HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB200600375 Minutes 2007-03-26 attachment =- Page 3 of 6
Regular Items:
SUB-2006-375,Ashcroft West—Preliminary: Private Street Waiver Request:
Request for re-approval of a preliminary plat to allow the creation of 28 new lots. The property is described as a
portion of Tax Map 78 - Parcel 57, which contains 253.7 acres zoned R-1 (Residential), RA (Rural Areas) and
PRD (Planned Residential Development)adjacent to the Franklin, Ashcroft, Fontana, and the proposed Lakeridge
subdivisions. This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on the PRD portion of the parcel and
proposed access is from the east through the Ashcroft subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan designates this
property as being split between Neighborhood Density in Development Areas Neighborhood 3 and Rural Area 2.
(David Pennock)
Motion:
Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Edgerton seconded to deny SUB-2006-375, Ashcroft West — Preliminary Private Street
Waiver Request.
Ms.Joseph asked Mr. Kamptner if they need to have a list of reasons why they are denying the request.
Mr. Kamptner replied that it would be very helpful for the Board because they will have only the minutes and the
staff report with the staff report recommending approval. If they can articulate reasons why the Commission does
not think it should be approved it should be stated.
Amended Motion:
Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Edgerton seconded, to amend the motion to deny the private street waiver request for
SUB-2006-375, Ashcroft West—Preliminary based on the reasons outlined by the members of the Commission.
• Staff recommended approval because they thought that they did not have any other choice, but the
Commission disagreed because they have a choice. It is a development that would not be approved
today. They have an obligation in the County to keep these rural places rural. Even though it has a
separate zoning right now they don't have to make it easy to develop it. The Commission should do
everything they can to keep the pristine parts of the county pristine and push development in the
appropriate development areas that would be designated under today's standards as opposed to
standards in 1978 prior to the current by right zoning ordinance.
• Considering the development occurring in this area the private road standard is not in the best interest
and the service of the community. The public road standard is the best course of action here.
• Staffs recommendation for a private road approval relates to a difference in the amount of construction
disturbance. Certain grades could be lessened to eliminate a sufficient amount of cut and the earth work
differences are exaggerated. There would be at least some redesign measures that could be taken to
minimize the potential environmental difference between the public and the private road. The difference
in impact between the private and public road was less than what was stated in the current plan.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0. (Mr. Craddock and Mr. Morris were absent.)
Ms. Joseph noted that the private street waiver request for SUB-2006-375, Ashcroft West—Preliminary was
denied. The applicant has ten (10)days to appeal this decision to the Board of Supervisors.
Motion on Open Space Appropriateness:
Motion: Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, to approve the appropriateness of the open space use for
SUB-2006-375,Ashcroft West—Preliminary as recommended by staff.
Amended Motion: Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Cannon,seconded, to amend the motion for approval of the
appropriateness of the open space use for SUB-2006-375, Ashcroft West — Preliminary by adding the six (6)
reasons listed in the staff report on page 7.
(1) There is no flood plain in the open space or on the property.
(2) Very large areas of critical slopes are shown in the proposed open space.
(3) Water lines and drainage easements are proposed through portions of the open space.
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms Center/DepartmentsBoard of Supervise... 6/13/2007
attachment Page 4 of 6
(4) Three small storm water management facilities are proposed in the open space.
(5) Recreational areas are not required or proposed.
(6) The open space for this project circles this development on three sides to a depth of at least 500 linear
feet. This provides a reasonable buffer to all other adjacent subdivisions and other portions of Ashcroft.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0. (Mr. Craddock and Mr. Morris were absent.)
Ms. Joseph asked if the Commission wants to take action if the Board upholds their request that require each of
the lots to have an erosion and sediment control plan.
Motion: Mr. Edgerton moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, to require each of the lots to have an erosion and sediment
control plan if the Board upholds their request.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0. (Mr. Craddock and Mr. Morris were absent.)
Ms. Joseph noted that the motion passed to require each of the lots to have an erosion and sediment control plan
if the Board upholds the request.
Go to Attachment D
Return to exec summary,
Old Business
Ms. Joseph asked if there was any old business.There being none, the meeting proceeded.
New Business
Ms Joseph asked if there was any new business.
