HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 24 86 PC MinutesJune 24, 1986
0
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
June 24, 1986, 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; and Mr. Tim Michel. Other officials present were:
Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr.
Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Chief of
Community Development; Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; and Mr. Frederick
Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Stark.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established
that a quorum was present. The minutes of the June 10, 1986 meeting were
approved as submitted.
CPA-86-2 Designate New Roadway Network - On March 4, 1986, the Planning
Commission unanimously approved a resolution of intent to amend the
Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan to describe a roadway network to be
constructed generally between Rio Road and the Hilton Hotel site between
the SPCA Road and Route 29N. On May 13, 1986, the Planning Commission
recommended to the Board of Supervisors that the County proceed to
public hearing to amend the Comprehensive Plan to designate the alignment
of this roadway network. On May 21, 1986 the Board of Supervisors authorized
the County to proceed to public hearing for this amendment.
Mr. Cilimberg gave the staff report. Using maps he explained the proposed
alignment of the roadway. The report stated: "Staff feels that the proposed
roadway system is critical to insuring future traffic circulation functions
properly in a fully "built out" Rio Road to South Rivanna River section
of Neighborhood L Staff does not visualize the proposed roadway system as
a bypass or alternative through roadway for Rt. 29N traffic (but rather)
as an additional link to the overall urban roadway network that would
specifically serve as an urban connector for commercial and residential
development in the Rio Road/South Rivanna River section of Neighborhood 1.
This roadway system will likely increase development pressures in the
area, including western parcels along Rt. 659 (SPCA Road). However, zoning
of the area, supported by the Comprehensive Plan, exists to assure this
occurs at planned densities. " It was staff's opinion "that the proposed
roadway system is both physically and economically feasible in its proposed
location and could be constructed to some extent by private developers."
The report also stated that the Board of Supervisors is aware of the
possible financial obligation of the County for constructing portions
of the road that may not be built by developers. Staff recommended the
following:
1. To amend the Albemarle County Comprehensive Plan, Map 9, Urgan
Area Land Use Plan 1982-2002, to show the locations of the proposed
roadway network.
2. To amend Chapter 11, Land Use Plan, page 150 by adding the
following under "Recommendations - Transportations improvements should
include:"
June 24, 1986
Page 2
• A north -south urban collector from Rio Road at Berkmar
Drive to Hilton Drive and two minor east -west connectors
from this proposed roadway to Rt. 29N at the Woodbrook
crossover and a relocated crossover for relocated Carrsbrook Drive.
Ms. Diehl asked if either of the actions suggested by staff "obligated
the County to construct a portion of the road."
Mr. Cilimberg replied, "At this point, they would not obligate the
construction, it would simply include the roadway system in the Compre-
hensive Plan...." He pointed out, however, that the Board is aware
that it may be necessary for the County to make contributions to
the roadway system before it is completed. He indicated it is not
possible to predict what that contribution might be at this point.
Mr. Bowerman asked how this roadway differed from any other roadway
which is shown in the plan but is not currently in existence in respect
to County obligation. Mr. Cilimberg replied, "In effect, it really is
not different."
Mr. Payne added, "What (Mr. Cilimberg) is saying is, it is not an
obligation. It's within the discretion of the Board of Supervisors,
if the Board wants to spend the money to build it. But I think the staff
is being realistic with the Board in saying that if, for whatever reason,
the developers, or the Highway Department, or whoever, doesn't provide
the money, if the County wants it built, and can't get the money from
anywhere else, then there is a significant likelihood that the County will
have to build sections of it."
Mr. Cilimberg indicated that, in that sense, it was not any different
from existing Comprehensive Plan proposed roadways. Mr. Payne confirmed
this. Mr. Payne added, "Don't be misled, this is not a new problem,
it's just one that I think the County simply hasn't addressed up to now."
It was determined the only recent approval which had considered this
roadway was River Heights. Mr. Keeler stated that other developers have
been receptive to the idea and have indicated it would work well with
their plans for developing the property.
