Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 03 81 PC MinutesM March 3, 1981 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, March 3, 1981, at 7:30 p.m., in the Board Room of the County Office Building, Court Square, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David Bowerman, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mr. Allan Kindrick; Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr. and Mr. James Skove entered the meeting later. Absent from the meeting was Mr. C. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Ron Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning, and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. After establishing that a quorum was present, Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order. Mrs. Diehl told the Commission that she had directed the Planning staff to make certain typographical corrections earlier in the afternoon of the minutes for the January 6, 1981, meeting. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any additional corrections from the Commissioners. There were none, and the minutes were approved as corrected. ZMA-81-4 Herbert E. and Edith M. Kaufman - Located near the end of Route 651 (Free State Road) about one half mile east of Northfields subdivision. Tax Map 62, Parcel 12, Rivanna Magisterial District. Proposal to rezone 5.279 acres from R-4 to RA Rural Areas. SP-81-3 Herbert E. and Edith M. Kaufman - located near the end of Route 651 (Free State Road) about one half mile east of Northfields subdivision. Tax Map 62, Parcel 12, Rivanna Magisterial District. Proposal to locate a mobile home on 5.279 acres. Mr. Keeler stated that these two applications should be considered together, and he proceeded to give the staff report on both petitions. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant would like to make any comment. Mr. Kaufman stated that he was seeking approval in order to locate his niece who just married in a mobile home on his property. He added that he was getting on in years and that his niece was his only heir and would inhabit his house after his death. Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Kaufman's house was on the property referred to in the applications. Mr. Kaufman replied that it was and that he lived at the end of State maintenance on a private road used by five families. Mr. Herbert Martin introduced himself as Mr. Kaufman's brother-in-law. He explained that Mr. Kaufman was almost eighty years old and that his wife worked at night. Mr. Martin continued, saying it was for this reason that the niece would be locating on Mr. Kaufman's property, in order to be nearby at night when Mr. Kaufman is left alone. Mr. Martin also stated that the variance was only granted to the niece and would not go to any subsequent occupant of the mobile home. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any public comment. There was not and the matter was before the Commission. Mrs. Diehl indicated that she was not certain about the status of the variance. Mr. Martin explained that the variance and setback of 27 feet (due to the topography of the property) was issued only to this occupant, the niece. Mrs. Diehl stated that she had visited the site in the afternoon and after confirming that she had located the staked out mobile home site, she asked about the telephone or electricity lines. Mr. Martin replied that these lines came 12 to 15 feet in from the private road and that VEPCO had no problem with its easement of 15 feet, 7=2 each way. Mrs. Diehl asked about underground telephone lines. Mr. Martin said that there were none in that area. Mrs. Diehl asked about the two metal telephone poles on the property. Mr. Kaufman responded that these poles were VEPCO electrical lines servicing his house at the bottom of the hill; he added that they had given VEPCO the right-of-way to bring in this electrical service. Mrs. Diehl wondered how far away from underground telephone lines the mobile home would have to be. She stated that there were two short telephone poles at the front of the property, close to where the mobile home was to be located. Mr. Kaufman said that these were lines to his home and did not serve the rest of the area, two private lines into his house. Mr. Keeler said that there was no requirement concerning distance from underground telephone lines right-of-way. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there had been Health Department approval. Mr. Kaufman responded that there had been. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were further questions and suggested taking the applications in order. Mr. Gloeckner said that since there was precedent and other rental units existed in the area along with residential uses, he moved for approval of ZMA-81-4. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, with no discussion. Mrs. Diehl said that the next item would be SP-81-3 and asked whether there was further discussion or if there were questions on the application. Mr. Bowerman inquired whether the special use permit would continue to be valid after the current occupant vacated the mobile home. Mr. Payne replied that as a practical matter, the mobile home could not be occupied by a new party, since the variance would lapse when the current occupant vacated the mobile home. Mr. Bowerman inquired further whether a new occupant would have to come before the Commission to request another special use permit. Mr. Payne responded that a new occupant would not have to seek another special use permit, but would have to apply for another variance. Mr. Gloeckner said that he had been thinking of putting five years on the home, in order to review it. Mr. Bowerman remarked that otherwise, a new occupant would just have to go before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Mrs. Diehl asked how follow-up was taken care of on occupancy. Mr. Kaufman stated that it had been specified before the Board of Zoning Appeals that his niece and her husband would be the sole occupants of that mobile home, ever. Mr. Gloeckner responded that since that was the case, he moved for approval of SP-81-3, subject to the one condition: 1) Compliance with 5.