• Crozet Downtown Update — The question was asked when that project was instigated by the county
and what our contract was for that project.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution of intent on September 6, 2006 to pursue
this downtown zoning amendment. From that point on it was a process of developing a scope of work, going
through the procurement process, interviewing and ultimately negotiating and hiring a consultant. The consultant
is now on board and has begun work under a contract for$75,000.
Ms. Joseph asked staff to elaborate because staff had indicated that this zoning classification or district may be
able to be used in other areas.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that this will provide an analysis as to what kind of district best works for a town center or
downtown kind of setting. It may be a base district or an overlay district. But, it certainly has the potential of being
used in other similar circumstances. They don't have any existing downtowns per say in the county, but as in
Places 29 as an example, there is an uptown and a mid-town proposal. It may very well be a district that can be
used in those cases or in some varied form. This is a good exercise to go through. Obviously, they have a place
where there is a defined need expressed by business owners who, along with the Crozet Council, requested that
the Board authorize and have staff pursue this particular district.
Mr. Strucko asked what the advantages of this district would be.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it was going to deal with a variety of aspects of zoning that are not available in
conventional districts, such as the relationship of buildings to streets, parking requirements and potentially height
and setbacks. It would potentially be different from what the conventional districts would allow. Most of the
downtown zoning is conventional commercial, which would require a rezoning of property to Neighborhood Model
District under current provisions. This particular district will be more suited to a downtown center type of
situation. It also will include a recommendation as to whether or not this is a rezoning that the county wants to go
ahead and pursue independent of having individual property owners seek rezoning . Essentially the district could
be put in place by the county for use by businesses and properties that are in the downtown area without having
to go through a rezoning process. That will be part of the outcome as to the recommendation.
Ms. Joseph noted concerns with that aspect. If the county does the rezoning, then everything is by right and any
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms Center/Departments/Board of Supervise... 6/13/2007
attachment Page 8 of 15
Ms. Joseph invited public comment. There being none, the public hearing was closed and the matter before the
Commission.
Motion for Critical Slopes Waiver:
Motion: Mr. Strucko moved, Mr. Edgerton seconded, to approve SDP-2007-00031, Korean Community Church—
Critical Slopes waiver request.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0. (Mr. Morris and Mr. Craddock were absent.)
Motion for Curb and Gutter Waiver:
Motion: Mr. Strucko moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, to approve SDP-2007-00031, Korean Community Church —
Curb and Gutter waiver request.
Ms. Joseph said that it makes her feel sad that the applicant had tried to work with the neighbors and had no
respond from them for putting the water line. She had hoped that they could have worked together to solve the
existing erosion problems in the area. But, if they can't get on the land then it makes it very difficult. She thanked
the Korean Church for trying to work with their neighbors.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0. (Mr. Morris and Mr. Craddock were absent.)
Ms. Joseph stated that SDP-2007-00031, Korean Community Church waiver requests for both curb and gutter
and critical slopes were approved.
Regular Items:
SUB-2006-375.Ashcroft West—Preliminary: Private Street Waiver Request:
Request for re-approval of a preliminary plat to allow the creation of 28 new lots. The property is described as a
portion of Tax Map 78 - Parcel 57, which contains 253.7 acres zoned R-1 (Residential), RA (Rural Areas) and
PRD (Planned Residential Development)adjacent to the Franklin, Ashcroft, Fontana, and the proposed Lakeridge
subdivisions. This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District on the PRD portion of the parcel and
proposed access is from the east through the Ashcroft subdivision. The Comprehensive Plan designates this
property as being split between Neighborhood Density in Development Areas Neighborhood 3 and Rural Area 2.
(David Pennock)
Mr. Pennock summarized the staff report and presented a power point presentation.
The applicant has requested preliminary plat approval to create 28 lots on.an 89 acre Planned Residential District
(PRD) zoned portion of a 253 acre parcel. The property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 57, is located in the
Rivanna Magisterial District on Summit Ridge Trail [Private] at the end of Lego Drive [Private] in the Ashcroft
Subdivision. This request is for authorization to allow improvement and extension of the existing private street,
Summit Ridge Trail. In addition, the current proposal includes portions of open space, which must be approved
by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission will need to act on the waiver request, and make findings on the appropriateness of the
proposed Open Space. This staff report is organized to address the issues separately. The Commission must
act on both items. The items to be addressed are:
Subdivision Ordinance
1. Section 14-234—waiver to allow private streets
Zoning Ordinance
2. Section 4.7-approval of Open space
This item has previously been before the Planning Commission on two occasions, most recently on July 26,
2005. At that meeting, the preliminary subdivision plat was approved, including a waiver to allow private streets
and a finding by the Planning Commission that the proposed open space was appropriate. The previous
approvals expired July 26, 2006 because no final subdivision plat or street construction plans were filed within
one year. The applicant has resubmitted the preliminary subdivision plat with substantially the same layout as the
previously approved version.