In response to Mr. Cogan's question about the type of roadway, Mr. Cilimberg
explained it would be an "urban collector cross-section" with 50 feet
of right-of-way and 40 feet of pavement, with three lanes up to the point
of intersection of Rio Road with Berkmar, with the middle lane being a
turning lane. He explained it would be a 35-40 mph design speed, and
at the intersection of Rio and Berkmar, a fourth lane would be included
for right turns. He confirmed that a sidewalk and curb and gutter would
be included.
In response to Mr. Cogan's question as to the main force behind the idea,
Mr. Cilimberg replied that the main priority was to get traffic to Rio
Road without putting it on Rt. 29.
91
76
June 24, 1986 Page 3
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Stevenson asked if there were any plans to upgrade SPCA Rd. It was
determined there are no plans for improvements to SPCA Rd. since it is
in the watershed and there would be little support for such improvements.
Ms. Joan Graves, representing the Berkeley Community Association, addressed
the Commission and read the following statement:
Dear Commission Members,
Although we realize that a southern extension of the proposed Rio-IIilton
roadway network is not under discussion at this time, residents of Berkeley
are extremely concerned about the connection shown for this road to intersect
with Rio Road at Berkmar Drive.
While neither the Ri.o-Hilton roadway nor Commonwealth Drive are specifically
designated as an altcrnnte through -road for Route 29 North traffic, we never-
theless are quite sure that our neighborhood streets would be used for exact-
ly that purpose if Rio -Hilton does intersect Rio Road at Berkmar Drive, and
the proposed Commonwealth-Berkmar connector is constructed. Grading, curvature
and heavy parking on an already too narrow residential street make automobile
travel on Commonwealth Dr 'i-f-ricult as it is. Walking in the streets of
Berkeley, made necessary by t;he absence of sidewalks, is even more hazardous.
Should you consider the Rio-Iiilton roadway necessary and economically feasible,
we request that you alter the point of intersection with Rio Road from the
proposed location opposite Berkmar Drive, to the general vicinity of the S.P.C.A.
Road intersection 1/10th of a mile west on Rio Road. This portion of the
S.P.C.A. Road does not lie in tide watershed, and the intersection will be
redesigned when improvements ere made to Rio Road. Using this existing inter-
section would elimiwite tho d,.iplicative costs of building two intersections
on Rio Road so close to each other.
The Planning Commission, the Board of Supervisors, and the Highway Department
have long argued that a connection between Commonwealth and Berkmar Drives
would not significantly increase traffic through Berkeley. The completion of
Rio-Iiilton as now proposed would clearly nullify that argument as the Common-
wealth-Berkmar connector would servo to give traffic a through route from the
Hilton to Hydraulic Road.
Residents of Berkeley are vehemently opposed to any plan which would re-route
Route 29 traffic through residential neighborhoods, Clearly, the impact of
the Rio-Iiilton roadway on Nei,+;iiborhood One as a whole should be examined before
amending the Comprehensive Plan, and perhaps it is time to consider closing
the Commonwealth- Berkmar connector.
Mr. Roudabush, a local engineer, addressed the Commission. He pointed out
that most of the tracts of land in the area will not be developed with a
single user and if an overall concept is riot developed as a guideline
for developers, there will be many entrances off of Rt. 29.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Bowerman asked. staff what they perceived to be the negative effects
of the proposal. Mr. Horne indicated this was difficult to measure but
a potential negative effect would be to Rio Road P d also the possibility
of a few people cutting though the Berkeley Sub Ion.
�eI
June 24, 1986 Page 4
Commission concerns and comments included the following:
Michel: If only portions of this roadway are built within the next
ten years, will it have fulfilled its intended function?
(Staff responded "not entirely.") Will this allow us to
limit access onto Rt. 29? Mr. Horne responded, "No, it will
not limit further than what you have already limited. But
it's not the question of limiting the number of accesses,
as much as decreasing the volume of traffic that goes out
those exits." Though Mr. Michel indicated he had reservations
about the proposal, he was sympathetic to the fact that
this is the only opportunity the County has to endorse a
parallel road concept for this area, before development begins
to take place.