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, with no discussion. Mr. Corwith Davis, Jr. entered the meeting. ZMA-81-5 Woodbriar Associates and General Electric - Located in two sites: Site A consists of 3.81 acres and is located on the west side of Route 29 North, north and adjacent to the North Fork Rivanna River; Site B consists of 4.19 acres and is located on the west side of Route 29 North at the recently -approved entrance to General Electric. Tax Map 32E, Parcel 1 (part thereof), Rivanna Magisterial District. Proposal to rezone 8.0 acres from C-1 Commercial to RA Rural Areas. Mr. Keeler told the Commission that the applicant was not present but that because of the nature of the petition perhaps the Commission would want to proceed anyway. Mrs. Diehl inquired of Mr. Payne if this would be proper. Mr. Payne responded that it was proper. He added that Mr. Smith was present. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the applicant was present. There was no response, and Mr. Keeler proceeded to give the staff report. Mrs. Diehl stated at the close of the staff report that she hesitated to proceed without the applicant being present. Mr. Lloyd Smith stated that he represented General Electric and that he would be glad to make a statement. He continued, saying that General Electric entered into a contract with Mr. Wood to buy this property on March first. Mr. Smith observed that the letter to the Board from Mr. Wood was dated January 23, 1980. Mr. Smith stated that the contract restricted this property from any commercial use for thirty years from the date of closing. Mr. Smith also said that he believed that Mr. Wood had made restrictions on his adjoining property which is part of this application that included a provision that a 100 foot building set -back line from the center margin of the entrance road between U.S. 29 and the boundary of Briarwood shall be shown on the plat of all surveyed and in the deed of conveyance Woodbriar shall agree that no building of any nature shall be constructed from the entrance road and the building set -back line. Mr. Smith said that those same restrictions were carried over in the deed, so that he believed that Mr. Wood thought that he was carrying out the requirements of the Board. Mr. Smith went on to say that General Electric does not intend to put any building on this land and plans to keep it open space, to maintain a sort of campus -type setting. He continued, stating that General Electric in Schnectady had not authorized anyone to join in this application. Mr. Smith explained that the feeling is that through private agreement reflected in the deed, General Electric is fulfilling the intent of the Board. He added that General Electric did not want to be a party to a down -zoning, that G.E. paid a certain price for this property based on its zoning and would not want to jeopardize its future value nor upset Mr. Wood's plans. Mr. Wendell Wood entered the meeting. Mr. Wood stated that he was not certain about all that had transpired earlier in the meeting, but that it was his understanding that a deed restriction was more binding than zoning, that a deed restriction superceded or overrode zoning. Mr. Wood gave as an example, if a piece of property were zoned commercial but the deed restriction prohibited commercial use, it was his understanding that no commercial use could take place. Mr. Wood added that in the case of his hotel a proffer had been made and that perhaps, as Mr. Keeler had suggested, that could be done in this case. He said that he had no problem with the part of the property he owned, that it could be by deed restriction, a proffer or a down -zoning, but that the real point was that it could not be developed commercially. Mr. Wood asked Mr. Payne to address the issue of deed restriction and zoning. Mrs. Diehl responded that it would be in order to address that matter at the close of the public hearing. She asked Mr. Wood if he had any further comments. Mr. Wood said that they were already ahead of themselves in having arranged the deed restriction for General Electric, that G. E. would never commercially develop their property. He said that maybe the easiest solution would be to proffer in order to achieve the twenty percent. Mr. Wood added that concerning Mr. Keeler's remarks about the flood plain, the Service Authority had already filled in some of that part when the sewer was brought in. He continued that cutting and filling is a common practice in Albemarle County and that he had never been fortunate enough to own land flat enough to avoid having to cut and fill. Mr. Wood went on to mention his letter to the Board, that he had been trying to recall its contents. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Wood whether he had had an opportunity to read the staff report. J �� Mr. Wood replied that he had not. Mrs. Diehl suggested that perhaps he was at a disadvantage, since the staff report had been presented before Mr. Wood's arrival, and that perhaps he would like to take the time to look it over. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment on the application. Since there was none, she stated that the matter was now before the Commission. Mr. Payne responded that what Mr. Wood was saying was in practical effect commonly the case, but that the problem was that the two were not really comparable. He continued by saying that a deed restriction is a property right, enforceable between property owners, and that zoning is an act of the police power, enforceable by the County. As an example, Mr. Payne further explained, if a piece of property were zoned C-1, but by deed restriction no commercial use was allowed, the County could not enforce it, and commercial development could take place. He further remarked that in practical effect such a conflict ordinarily would not take place because a restriction on the title would hinder financing and thereby preclude commercial development. Mr. Payne added that a deed restriction was also subject to change at any time by mutual consent of the two property owners. He pointed out that actually these two issues, deed restrictions and zoning, are not comparable. He added that in terms of whether the property was effectively restricted, it probably was but that it was not enforceable by the County. Mr. Davis asked why the Commission could not consider one of the two parcels in Site B, since the property had changed hands. Mr. Payne answered that the Commission could, that it was very questionable whether the Commission could take lawful action to rezone the property belonging to General Electric, but that the Commission could consider the portion belonging to Mr. Wood. Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Payne was, then, of the opinion that the General Electric portion of Site B could not be considered tonight. Mr. Payne confirmed her understanding of the situation. Mr. Wood asked whether he could proffer his deed restriction to the County, since it was in his favor. Mr. Payne responded that the deed restriction runs in favor of the land, not the individual. Mr. Payne added that he knew of no instrument by which Mr. Wood could convey the right to enforce the deed restriction to the County. Mr. Wood asked whether he could prohibit that the deed restriction be lifted by putting this restriction on any predecessor or title. Mr. Payne answered that this was not possible. He said that it would be an extraordinary act of legal metaphysics, but that conceivably he could dedicate the right to enforce the servitude to public use. Mr. Payne added that he would have to further investigate this possibility, should the Commission be interested. / ?Z Mr. Davis asked Mr. Payne whether it was not true that a deed restriction could be placed on a piece of property regardless of whether you owned land around the restricted property and that your enforceability had no bearing on owning other land. Mr. Payne confirmed that it was possible and that such a situation was called a negative easement in gross; he continued to explain, saying that such was enforceable by an individual, not as part of ownership interest of a parcel of property. Mr. Payne said that it was questionable that this could be done in many circumstances and that in the case of General Electric it could not because G.E. had purchased the property with the deed restriction on it. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Payne whether he understood then, that since the deed restriction belonged to the land and not Mr. Wood personally, that Mr. Wood could not therefore proffer. Mr. Payne said that proffering was another matter, that proffering was a zoning matter, rather than a property right and that Mr. Wood did not have anything with which to proffer in this case. Mr. Payne said that the suggestion being made was that Mr. Wood proffer his right to enforce the deed restriction and that he had never seen that done. Mr. Payne said that if such a proffer were possible, he would have to research the matter. Mr. Wood stated that his purpose in making the deed restriction in the first place was to fulfill his proffer to the Board to reduce the commercial zoning along Route 29 North by twenty percent and that he was willing to do whatever was necessary. Mr. Bowerman remarked that these issues aside, it was the Board that had required the proffer originally and that he thought that the Board should consider whether this particular rezoning request meets the conditions of the proffer. Mr. Bowerman stated that from what he understood, there was no question that the portion of Site B owned by General Electric would not be developed for residential use. He added that he thought that the Board would have to determine whether Site A and the acre of Site B fulfill the requirements of the proffer or whether some additional commercial might have to be reserved for residential. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Bowerman what type of action he had in mind, then, for the Commission to take, in order to forward the matter to the Board. Mr. Gloeckner said that he would simply forward it for the Board's review because the Commission was being asked to judge something it did not initiate. He added that he would not have asked for the twenty percent in the first place. Mr. Payne said that the Commission should take some kind of action. Mr. Davis said that it would not bother him to put whatever portion of the Sites A and B they could into the RA district and then forward it to the Board. He added that perhaps the Board could give Mr. Wood relief, but that the Commission was not in a position to do so. Mr. Payne said that the Board might approve the rezoning and determine that this condition has been met, or it might refuse the rezoning and /1J determine that it already meets this condition. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne whether he was saying that two different actions were involved. Mr. Payne replied yes, that one was an enforcement action. Mrs. Diehl stated that what Mr. Payne was saying was that the Commission should consider this petition only as a rezoning request and not consider the proffer aspect. Mr. Davis concurred, saying that the Commission was not in any position to make a decision on the proffer. Mr. Davis went on to offer a motion to rezone Site A and that portion of Site B belonging to Mr. Wood to RA, Rural Areas. Mr. Kendrick seconded the motion. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the rezoning petition could be dealt with properly in this fashion, by only rezoning partially. Mr. Payne replied that it was proper. He said that the entire property had been advertised and that the action covered a reduced portion, which was acceptable. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler whether it was correct that under the present Zoning Ordinance the area in the flood plain is undevelopable land. Mr. Keeler replied that much of this land was in the flood plain and that while he had not requested any engineering studies, he knew that very little land within the flood plain could be filled and that there was no variance that could be obtained to allow filling beyond the limitations of the current Ordinance. Mr. Davis asked what the suitable zoning for flood plain areas was, if these areas sere only suited to agricultural use. Mr. Keeler replied C-1 and RA. Mr. Davis responded that he believed that the most proper designation for land of this type was Rural Areas, not C-1. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further discussion. There was none and the motion passed unanimously. Mr_. Keeler suggested that the Commission in its action letter state that the appropriateness of this rezoning request was not evaluated by the Commission in terms of satisfying Mr. Wood's proffered letter to the Board during the review of ZMA-79-32. Mr. Wood requested that Mr. Payne look further into ways that he could possibly satisfy the County that he would not at some point change his mind and lift the deed restriction on the General Electric property. Mrs. Diehl stated that her first reaction to this suggestion was that Mr. Wood should look into this matter himself. 13� Mr. Wood answered that he thought that any solution would have to be satisfactory to Mr. Payne. Mr. Payne said that if Mr. Wood's attorney wanted to look into the matter, he would be happy to review any proposal. ZMA-81-6 Charles Kincannon and Dennis Ownby - Located on the north side of Route 250 East, approximately 3,600 feet east of Route 20 North. Tax Map 78, Parcel 12 (part thereof), Rivanna Magisterial District. Proposal to rezone 6.532 acres from R-15 to HC Highway Commercial. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Mr. Kincannon stated that when the new zoning map was being drawn staff was not aware that a division had been made and that this parcel had been B-1 when Ownby and Company Realtors bought the 6.7 acres (out of the original 27- acre tract). Mr. Kincannon said that their intent was to continue the same use for an indefinite length of time and to create a center of offices related to agricultural services, land sales, farm management, forestry, etc. He mentioned that Dome Agricultural Service and A.S.C.S. had located there already. Mr. Kincannon stated that it was also their full intention to comply with the Highway Department requirements and that the delay had been due to Dr. Hurt not delivering the title until the latter part of 1979. Mr. Kincannon said that the actual work required was minor, apart from a deacceleration lane, and that S. L. Williamson and Anderson Construction Company had already been contracted to do the work. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment. There was none and the matter was before the Commission. Mr. Gloeckner asked Mr. Keeler to point out commercial zoning on the posted zoning map. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler to point out the area included in Dr. Hurt's two rezoning applications of a couple of weeks earlier. Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant what conditions had not been met on his site plan that prompted a request for an extension. Mr. Kincannon replied that the deacceleration lane had been the only condition. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the road into the property had been widened. Mr. Kincannon replied that they had not, that the requirement had been to widen the road slightly but that there was a lot of shrubbery involved and the thought had been to try to keep the aesthetic look of the property as much as possible, and confine the widening to the deacceleration lane at the entrance. Mr. Kincannon went: on to say that the unusual restriction for a piece of commercial property was the prohibiting of a left turn out of the property. He said that this restriction would be met when the deacceleration lane is constructed. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the condition requiring the width of the road to be at least 16 feet had been meL. /3 Mr. Kincannon replied that the road was already about that width. But that all of these conditions were to complied with at the time the deacceleration lane was completed. Mrs. Diehl asked about Fire Official approval and Health Department approval on the septic system. Mr. Kincannon replied that they have Fire Official approval and that since he has his occupancy permit, he assumes that the Health Department gave its approval. Mrs. Diehl asked whether Mr. Kincannon had stated that there were currently four uses on the site. Mr. Kincannon replied that there was the Ownby Auction and Realty Company, the Dome Agricultural Service, and the Agricultural Stabilization Conservation Service (the Ownby company being a joint/two-company combination). Mr. Davis said that it looked as though this property might properly be zoned HC Highway Commercial, but that the Commission might want to review it when there are plans for developing the area. He continued, saying that if the intent of the applicant was to maintain the current offices, it might be more suitable to just continue under a non -conforming use at the present time, until such time as the applicant had definite development plans. Mr. Gloeckner said that he thought this property might have more flexibility and be more appropriately zoned HC rather than CO Commercial Office because it is adjoining other HC properties. He continued, saying that this piece of property definitely did not belong in R-15. Mr. Davis agreed. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he felt that if the applicant was going to do anything with more intensity, the Commission would see a site plan showing that intended use. Mr. Gloeckner said that to zone it CO now because its existing use is office did not leave much flexibility for that land. Mrs. Diehl said that she did not believe that she could vote for any rezoning until the issue of the entrance had been resolved and definite road plans had been approved by the Highway Department. She remarked that the entrance to this property was very bad and recalled lengthy discussions with the earlier site plan submittal. Mr. Kincannon stated that when the property was purchased its zoning was B-1 and they were more than willing to make the estimated $35,000 to $40,000 committment to improve the road and entrance because the property was zoned for the use for which they intended. He added, however, that to request that outlay of money on a piece of land with no commercial zoning would be unfair. Mrs. Diehl objected, saying that she was not suggesting this. She reiterated that she wished to see approved road plans. Mr. Kincannon stated that they had already submitted road plans to the Highway Department and had a deadline date and contracted to have the work done by that deadline. ��4 Mrs. Diehl said that according to the information received by the Commission this was not the case (referring to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation letter attached to the staff report). Mr. Kincannon asked Mr. Keeler whether a site plan had been submitted to the Highway Department and received approval. He said that he had a copy of it. Mr. Keeler asked whether he was referring to the orginal site plan on this property. Mr. Kincannon replied yes and also the second time they approached them when he resubmitted a plan last summer. Mr. Keeler replied that from what he understood the Highway Department was interested in that plan but needed some committments about what was going to happen to the property between Mr. Kincannon's and the Odyssey. Mrs. Diehl said that it was a little difficult to relate the original approved site plan for one office use to rezoning the entire property as either Highway Commercial or Commercial Office now. Mrs. Diehl said that she needed to see something more specific on the road plans, something that Mr. Kincannon and the Highway Department would work out, showing how the road problems would be resolved. Mr. Kincannon responded that he was a little unclear as to what was actually being requested. He stated that his current use was his future intended use and that the rezoning request is in order to comply with the present use and to return the property to the commercial zoning it had at the time of purchase. Mr. Kincannon asked whether he was being asked to submit a plan for some future development based on a rezoning. Mrs. Diehl responded, saying that when he had come in with his original site plan it had been for one office in that building and that approval and Highway Department comments had been based on that single use within that one building. Mr. Kincannon added that approval had also been based on the original zoning of B-1 and that he thought that Highway Commercial was what B-1 was at that time. Mrs. Diehl again said that she wanted to see something more from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation because she was not certain whether they were speaking to the ultimate use of that building or solely for the use then .in existence. Mr. Keeler gave some background on the problems related to this property. He said that originally a site plan had not been required because it had been represented to the County that only a few State Farm employees were temporarily remaining in this building that was previously a boarding house. Mr. Keeler went on to .say that a notice in the paper appeared telling people to come out to the State Farm Claims Office on Pantops. When the Fire Official went out to inspect, Mr. Keeler continued, he reported finding cars parked all up and down the driveway and stated that in the case of a fire he would be unable to reach the building. Mr. Keeler said that it was at this point that a site plan was required and that at some point the property changed hands from Dr. Hurt to Mr. Kincannon. When the site plan came before the Commission, Mr. Keeler stated, there were lengthy discussions and the Highway Department made certain recommendations for improvements for a commercial entrance, which have not been done, and currently Mr. Kincannon is attempting to locate another access. Mr. Keeler continued, saying that Mr. Kincannon's options were to (a) locate another access and submit another