl stated she felt the changes were consistent with the character of the PUD and moved that ZMA-85-22 for Peacock Hill be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following: 1. Approval is for a maximum of 195 dwelling units in locations and densities as generally depicted on the Application Plan; 2. Building setback from Route 708 to be not less than 35 feet. Planning Commission to approve method of landscape buffering at time of subdivision plat approval; 3. The road serving Section 6 shall be constructed to Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation standards with development of twenty (20) dwellings or more. The Commission may require the road to be dedicated to public use. 4. Peacock Drive to be upgraded in accordance with Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation comment of August 16, 1985 at time of approval of an aggregate of 102 dwelling units or more being served by Peacock Drive; 5. All lots to be served by one or more central well systems designed in accordance with Albemarle County Service Authority standards and approved by the County Engineer including witnessing of well testing. 6. Location of all existing septic tanks, septic drain - fields and appurtenant sewer lines serving cluster lots shall be verified in the field to insure that all tanks and drainfields are not located on proposed lots or other areas for development. Easements for sewer line maintenance shall be noted for areas subject to private ownership; 2 i45 September 17, 1985 Page 10 7. Submittal of three (3) revised copies of the Application Plan reflective of Conditions 1-6 shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Community Development in accordance with Section 8.5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Skove seconded the motion. (It was determined the words being served by Peacock Drive were to be included in No. 4. Ms. Diehl amended her motion accordingly and Mr. Skove agreed.) Mr. Cogan indicated he was concerned about the number of driveways that come out on Rt. 708. He suggested there might be someway to discontinue either the cul-de-sac or continue the private road beyond the cul-de-sac to serve those five lots instead of adding two additional driveways onto Rt. 708. It was decided this would be dealt with at the time of subdivision. The above -stated motion for approval was unanimously approved. The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Board on October 2, 1985. The meetinq recessed at 8:45; reconvened at 9:00. ZMA-85-23 Pantops Shopping Center (Ivy Land Company) - Request to rezone 10.2± acres of a 21.433 acre parcel from C-1, Commercial to PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center. Property, described as Tax Map 78, parcel 17A, is located on the west side of and will be an addition to Pantops Shopping Center at Riverbend. Property is accessed off Rt. 250E and Riverbend Drive. Rivanna Magisterial District. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He explained that included in the proposal is a request to amend the approved PD-SC by increasing building area from 185,500 square feet to 191,682 square feet and to add 10.2 acres to the PD-SC zoning. He pointed out the two main issues to be addressed are stormwater management and traffic management. Regarding stormwater management, he stated this can be handled administratively since the County Engineer is ready to call the bond. The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Pack, representing the County Engineer's Office. Mr. Pack stated the first problem is the intensification of traffic that will be brought to this intersection. He stated a service road had originally been approved and what is being proposed now is not what was originally requested. He stated a scaled -down version might work. The Chairman invited applicant comment. September 17, 1985 Page 11 Mr. Don Wagner addressed the Commission. He offered the following „✓ comments: --He emphasized this is an alternate site plan as opposed to a site plan revision. (Mr. Keeler confirmed that the re -zoning is what is currently before the Commission. He explained further that if the re -zoning is approved, it is requested that the site plan be approved administratively. He added that at some time one plan would have to be discarded since there can be only one approved plan and it will be the applicant's decision as to which plan to discard.) --The partnership which owns the shopping center has not bought this property. (Note: Due to equipment malfunction, part of Mr. Wagner's comments were not picked up by the recorder.) --Mr. Wagner disagreed with the Highway Department's traffic figures and stated this is neither a busy nor a high speed intersection. --Applicant is agreeable to reconfiguring the entrance. --Applicant is agreeable to accepting a limit on use to the current C-1 usage on the property, but is not willing to accept a change to CO. Mr. Wilkerson called the applicant's attention to problems with the traffic flow coming out of the Stop -In or Hardee's. Mr. Wagner stated this proposal will not be doing anything to aggregate that situation, though it will be doing nothing to improve it either. Mr. Wagner emphasized that the traffic figures assume 1/2 office and 1/2 retail usage, and that is just an assumption, though a reasonable one. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In an attempt to clarify the issue that was before the Commission, Ms. Diehl asked if the request was to rezone 10 acres, 2 of which will eventually be used by the shopping center. Mr. Bowerman confirmed this is the only issue before the Commission; however, he stated the specifics of the proposal are being considered because this application "contemplates that." He added that one of the issues that is causing confusion is that part of this rezoning request is the use the applicant intends to make of the area, particularly the "understory" area, and its impact, which was not originally contemplated. He further stated there appears to be a difference of opinion between the applicant, staff and the County Engineer in terms of what is proposed. Ms. Diehl asked if it is correct to consider the rezoning request in relation to the suggested understory area, or should the rezoning request be dealt with on its own merit. Mr. Cogan stated it is acceptable to consider a rezoning request based on what its potential impact will be. 7 �� September 17, 1985 Page 12 Mr. Keeler stated that in this case a site plan has essentially beEn sdDmitted as the application plan, and if the rezoning is approved, he felt the applicant could only do what is shown. He explained the request is for PD-SC which would grant all the uses by right of the HC, C-1, CO, etc. He added the Commission could always approve something less intensive and under a Planneg Dgelopment the County and the applicant is supposed to come agreement as to how the property is to be developed. Mr.Bowerman asked if Mr. Keeler was saying that because this is a PD-SC, the Commission is actually reviewing the site plan. Mr. Keeler replied affirmatively, and added that the Commission is looking at the plan to the extent of the rezoning. He stated if the rezoning is approved, the staff can handle the plan administratively. He emphasized, if that is the case, unless the County Engineer has some objection, staff will be looking for a configuration "like that" (pointing to a drawing) in an attempt to reduce some of the problems that have been identified. Mr. Skove indicated he was not clear as to what staff was recommending. Mr. Keeler stated staff was not making a recommendation but was simply proposing an alternative. Mr. Skove asked how the Commission goes from a rezoning request to staff's alternative. Mr. Keeler stated that the County and the applicant are supposed to come to an agreement as to how the property is to be developed. He said the applicant has indicated he would not agree to a limitation to commercial office use and he was unaware as to whether the application would agree to staff's recommended configuration or not. Mr. Skove stated he still did not see any way to tie in the application for rezoning to what staff is recommending except through denial. He interpreted that staff was saying office space would be a more appropriate use in this area, but that is not what is before the Commission. Mr. Keeler stated what is before the Commission is the applicant's request which has not been tied down to 50% retail/50% office. The County Engineer is recommending that whatever use is approved, it will not occasion the need for more than 25 parking spaces. Staff is suggesting that more floor area might be acceptable if the traffic is controlled in "this" fashion. He emphasized this is not a substitute recommendation for the County Engineer's recommendation, but is an alternative that addresses, at least in part, the turning movements. September 17, 1985 Page 13 Ms. Diehl stated the current traffic pattern at the shopping center is very confused and congested and should be looked at carefully before adding any further uses. Mr. Payne explained the Commission is entitled to recommend to the Board amendment to the PD-SC district with modifications of the applicant's plan, i.e. if the Commission wishes to recommend that it be amended but only subject to its containing certain kinds of specified land uses, that is permissable. Mr. Michel asked Mr. Wagner if the applicant was agreeable to a set figure on retail vs. office use. Mr. Wagner replied, "No sir, I am not." He explained that rezoning to PD-SC is being requested as the result of an agreement made by Dr. Hurt for the property when the shopping center was approved, i.e. at such time as a use came along for this piece of property he would request rezoning to PD-SC. He added that the property is currently zoned C-1 and Dr. Hurt is willing to rezone to PD-SC with the proffer that no uses be allowed other than those allowed under C-1, thus the uses on the land would stay exactly as they are now. The reason for rezoning to PD-SC is to meet the commitment Dr. Hurt made previously. Mr. Wagner added he had been under the impression two different issues were being discussed, a rezoning and a site plan, since he had paid two fees. Mr. Cogan asked if any studies had been done comparing the intensification of the use of the land under the current zoning as opposed to what is being proposed. Mr. Keeler replied negatively. Mr. Keeler explained that originally three properties had been identified as being related to this development and it had been felt these should be tied down to shopping center zoning. He said no specific use had been guaranteed and if all the property had been brought in at once, it would be looked at in the same fashion as it is now. He stated there was agreement to include these areas in the shopping center. He stated, however, that the current proposal had not been anticipated. Mr. Cogan stated he did not feel the Commission can tell the property owner he is committed to rezoning to PD-SC and then deny the application when he applies for the rezoning, and tell him he cannot use it as C-1. Mr. Payne stated Mr. Cogan was