Wilkerson: What will be the impact to Rio Road? (Staff felt that
the impact would be significant, though it was hoped that
Rio would have been widened before the roadway was completed.
It was determined there are no plans in the current Six -Year
Road Plan for widening Rio Road. Mr. Horne felt much of the
traffic will already be on Rio Road. He also stated that
not all traffic would use this roadway, with some still going
out onto Rt. 29. He stressed this is not a proposal to close
access to Rt. 29, but rather to provide alternative access.
He stated there would still be a strong preference for commercial
development to use Rt. 29.) Mr. Wilkerson questioned where
the funds would come from for the County's contribution and
was concerned that it could possibly be moved ahead of more
pressing projects. (Mr. Horne pointed out that this was
not a problem unique to this proposal, but was a problem with
the way road improvements have been handled in the past.
He stated this was a problem throughout the state.)
Cogan: Mr. Cogan felt there were many negative aspects to the proposal:
(1) The road doesn't really connect to anything and is actually
a parallel or detour road; (2) Developers will contribute only
if it makes good economic sense, i.e. in exchange they will
expect an intensification of development which can only increase
traffic on Rt. 29; (3) County contribution should not be
expected for a road that is not necessary; (4) There are
many more pressing projects in the County; (5) Will add a
large burden of traffic on Rio Road; and (6) Will cause an
intensification of development in the area. He felt the only
advantage was the possible reduction in the number of U-turns
on Rt. 29.
Diehl: Ms. Diehl agreed with Mr. Cogan and added that she felt this
would be of primary benefit to the developers with little public
benefit. She was also concerned as to how developers could be
required to build a road to certain standards. (Mr. Horne
indicated this would be accomplished through proffers.)
Bowerman: Mr. Bowerman indicated he was generally in favor of the
proposal but stated that it would make more sense if
improvements were contemplated to Rio Road. (It was determined
improvements to Rio Road, from Rt. 29 to Whitewood Rd., had
been removed from the current Six -Year Road Plan.)
WA
June 24, 1986 Page 5
Regarding the possibility of the intensification of the zoning, Mr. Keeler
,%W pointed out that in 1979 the Board had resolved that it would not look
favorably on a re -zoning that would increase traffic to Rt. 29 and
every rezoning on Rt. 29 North since that time has been "molded" in
that fashion. He stated the Board has "held fast" to that resolution
and he saw no reason why that would not continue. He stressed that
he was referring to traffic generation, i.e. a change in zoning might be
approved, but not a change in allowed traffic generation.
Mr. Horne pointed out that the traffic generation is already in place
with the current zoning, and that the zoning generates the traffic, not
the road.
The Chairman called for a motion.
Mr. Cogan moved that CPA-86-2,to designate a new roadway network between
Rio Road and the Hilton Hotel and between SPCA Road and Route 29N,
be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial for the following
reasons:
--Will not serve the general public;
--Will add a large burden of traffic to Rio Road;
--Will not decrease traffic on Rt. 29 significantly;
--Will require an unknown amount of County contribution;
--Will invite an intensification of development.
Ms. Diehl seconded the motion.
Mr. Bowerman stated he would not support the motion though he felt there
were elements of truth in the arguments against the proposal. He
felt the roadway would reduce turning movements on Rt. 29 and that it
could be built without intensification of commercial use.
Mr. Gould stated he realized the benefit of having a planned concept
for the road, but felt it was unrealistic to think that it would not
invite an intensification of development. He indicated he was unsure
as to how he would vote, but he felt the proposal would be "opening
up a hornet's nest."
Mr. Wilkerson stated he was not willing to gamble on where the funds would
come from to improve Rio Road.
The motion for denial of CPA-86-2 passed (4:2) with Commissioners Cogan,
Wilkerson, Diehl and Gould voting for denial, and Commissioners Bowerman
and Michel voting against denial.