site plan or (b) meet all nine conditions of the formerly approved site plan by May 25 when the site plan expires. Mr. Keeler went on to say that he did not know how the occupancy permit was issued without the conditions having been met, nor could the Zoning Administrator explain this. Mr. Keeler said that it would be questionable to invest a lot of money in the interior of the property until the access problem had been resolved. Mr. Bowerman said that unless great care was taken, 250 East would end up (between Route 20 and Interstate 64) like Route 29 North. He cautioned that the entire area along 250 East should be considered and piecemeal zoning avoided. There could be problems if the road had to be widened, Mr. Bowerman pointed out, and easements and accesses had not been well planned. Mr. Bowerman said that perhaps the area should be zoned Highway Commercial, but that overall safety and welfare should be considered before individual zoning determinations. Mr. Gloeckner stated that the real problem was that the Highway Department would not address the real question, which is that this piece of 250 needs to be widened all the way to the I-64 interchange. He added that Free Bridge is a hazard and the three -lane highway a disaster. Mr. Bowerman asked how this point made piecemeal zoning more acceptable. Mr. Gloeckner replied that his conscience bothered him when property that had been zoned B-1 was suddenly zoned R-15, and nobody knew why, and it did not belong in R-15. Mr. Bowerman stated that when it was zoned B-1 and a site plan was submitted, nine conditions were stipulated in the approval, the expiration of the site plan was up in May, and one of the nine conditions had been met. He added that the Highway Department had not even approved the access. Mr. Gloeckner replied that this was a County enforcement problem, not a problem of the Planning Commission. He added that the Commission sets the rules and nobody else plays by them, although the applicant was trying to. Mr. Kincannon said that he had every intention of meeting the Highway Department conditions, but that he agreed with Mr. Gloeckner that the real problem was 250. Mrs. Diehl pointed out that the original site plan had been approved on July 24, 1978, and that the applicant had had two and a half years to meet the conditions. Mr. Kincannon objected, saying that the extension had been requested because the title had not been delivered until the latter part of last year. Mr. Davis said that Mr. Roosevelt of the Highway Department had stated that it would be ten years before they would have funds to improve Free Bridge and that part of 250. Mr. Gloeckner said that the Highway Department had had since 1968 to work on improving 250, that in 1968 it was all zoned B-1, and nothing had been done. Mr. Davis said that he would much prefer to see 250 be four -lane rather than Route 631, which the Commission would see later in the meeting. l �� Mr. Bowerman said that he would vote for rezoning if he knew the applicant's intended future use and if Mr. Roosevelt had approved the applicant's acess design. Mr. Davis said that of the Commission's options, a deferral would allow time for the Highway Department to approve the road plans and make an eventual approval of the rezoning petition more likely. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he thought that Mr. Kincannon's intent was to keep the value of the property what it was under the original zoning and not to change the uses. Mr. Kincannon responded that he had no intention of making any future changes to the property, that he intended to maintain the aesthetics of the property and not increase the square footage. Mr. Bowerman asked why the applicant did not return to his original site plan. Mr. Kincannon said that was his intention, to carry out the intentions of his revised site plan submitted to the County. He added that any change would require an additional site plan and that the one now under consideration was for the current. use. Mr. Kincannon also remarked that he was not in compliance right now with the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bowerman asked him whether he really did not intend to continue the current use of the property. Mr. Davis said that if he did intend to continue the current use, his not being in compliance really did not present any problem. Mr. Kincannon replied that he did not know in the case of having to renew a lease, if one tenant left and he had to sign a new tenant, what would happen. Mr. Davis answered that it would just continue as a non -conforming use. Mr. Bowerman added that until the applicant expanded the property and ran up against the R-1.5 zoning, he would not need the rezoning. Mr. Bowerman also said that the applicant had stated earlier that he did not intend to change the use of the property. Mr. Kincannon stated that since he had bought the property at B-1 prices, he was taking a $150,000 reduction in the value of the property and the mortgage company financing this property must obviously be concerned over such a reduction. Mr. Kincannon also clarified his earlier statement about no intended change in use of the property, saying that he had no intended change in square footage. Mr. Bowerman said that the applicant must submit a suitable plan to the Highway Department. Mr. Gloeckner stated that this had been done and that the only problem now was completing the work. Mr. Bowerman disagreed and read from the Highway Department letter that a suitable plan must be submitted. Mr. Keeler mentioned that a service road was being discussed as a possible alternative. Mr. Kincannon said that the service road option was no longer viable and