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms Center/Departments/Board of Supervise... 6/13/2007
attachment Page 9 of 15
The applicant has demonstrated that the total volume of grading for construction of a public road would be thirty
(30%) percent more than that of a private road in the same alignment. The engineering review recommends
approval to the private road request.
The access is going to come through the existing Ashcroft Subdivision. Lego Drive is an existing private street.
At the end of Lego Drive there is a T intersection and this would be continuation of that T along that ridge line to
serve these lots.
A portion of property within Lake Ridge is an easement held by the Public Recreational Facility Authority. It is an
unusual piece of property because it is zoned three different things. There is a R-1 portion. Then at the 600'
contour the property goes out of the development area into the rural areas. Then there is a portion for Ashcroft
West, which is zoned PRD based on the zoning from 1978 that has been modified several times since then.
The applicant is proposing open space for large portions of this project. That was shown on one of the original
concept plans. It was a condition of one of the rezonings. The road itself runs along the high point and then the
building sites are close to the road in the flattest areas. The rest of the property falls away pretty much in each
direction. The open space areas are going to include at least three storm water facilities. It is going to be some
type of bio-filter type of design. Their access easements propose to get to those. There is also a water line
easement that could come through the Lake Ridge development, which was one of the latest proposals that he
has heard. There is a fiber optic easement. Otherwise, there are no encroachments into the open space area. It
is not intended as a recreational area. The open space is intended to preserve the vast majority of the critical
slopes on the property.
Staffs analysis of the open space found that it meets most of the criteria as presented in the staff report. Staff is
able to recommend approval of the finding of appropriateness for the open space.
The other item requested in this case is to allow private streets. This subdivision was originally approved with the
idea of private streets in mind. Since that time it has actually been before the Commission just a few years ago.
In 1995 a private street waiver was approved along with the preliminary subdivision plat, but the preliminary
approval was only valid for one year. It has since expired. This is almost the exact same plan that they saw last
time. The issues regarding private street review in this case includes that the only access to this parcel is by an
existing private street. It would require upgrading and dedicating miles of road along Lego Drive from the end of
the cul-de-sac all the way up to this point. Last time this was before the Commission the neighbors spoke out
against that.
Staffs analysis is that engineering had no major concerns with the private street concept. It will be designed as
close as possible to the Mountainous Terrain Standards. There,are profiles provided. Mr. Schuck's analysis
includes the difference in the environmental impact between the constructions of a public road along the same
layout. Staff is also recommending approval of the private street request.
Ms. Joseph asked if there were any questions for Mr. Pennock.
Mr. Cannon asked if there was no requirement for a critical slopes waiver.
Mr. Pennock replied that there is a proffer that speaks to critical slopes. There are no disturbances allowed on
critical slopes within this development other than those that might be necessary for the road construction.
Mr. Cannon noted that they are not now covered by the ordinance. They are not prohibited.
Mr. Pennock replied that actually the building sites and the road itself won't be disturbing critical slopes in this
case.
Mr. Cannon asked if this proposal goes along the ridge top.
Mr. Pennock replied that is correct. It was a little over 900'.
Mr. Cannon asked if it was relevant what the effect would be on the view shed.
Mr. Pennock said that in the Comprehensive Plan there is a critical resources plan that shows this as a mountain
area and the Comp Plan speaks to mountain protection. But, those concepts were added to the ordinance and
Comp Plan after the approval of the PRD zoning on this property, which included an application plan. This is a
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Board of Supervise... 6/13/2007
attachment Page 10 of 15
piece of the critical resource's plan. Everything above the 700' contour in this case is considered to be mountain
area by the open space plan. All of this development is within the purple area of the mountain protection area on
the critical resources and open space plan. But, again the approval of this predates it.
Mr. Edgerton said that he was struggling to get a handle on it. The previous approval has expired. If this came in
from scratch right now staffs recommendation would be entirely different.