ZMA-86-02 Joseph W. Wright, Jr. - Request to rezone 54.78 acres from RA,
Rural Areas to LI, Light Industrial. Property described as TM 32, parcels
41D, 41E, is located on the west side of Rt. 29 and also have access to
the south side of Rt. 649 adjacent to Deerwood Subdivision. Rivanna
Magisterial District.
(Mr. Michel excused himself due to a conflict of interests.)
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report, which stated that staff was of the opinion
that rezoning this property as currently proposed would not be consistent
with the general public interest, therefore, staff recommended denial.
Staff felt the rezoning petition was not consistent with matters of public
concern including buffering or transitional uses, phasing or utility extensions
and access control. -7 9
June 24, 1986 Page 6
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Roudabush, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission.
He asked that the two tracts be considered independently. He stated
that the applicant has no specific use for the property at this time,
and thus it is difficult to address the buffering issue. He stated
that utilities are available to the property, or will be with the
extension of the sewer line which is currently being discussed.
He stressed that there is a need for LI property in the area.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Mike Quesenberry, a resident of Deerwood, addressed the Commission.
He asked that the development of the property be closely "scrutinized"
by the County and that particular attention be given to providing
adequate buffer between the industrial development and the residential
property. He also felt the sewer question should be given careful
consideration.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Keeler read the following letter which had been received from the
League of Women voters:
The League of Uomen voters supports the planning staff's
recommendation to deny Mr. VJright's application to rezone
54.78 from RA Rural Area to LI Light Industrial.
The property is located in the vicinity of the southrestern
quadrant of R29N/649 (Airport Rd.).
To rezone such a large tract from RA to LI in that particular
area chile the Comprehori,.;ive Plan is Sander review is a
mistake. Thai revieNv process may reflect a decision that
higher density zoning is, indeed, desirable in an area that
already has 2/3 of the land recommended for industrial
development. }fovrever, the Comprehensive Plan's review
will enable officials and citizens an opportunity to
consider the best areas for industrial sites that "provide
a wide degree of choice in site locations, characteristics,
and price."
The review process would also include decisions concerning
commercial sites. It would seem that such a review would
I
consideration to the Comprehensive Plan's recommendation
('p. 170) that "Additional commercial areas are planned
for the intersection of R. 649/29N." To rezone this land
now is definitely a piece -meal approauli that is to be
avoided.
In addition to -the fact that the application represents
bad timing in view of the importance of the Comprehensive
Plan review process, the rezoninC, ihould be denied at this
time for other reasons sited in the staff reports
1. It would increase traffic on R.29N from 100
vehicles per day for ILi use to 2800 vpd for LI use. It
has been recommended that land use patterns should be
developed that would not ivi.gnify or increase 2914 traffic.
qD
June 24, 1986
Page 7
2. The proposal fails to meet Industrial Land Use
Standards as noted in the staffs "AttachmentV . Among
those specific items noted by staff are the effect on existing
neighborhoods - especially Deerwood and the Laurel Hills
Baptist Church - and the lack of adequate sewer facilities.
Furthermore, the Comprehensive Plan requires "Rezoning:; to an
industrial designation for sites of 5D acres or more ;should
be accomplished under a planned development zoninr(lesi.gnation
accompanied by a transportation analysis plan". It is our
understanding that the applicant has not done this.
We agree with the staff that the proposed rezoning is not
consistent with the general public interest and,therefore,
should be denied. We believe that a review of the Comprehensive
Plan should include a careful evaluation of the 'and uses
for the 29N/649 area as to its relation to the r:ounty's
needs, the Hollymead Community, and the 29 North Corridor.