correct. He added, however, that if the Commission denies the rezoning to PD-SC and the applicant wants to develop to C-1, then he must develop under C-1 and if he cannot do so as intensively under C-1 as PD-SC because of the physical layout of the land, then it is the applicant's misfortune Mr. Bowerman stated he was bothered the Commission had wanted to come up for this area with safe access. The discussed in an attempt to develop by the fact that originally with a coherent development three outparcels had been a unified plan that would -7- a7 September 17, 1985 Page 14 "all flow together," and use Riverbend Drive as the major access. But with development being proposed a piece at a time, the problems with access are being exacerbated because the develop- ment is not being looked at all at once. The Commission is being put in the position of accepting situations with which it does not agree and which were not contemplated with the original approval of the PD-SC. He stated the Commission is "stuck in the middle" and he did not care for the position. Mr. Wagner stated that Newhouse Drive has been in existence for many years but it would never have worked for it to have been a major access. Mr. Bowerman stated that it could have been included in the PD-SC to begin with with the buildings being down closer to the flood - plain and the parking on the other side. Mr. Wagner disagreed. He stated this piece of land exists and is not going to go away and is difficult to get to in any desirable fashion. Mr. Wilkerson asked Mr. Pack for his feelings regarding what would result if "that" were built behind Stop -In. Mr. Pack replied that the intersection was never designed to support so intensive a use and his office had been under the impression it would be office -type uses. Mr. Payne suggested that it might be possible to "flip-flop" the parking lot and the buildings and then limit the entrance to further away from the intersection. Mr. Wagner stated the applicant would not be willing to do that. He stated the applicant has an approved site plan to build it the way it is. Mr. Payne asked if there was a physical impediment to his suggestion. Mr. Wagner replied that it had been considered and it was felt this would make the turning situation worse. The Chairman called for a motion. Mr. Wagner stated that if the Commission did not wish to approve the request, the applicant would simply build what had already been approved. Mr. Skove stated he felt like he was being blackmailed. Mr. Payne again explained the Commission can recommend the application for approval with modifications, but the applicant does not have to agree. Mr. Skove moved that ZMA-85-23 for Pantops Shopping Center be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject September 17, 1985 Page 15 to the following: (a) Limit the 14,000 square feet of understory space to uses permitted by right in the CO,Commercial Office district; (b) Redesign the entrance to the understory area to permit stacking of entering vehicles and physically restrict exiting vehicles to right -turns only. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Cogan stated he could not support that motion because it does not achieve anything, since the applicant has said that is not acceptable. He confirmed that the alternative is to deny the application. Ms. Diehl asked if it is staff's feeling that traffic generated under CO zoning would be less than it would be under the usual C-1, (not PD-SC) . Mr. Keeler replied affirmatively. Mr. Cogan stated he felt the motion was more unfair than denial would be. He stated the applicant has C-1 now which can be used if the PD-SC is not granted, but making it CO would be something that no one (on the applicant's side) wants. He felt this was inappropriate. Mr. Payne stated that though Mr. Cogan might think this would be inappropriate, it would not be improper. He further explained this is a re -zoning to PD-SC with a limitation on the uses to those uses permitted in the CO. The previously -stated motion for approval was unanimously denied. The Chairman called for an alternative motion. Mr. Cogan moved that ZMA-85-23 for Pantops Shopping Center be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Mr. Gould seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The matter was to be heard by the Board on October 2, 1985. Alternate to Phase II, Pantops Shopping Center Site Plan Proposal for an alternative site plan for Phase II, which adds a 14,000 square foot terrace level under the first floors of the buildings at the northwest corner of the center. This plan includes the use of a portion of parcel 17A, which is proposed Z,V9 September 17, 1985 Page 16 to be included in the PD-SC zone with ZMA-85-23 request. This would be a total of 56,600 square feet of gross floor area served by 298 parking spaces on a 14.73 acre site. Tax Map 78, part of parcels 17G and 17A, zoned C-1, Commercial. Rivanna Magisterial District. Request that staff be allowed to approve the site plan administratively. Mr. Bowerman asked if this issue were mute since the rezoning had been denied. Mr. Keeler indicated the issue was mute at this time, but if the Board should approve the rezoning the Commission might wish to state whether or not staff should approve the site plan administratively. Mr. Payne stated the matter should be kept on the agenda until the Board acts. Mr. Cogan moved that Alternate to Phase II, Pantops Shopping Center Site Plan be indefinitely deferred pending Board action on ZMA- 85-23. Mr. Skove seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M. DS Z 5"D