Mr. Pennock replied that is correct. PRD can be reviewed under the ordinance in effect at the time the planned
district was created versus today's ordinance. Certainly if this was a brand new subdivision proposed from scratch
without that existing zoning there would be a very different set of circumstances that they would look at.
Mr. Edgerton said that it was the zoning driving it and not the fact that there had been a previously approved plat.
Mr. Pennock replied that was correct that the previous subdivision approval is more of a point of note. The zoning
is more of what drives the layout in this case.
Mr. Edgerton noted that this gets back into this whole argument that they got into with the Gazebo Place, which
under a previous ordinance and the law allows them to choice which ordinance to be reviewed under. The old
one did not have any concern about view shed.
Mr. Pennock replied yes, that again the mountain areas were added later in the mid 80's.
Mr. Edgerton noted that on page 3 of the staff report in the chart in the second row it has the width of section feet;
it says 20 plus 4 plus 4 which is 26.
Mr. Pennock replied that it was 26 in both cases.
Mr. Edgerton asked isn't it 28.
Mr. Pennock replied that they were rounding down.
There being no further questions for staff, Ms. Joseph opened the public hearing and invited applicant to address
the Commission.
Tucker Hurt, representative for the owner Pantops Lake Ridge, LLC, said that he was present to answer any
questions. Others present are Tom Muncaster and Katurah Roel who can answer questions on the technical
aspects of the development.
Ms. Joseph asked if there were any questions for Mr. Hurt. There being none, she invited public comment. There
being none, she closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Commission.
Ms. Joseph asked if there was a way that they could be guaranteed that these houses would not be on critical
slopes and that there is.not going to be a whole lot of grading going on around the houses. What she was looking
for was so that most of the trees would be preserved up there. Is there any method to do that, which is connected
with the proffer for not disturbing the critical slopes?
Mr. Shepherd replied that there were two agreements that were associated with the rezoning of 94-16 that covers
this. One is that no grading or clearing for street construction shall occur within any area until the final storm
water detention drainage plans for the subject sub-drainage basin have been approved for concurrent
construction. That means the grading associated will be first subject to an erosion and sediment plan or a storm
water management plan. That plan would include limits of grading. That is one point. Another agreement states
that there shall be no grading or construction on slopes of 25 percent or greater, except as necessary for road
construction as approved by the County engineer. It would also be caught on the road plans which would assure
that no grading for the road could only be within the limits of the grading shown on the road plan. They could not
do additional grading next to the road by this agreement. That speaks directly to the private road request that is
before us. There is always the option at the building permit stage. Typically a plat is required and erosion control
is addressed through what is known as an agreement in lieu of a plan. In cases of difficult terrain it is possible to
require a plan to show the grading associated with the construction. In this case that might be appropriate where
the building permit could be required to include a plat showing topo and the building site and that the disturbance
to the site would be confined to that building site that would be off of critical slopes.
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Board of Superviso... 6/13/2007
attachment Page 11 of 15
Ms. Joseph asked if that would be based on the proffer saying that they will not build on critical slopes.
Mr. Shepherd replied that there is no critical slope waiver available for this property. They want to be careful that
they are speaking to the issue at hand to the road construction and not bringing up a new issue. That would be
an option.
Mr. Edgerton reiterated that without some sort of requirement of that sort since there are no critical slopes being
disturbed, then there is no waiver required that there is a disconnect at the building permit stage that if there is an
issue that the building inspector can work that out with the applicant on site without any control. But, they can
require before hand the kind of engineering that would hopefully ensure some protection of the property off the
private road area.
Mr. Shepherd said that there are building sites shown on each of these lots outside of critical slopes. But, they
are close to critical slopes.
Mr. Cannon said that this would be to enforce an existing agreement. He asked if they could hook that to the
waiver approval or to the approval of open space or is that a separate item.
Mr. Kamptner replied that they were separate items. The authority in the Subdivision Ordinance for imposing
conditions for private streets requires that the condition pertain to the private street itself. But, requiring an
erosion and sediment control plan instead of an agreement in lieu of a plan is always at the option of the County.
The Commission can simply send direction to staff to please require an erosion and sediment control plan in lieu
of the plan for the subdivision.
Ms. Joseph closed the public hearing
Mr. Edgerton asked if this request does not go to the Board.
Mr. Pennock replied that was correct.