The Chairman again closed the public hearing and placed the matter before
the Commission.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that the Commission could treat the parcels independently,
i.e. re -zone one and not the other. He added teat the Coinmissie,,, could
address the transitional uses concern very directly by either eliminating
one parcel, or giving it some other more appropriate zoning.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA 86-02 for Joseph W. Wright, Jr. be recomme«ded
to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
This motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Cogan stated he agreed with the staff report. However, he stated that
while he agreed that parcel E should not be rezoned, parcel D could lend
itself to ^ezoning if it was done properly. Air. Cogan stated he had three
concerns: (1) Parcel D will inevitably have access to Rt. 29; (2) The
question of sewer service is still indefinite; and (3) The property is
currently idle and probably will remain so for a time. In spite of these
concerns, Mr Cogan stated he still felt the proposal met the regU-i.rements
of the Comprehensive Plan and "under the proper set of circumstances I would
be inclined to agree with parcel D as being rezoned." He asked if a deferral
might be appropriate for parcel D and a denial of parcel E.
The Chairman asked the applicant if he had a preference as to denial
or deferral. The Chairman explained that deferral would allow the
applicant to submit a new proposal addressing the concerns of staff and
the Commission. Mr. Wright, the applicant, indicated a reluctance to
spend the resources needed to address the concerns of staff when he
currently has no use in mind for the property.
In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Keeler confirmed that he felt the
concerns of staff could be addressed by the applicant wii_hout a specific
use in mind at this time.
The applicant indicated he w-+ld be amenable to withdrawing parcel E from
the proposal..
Y1
June 24, 1986
Page 8
(Note: Throughout the discussion of this item both the Commission and applicant Iad
referred to the parcels as A and B as they were denoted on the
applicant's plan. However, parcel A was technically parcel 41D (the larger L-shaped
parcel) and parcel B was technically 41E (the smaller parcel adjacent to Deerwood
with frontage on Airport Road). The correct tax map designations have been
used in these minutes.)
Ms. Diehl stated she felt the applicant would have an opportunity to
take whatever action he chooses before Board review.
Ms. Diehl moved that ZMA-86-02 for Joseph W. Wright, Jr. be recommended to
the Board of Supervisors for denial, "recognizing that the applicant has
an opportunity to adjust the petition before it reaches the Board."
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on July 2, 1986.
ZMA-86-03 G. Thomas or Brenda Forloines - Request to rezone 3.71 acres from
C-1 Commercial to HC, Highway Commercial. Property described as TM 61Z-03,
parcel 2 is located on the east side of Rt. 29N approximately 400' north
of the intersection with Westfield Road. Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
It was determined the applicant had requested deferral to July 22, 1986.
(No members of the public were present concerning this item.)
The applicant's request for deferral was unanimously approved.
ZTA-86-03 To amend Section 8.5.6.5 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance
to clarify zoning status of certain planned developments designated at
time of adoption of the 1980 zoning map.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report which stated "the purpose of this amendment
is to add language to the ordinance to clarify that in the case of (1) Res-
idential developments with a density of 20 dwelling units per acre or
greater and (2) Shopping centers, the approved site plan shall be deemed
to be the planned development application plan. Therefore the approved
site plan would become the zoning on the property and would be treated in
all respects as the application plan. This would permit the property owner
ability to reconstruct in the event of building destruction (beyond
limitations of 6.0 nonconformities); ability to make minor site plan
amendments in accord with 8.5.6.3; and increased ability to refinance, etc.
since the Zoning Ordinance would clearly state that the development complies
with current ordinance provisions."
The staff report explained that during development of the 1980 zoning ordinance
and map, certain properties which were not planned developments under
prior zoning were designated on the new zoning map as planned developments
and these properties were primarily residential developments with a density
of 20 dwelling units per acre or greater or shopping centers.
X2
June 24, 1986 Page 9
Mr. Bowerman asked how this issue had come up. Mr. Keeler explained that
he and Mr. Payne had prepared similar language to this at the time
the zoning map and ordinance were developed, but through a clerical error,
it had been omitted.
Mr. Payne added that he felt a conscious decision had been made in 1980
that "there were some properties that were developed in a fashion that
was, or should have been, in a planned district kind of development.
