Albemarle County Planning Commission

December 5, 2006


The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, December 5, 2006, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Second Floor, Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were Eric Strucko, Jon Cannon, Marcia Joseph, Chairman, Bill Edgerton (arrived at 6:12 p.m.), Duane Zobrist and Pete Craddock. Absent was Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman.  Julia Monteith, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia, representative for David J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia was absent. 


Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Planning Director; Gerald Gatobu, Senior Planner, David Benish, Chief of Planning; Amelia McCulley, Zoning and Current Development Director/Zoning Administrator; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; Claudette Grant, Senior Planner; Sean Dougherty, Senior Planner; Judith Wiegand, Senior Planner; David E. Pennock, Principal Planner and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney.


Call to Order and Establish Quorum:


Ms. Joseph called the regular meeting to order at 6:09 p.m. and established a quorum.


Work Session:


ZMA-2005-15 Hollymead Town Center – Areas A1 and A2 (Signs #15, 51, 53, 73)

PROPOSAL:  Rezone 31 acres from RA - Rural Areas (agricultural, forestal, and fishery uses; residential density (0.5 unit/acre)) to PDMC - Planned District Mixed Commercial (large-scale commercial uses; and residential by special use permit (15 units/ acre)) to allow for 296,000 square feet of office and retail.


EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Town Center -- Compact, higher density area containing a mixture of businesses, services, public facilities, residential areas and public spaces, attracting activities of all kinds. (6.01-34 dwelling units per acre).


LOCATION: Tax Map 32, parcels 42A, 42C, a portion of Tax Map 32, parcel 44, a portion of Tax Map 32, parcel 45, and Tax Map 46, parcel 5, located to the south of the southern entrance to the Hollymead Town Center along Route 29 North.


The Comprehensive Plan's Town Center designation is accompanied with the "Conceptual Master Plan & Design Guidelines for the Hollymead Town Center".

STAFF:  Sean Dougherty


Mr. Dougherty summarized the staff report.  (See Staff Report)


J.P. Williamson, of HM Acquisition Group, represented the applicant.


In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session on ZMA-2005 -015, Hollymead Town Center – Areas A1 and A2 to review and provide comment on the resubmittal. (Area A1 was only discussed on how it relates to Area A2.)  Mr. Williamson, the applicant, addressed the Commission and clarified that the details identified by staff as needing to be addressed were all improvements to the plan that he was willing to make. He said that these were things they planned to do but thought that it could wait until the site plan. With his willingness to respond to staff’s comments, the applicant suggested that the only issue remaining for discussion is Meeting Street.


The Commission took public comment; answered staff’s questions outlined in the staff report and scheduled a follow up work session.  No formal action was taken by the Planning Commission.



  1. Question for the Commission: Are staff’s comments noted in bold in the Neighborhood Model Analysis relevant and appropriate direction to the applicant?


The applicant clarified that he was willing to make the changes recommended by staff and would do so before resubmitting.



  1. Does the application plan reflect the form of development anticipated for this area so that the goals of the Guidelines will be achieved?


The Planning Commission said that Meeting Street should be redesigned to allow for a more continuous extension of non-residential uses on the first floor level of buildings along Meeting Street. The Commission felt that some residential-only uses may be appropriate along Meeting Street, but that they should be anchored near the linear park and that rest of the first floors along Meeting Street should contain non-residential uses. The applicant’s idea of clustering non-residential uses at either ends of the three blocks of Meeting Street between Town Center Drive and Timberwood Boulevard was not supported by the Commission. They felt that continuous commercial frontage should line the first floor level of Meeting Street, with residences above and that buildings and townhouses devoted solely to residential uses should occur on other streets to create a hierarchy.


3.      Does the application plan reflect the form of development anticipated for this area so that the goals of the Guidelines will be achieved?


There needs to be some balance on each side of the street.  The Planning Commission was not sure what the appropriate number of stories would be.  Staff suggested that the Commission’s direction would provide enough guidance for staff and the applicant to work on a better approach to height and massing.


  1. Is the proposed intensity of uses appropriate?


The proposed intensity of uses is appropriate.  The PC did not have any trouble in the increase of nonresidential space, but not to the exclusion of residential.  They want the uses to work together in a mixture.



  1. Is the system of streets and paths sufficient to support the uses proposed?


The system of streets and paths is sufficient to support the uses proposed.  .


  1. Should the applicant amend an area shown for a transit stop to a safer and more intuitive location and prepare the application plan so the entire proposal is transit-ready in general?


The applicant needs to show an area for transit and use information from the Place 29 study


7.      The applicant’s approach to interconnections was suitable for the intensity of uses proposed.


The applicant’s approach to interconnections was suitable for the intensity of uses proposed.


Go to next set of minutes

Return to exec summary