Mr. Edgerton said that the Commission had a lengthy conversation several weeks ago at their retreat about things
like this. He was really struggling. Under current plans this would not stand a chance of getting any
recommendation for approval. He felt that it was bad planning. He was wondering about their responsibility as
advisors to the Board. If it does not go to the Board if they deny it they could appeal it to the Board. Then it would
become the Board's decision. He was very uncomfortable approving something of this nature that will have such
a significant impact not only on the entire Pantops area, but certainly on Monticello that they are trying very hard
to protect. Pantops Master Plan went to great length to try to protect it. This sort of makes a mockery of all of
that effort.
Mr. Cannon said that he had the same reaction. He was struggling with the legal discretion they have to do
anything but approve this on the terms that it has been proposed and recommended for approval. The relative
perimeters have been set as a matter of zoning code amendments that are still applicable. He asked if they have
any discretion at all.
Mr. Kamptner replied that the zoning is set and the use has already been determined. The discretion that the
Commission has is in making the findings under the Subdivision Ordinance with respect to approving the private
street and under section 4.7 of the Zoning Ordinance in determining consistency with the open space regulations
Mr. Strucko said that he shared the same concerns. He wanted to look at this from the technical point of view. He
questioned the connection with Lake Ridge. He asked staff to explain why they are not pursuing an
interconnection with Lake Ridge
Mr. Pennock replied that one of the main reasons was that proposal was part of a previous version of both Lake
Ridge and Ashcroft West Plan. At that time one of the main reasons that staff recommended against it ultimately
was the connection of the development area with a road connection into the rural areas basically as the residents
concerns that this would be another outlet for all of Ashcroft. It would become a 250 by pass of sorts. It was a
combination of those two factors. Ultimately the plan was modified with staffs consent to take that connection
out.
Mr. Strucko asked which neighborhood they want to try to appease. The only access for Lake Ridge is through
Fontana. For this particular development the only access is through that private road, Lego Drive. The question
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Board of Supervise... 6/13/2007
attachment Page 12 of 15
road before us is public road versus private.
Mr. Zobrist felt that it might be narrower. The way he reads the ordinance they don't have to approve a private
road. They have to make findings if they approve it. He asked Mr. Kamptner if that was correct.
Mr. Kamptner replied that was correct, that they were not compelled to approve a private road.
Ms. Joseph pointed out that the one thing missing tonight from a couple years ago was the negative public
comment expressed by the adjacent owners in Ashcroft who lived on private roads. They were loud and clear that
they did not want this to happen because it would take part of their property to put in public road standards for the
rest of the existing roads. .
Mr. Cannon asked if denying the request for a private street require that connecting streets be upgraded to a
public road standard.
Mr. Pennock replied that in order to have the public street extend all of the way to this point certainly they don't
and VDOT does not allow private streets to serve public streets. In other that interim piece of private street would
not be allowed to be the access to this public street if this portion were upgraded to public.
Ms. Joseph noted that this could be by right if it was a public road. The only reason they are here before the
Commission is that it is private.
Motion:
Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Edgerton seconded to deny SUB-2006-375, Ashcroft West — Preliminary Private Street
Waiver Request.
Ms. Joseph asked Mr. Kamptner if they need to have a list of reasons why they are denying the request.
Mr. Kamptner replied that it would be very helpful for the Board because they will have only the minutes and the
staff report with the staff report recommending approval. If they can articulate reasons why the Commission does
not think it should be approved it should be stated.
Amended Motion:
Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Edgerton seconded, to amend the motion to deny the private street waiver request for
SUB-2006-375, Ashcroft West—Preliminary based on the reasons outlined by the members of the Commission.
• Staff recommended approval because they thought that they did not have any other choice, but the
Commission disagreed because they have a choice. It is a development that would not be approved
today. They have an obligation in the County to keep these rural places rural. Even though it has a
separate zoning right now they don't have to make it easy to develop it. The Commission should do
everything they can to keep the pristine parts of-the County pristine and push development in the
appropriate development areas that would be designated under today's standards as opposed to
standards in 1978 prior to the current by right zoning ordinance.
• Considering the development occurring in this area the private road standard is not in the best interest
and the service of the community. The public road standard is the best course of action here.