The decision was made at that time, for example, that there is no need
to have an R-20 or an R-30 because the ordinance contemplates that you
can have any kind of density you want, within reason, but at the higher
densities it is necessary to have a planned district approach. In
order to recognize the higher density residential and the shopping centers,
for example, it was necessary to zone them to a planned district category.
This language was in at least one of the original drafts of that ordinance
but somehow, and no one knows how, it didn't make its way into the final
draft. Frankly, I think it was a clerical error, but I am not prepared
to swear to that so I think it is appropriate to amend it. What it really
says is if you have a property that has had a site plan approved and it's
been developed that way, and it's zoned to planned district, that you look
to the approved site plan to define how the property is to be used.
If you don't use that site plan, because of the nature of a planned
district zoning, you don't know it should be used because you don't have
what our ordinance calls an 'application plan.' So this language is a
kind of way of recognizing what I think was intended to be done 52 years
ago."
Mr. Payne confirmed this would be accepting an existing site plan as an
application. He added, "Notice that we are not talking about saying that
another peice of property could be rezoned to PUD without an application
plan and then a site plan is submitted and they can avoid having to go
through the application process. That is not at all what this contemplates.
This is only with respect to existing development."
Ms. Diehl asked what was the advantage in "making this have unlimited
reconstruction." Mr. Payne responded that it makes it a lot easier to
administer. He added, "With this language you have a means of saying
the way the property should be used, and developed and re -developed.
If you don't have this, then everything on the property is non -conforming.
Mr. Horne pointed out that this does not "build in the inherent right
to change uses on the same site plan. If you change uses, the staff
evaluates your existing site plan; if it's a major change to the point
at which the existing site plan is no longer valid, then we will require
a change in the site plan, in this case the site/application plan."
Mr. Payne added, "But that would be an administrative matter rather than
a legislative change that would have to go all the way through the public
hearing process."
Mr. Bowerman asked, "What if it was just a site plan that was submitted.
It wasn't a planned district, it was just a site plan. We're making it
into a planned district."
WJ
June 24, 1986
Page 10
Mr. Payne replied, "No. This contemplates it's only where it is already
on the map as a planned district." Mr. Payne used as an example
Shopper's World which was B-1 when it was developed and a site plan 11100
was approved. And then when the map was adopted in 1980, instead
of being shown as Highway Commercial, the nearest equivalent to B-1,
it was shown as a shopping center zone, the idea being that it would
remain in a unitary development.
Mr. Payne summarized the issue by stating that "A planned district with
no application plan doesn't make any sense."
Mr. Keeler stated, "We need this language to make these developments conforming
to the ordinance. If you look back at what we did in 1980, absence of
some kind of language here that gives the Zoning Administrator this
direction, we made a lot of developments that were conforming under prior
zoning, non -conforming under this ordinance."
Mr. Payne stated, "And I don't think there was any intent to do that."
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Joan Graves addressed the Commission and expressed concern as to how
this would effect Shopper's World. She questioned the status of the
site plan and feared that the public would not be made aware of impending
changes to the development. She called the Commission's attention to
the inadequate parking at the development and stated that the amount
of parking has never met the requirements. She felt this could potentially
make the situation worse because currently they cannot get anything approved
because of the inadequate parking.
Mr. Keeler indicated this would not effect that situation at all. He stated,
"This is not going to give Shopper's World any kind of free hand. What we
did in 1980 was make a number of properties non -conforming and this was
what we saw to be the remedy to it. But if you don't want to go with this
we can re -zone those properties to Highway Commercial and put in an R-35
zone or something like that."
Mr. Payne added, "If you don't have something like this, I think you just
about have to do that. I'm not saying that everything has to be Highway
Commercial, but it's got to be Highway Commercial or some mixture of
Highway Commercial and office, e.g. PDMC, Planned Development/Mixed Commercial
on Pantops, which has exactly the same problem and a lot of it's
undevelopable altogether. It's just not fair to the developer to zone
something with a lot of fairly stringent requirements about what he is to
do in terms of transportation analyses, etc. and yet not allow him the
flexibility to present the plan. That's really what's contemplated in
the Ordinance. I am frank to tell you that it's probably not proper
to have a bunch of zoning around with planned districts that make
everything non -conforming. I think, at least, if an applicant came in
and asked for it to be rezoned to make his property conforming when it's
non -conforming, that you would be obligated to approve it."