• Staffs recommendation for a private road approval relates to a difference in the amount of construction
disturbance. Certain grades could be lessened to eliminate a sufficient amount of cut and the earth work
differences are exaggerated. There would be at least some redesign measures that could be taken to
minimize the potential environmental difference between the public and the private road. The difference
in impact between the private and public road was less than what was stated in the current plan.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0. (Mr. Craddock and Mr. Morris were absent.)
Ms. Joseph noted that the private street waiver request for SUB-2006-375,Ashcroft West—Preliminary was
denied. The applicant has ten (10)days to appeal this decision to the Board of Supervisors.
Motion on Open Space Appropriateness:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Board of Superviso... 6/13/2007
attachment Page 13 of 15
Motion: Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, to approve the appropriateness of the open space use for
SUB-2006-375, Ashcroft West—Preliminary as recommended by staff.
Amended Motion: Mr. Zobrist moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, to amend the motion for approval of the
appropriateness of the open space use for SUB-2006-375, Ashcroft West — Preliminary by adding the six (6)
reasons listed in the staff report on page 7.
(1) There is no flood plain in the open space or on the property.
(2) Very large areas of critical slopes are shown in the proposed open space.
(3) Water lines and drainage easements are proposed through portions of the open space.
(4) Three small storm water management facilities are proposed in the open space.
(5) Recreational areas are not required or proposed.
(6) The open space for this project circles this development on three sides to a depth of at least 500 linear
feet. This provides a reasonable buffer to all other adjacent subdivisions and other portions of Ashcroft.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0. (Mr. Craddock and Mr. Morris were absent.)
Ms. Joseph asked if the Commission wants to take action if the Board upholds their request that require each of
the lots to have an erosion and sediment control plan.
Motion: Mr. Edgerton moved, Mr. Cannon seconded, to require each of the lots to have an erosion and sediment
control plan if the Board upholds their request.
The motion passed by a vote of 5:0. (Mr. Craddock and Mr. Morris were absent.)
Ms. Joseph noted that the motion passed to require each of the lots to have an erosion and sediment control plan
if the Board upholds the request.
Return to exec summary
Old Business
Ms. Joseph asked if there was any old business.There being none, the meeting proceeded.
New Business
Ms Joseph asked if there was any new business.
• Crozet Downtown Update—The question was asked when that project was instigated by the County
and what our contract was for that project.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that the Board of Supervisors passed a resolution of intent on September 6, 2006 to pursue
this downtown zoning amendment. From that point on it was a process of developing a scope of work, going
through the procurement process, interviewing and ultimately negotiating and hiring a consultant. The consultant
is now on board and has begun work under a contract for$75,000.
Ms. Joseph asked staff to elaborate,because staff had indicated that this zoning classification or district may be
able to be used in other areas.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that this will provide an analysis as to what kind of district best works for a town center or
downtown kind of setting. It may be a base district or an overlay district. But, it certainly has the potential of being
used in other similar circumstances. They don't have any existing.downtowns per say in the County, but as in
Places 29 as an example, there is an uptown and a mid-town proposal. It may very well be a district that can be
used in those cases or in some varied form. This is a good exercise to go through. Obviously, they have a place
where there is a defined need expressed by business owners who, along with the Crozet Council, requested that
the Board authorize and have staff pursue this particular district.
Mr. Strucko asked what the advantages of this district would be.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that it was going to deal with a variety of aspects of zoning that are not available in
conventional districts, such as the-relationship of buildings to streets, parking requirements and potentially height
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/Board of Supervise... 6/13/2007
V I R G I N I A LAND COMPANY IL• REACTORS
OF CHARLOTTESVILLE, INC
195 RIVERBEND DRIVE • P.O. BOX 8147 • CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22906
TELEPHONE (434) 979-8181 • FAX (434) 296-3510 •
March 26, 2007
•
Mark Graham
Director of Community Development
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Road
North Wing
Charlottesville,VA 22902
RE:Ashcroft West Private Road Waiver
Dear Mr. Graham,
Pantops-Lakeridge LLC would like to appeal to the Board of Supervisors the action taken by the
Planning Commission on May 1, 2007 to deny the private street waiver request for SUB-2006-
375,Ashcroft West. Please find enclosed with this letter a check for the fee of$250.
Sincerely,
J
1
Tucker Hurt
Project Manager
MAY 10 2007
COP . UNf l Y DEVELOPMENT
BROKERS • BUILDERS - LAND DEVELOPERS - PROPERTY MANAGEMENT