June 24, 1986
Page 11
Mr. Don Wagner addressed the Commission and expressed his agreement with
Mr. Payne.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Bowerman stated he did not see any problem with the amendment.
He stated, "All we are doing is legitimizing the original plan and if
its not built that way, then they've got problems in the future."
Mr. Keeler confirmed this understanding of the situation.
Mr. Cogan stated he felt this was a mechanism to eliminate non -conformity.
Mr. Payne added, "In essence what you are doing is transforming the precise
plan that was approved into the general plan which is contemplated."
Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZTA 86-03 to amend Section 8.5.6.5 of the
Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance be recommended to the Board of
Supervisors for approval as follows:
8.5.6.5 SPECIAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN PD DISTRICTS
In the case of any PD district established at the time of the
adoption of this ordinance` or thereafter by action of the board
of supervisors without application, as to which no application
has been submitted in accordance with section 8.5.1 of this
ordinance or the analogous provisions of any predecessor
ordinance, no site development plan or subdivision plat- shall be
approved unless and until such: application, including all
transportation analysis plans and other plans, maps, studies and
reports required by this ordinance, shall have been submitted and
approved in accordance with this section. In the case of anv
such nn district which has been heretofore developed in
==01067. .
Mr. Gould seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was scheduled for the Board on July 2, 1986
The meeting recessed from 9:30 to 9:45. Note: Ms. Diehl di -not return.
Ballard Ridge Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create four lots with an
average 4.89 acre lot size. The lots are to be served by a proposed
public road off Rt. 677. 19.56 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property
is located on the east side of Rt. 677, Ballard Road, approximately 1.0
mile north of Rt. 250 West. TM 59, parcel 20B. Samuel Miller Magisterial
District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report.
f1-
June 24, 1986
Page 12
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. David Blankenbecker who offered no
additional comment.
1hembeing no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Cogan moved that the Ballard Ridge Preliminary Plat be approved
subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions
have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans
and computations;
b. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval
of road and drainage plans and computations, to include
turn and taper lane;
C. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
d. Note regarding conservation easement to appear on final
plat and in homeowner association documents.
2. The final plat may be administratively approved. The final survey
and final road and drainage plans and computations must be submitted
within 6 months of Planning Commission approval.
3. Development of the 4.01 acres added to Flordon Lot 7A shall be
accessed by this proposed public road.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Nationwide Homes Display and Sales Office Site Plan - Proposal to locate two
model homes totalling 3,136 gross square feet, to be used for homes sales
and display. The development is to be served by 16 parking spaces (9
required). 1.46 acres, zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Property is located
on the north side of Rt. 250E at its intersection with Hunter's Way Road,
near Shadwell. TM 78, Parcel 49A. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Ms. Patterson gave the staff report.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Jack Sadler, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He indicated
he had no problems with the conditions of approval. He indicated a
lack of understanding as to why Highway Department approval was
required since it is not a state road. The Chairman explained that
the Highway Department must approve the entrance.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
�?h
June 24, 1986 Page 13
Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Nationwide Homes Display and Sales Office
Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions
have been met:
a. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and
computations;
b. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
c. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of
commercial entrance and drainage plans and computations;
d. Bond the removal of the display homes in accordance with
Section 4.8.3 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following
conditions have been met:
a. Fire Officer final approval.
Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS
The Chairman called the Commission's attention to a letter he had
received from the League of Women Voters in which the League objected
to the procedure that was being followed in the Comp Plan Review.
They were under the impression that the goals and objectives of
the Plan had already been changed without public input. It was
decided Mr. Keeler would draft a letter, very general in nature,
which would explain the procedure. It was felt the letter
was the result of a lack of understanding on the part of the League.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
l
ohn Horne, Secretary
r
0I