that he had so informed the Highway Department. He said that this option was one that he and Dr. Hurt had explored together and that a great big gully had to be crossed, which lay on Dr. Hurt's land, and Dr. Hurt was not interested in doing this. Mr. Kincannon said that he was back with his original plan and would fully comply with the Highway Department requirements on the entrance. Mrs. Diehl said that she was bothered by the partial access referred to in the same Highway Department letter, that she believed a review of a partial access rather than a complete access was a problem. And Mrs. Diehl added that she was considering that the zoning might better be Commercial Office. She said that with the rather nebulous road information and the fact that a complete access plan had not been reviewed at the time the special use permit was issued, she would not be able to act favorably on the petition until more information was received from the Highway Department. Mr. Kincannon requested Mrs. Diehl to tell him specifically what she needed. Mrs. Diehl replied that she wanted just that information requested in the Highway Department letter. Mr. Gloeckner remarked that the Highway Department comments were confusing, that Mr. Kincannon's intentions were to continue the office usage now in existence and that the Highway Department's comments were addressed to future development of the property. Mr. Gloeckner said that Mr. Kincannon could satisfy the Highway Department requirements by complying with the conditions on the original site plan, because his present use is the same as it was under B-1. Mr. Bowerman said that Mr. Kincannon must have some vague idea of an intended future use on this property and that he should get together with the Highway Department and work out plans and a commercial access. He further stated that if Mr. Kincannon did not provide the Highway Department with information on the intended use under HC or CO, the Highway Department could not approve a commercial access. Mr. Gloeckner asked how Mr. Kincannon could provide that information if he did not know the future intended use, how could he prepare a site plan or access plan. Mr. Bowerman countered by asking how, then, could the Highway Department approve a commercial access. Mr. Kincannon asked how he could know when the Highway Department would four -lane the road. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler to offer his comments. Mr. Keeler said that he believed that Mr. Kincannon had indicated his willingness to proceed with fulfilling the requirements and conditions of the approved site plan. Mr. Keeler asked whether the Commission would be satisfied with a statement from the Highway Department indicating that the approved entrance under the site plan was adequate for the entire area of the existing building in its present office usage; he further asked whether the Commission would be satisfied if Mr. Kincannon made application to the Highway Department for his entrance permits, and then let the Highway Department take it from there, meaning that either Mr. Kincannon would build the deacceleration lane or have his current entrance closed. In addition, Mr. Keeler asked if Mr. Kincannon were willing to add a condition that any further /�V development or change in use would require amending this site plan, then would the Commission be satisfied and able to act on this rezoning petition. Mrs. Diehl responded that she would be satisfied about the road plans, but that she needed further information from the Health Department concerning approval of all the present usage. Mrs. Diehl remarked that this was a matter related to the site plan and not the rezoning. Mr. Bowerman asked Mrs. Diehl whether she agreed with Highway Commercial zoning for this property. Mrs. Diehl replied that she favored Commercial Office, since that seemed to be in keeping with the current and intended usage. Mr. Bowerman asked whether CO was closer to B-1 than Highway Commercial. Mr. Kincannon said that he made the application based on recommendations from Mr. Tucker. Mr. Payne stated that the Commission did not have an obligation to consider what the zoning was previously and that the Commission should rezone the property to what it considered appropriate, be it Highway Commercial, Commercial Office, C-1 or R-15. He added, however, that CO was definitely not comparable to the old B-1; HC is comparable. Mr. Keeler said that if the Commission recommended Highway Commercial, it should make a statement that there was an error on the zoning map and this property should have been Highway Commercial; otherwise, he said that there would be a problem with Section 24.3 of the Ordinance involving the frontage not exceeding the depth. Mrs. Diehl questioned how the Commission could make such a statement when another body had taken the action of adopting the zoning map. Mr. Kincannon brought up the fact that on the original zoning map his property had been designated Highway Commercial and that somewhere between the time of compiling the original map and the adoption of the final zoning map his property was changed to R-15, a fact that was very disturbing to him. Mr. Bowerman remarked that he saw no other option other than deferral until the confusion was cleared up. He proceeded to move for deferral to the earliest possible date, in order that the applicant might meet with representatives of the Highway Department for the purpose of clarifying paragraph four of the Highway Department letter of February 19, 1981, to Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, and to have Mr. Dan Roosevelt or Mr. Byron Coburn present at the next hearing. Mr. Davis seconded the motion. Mr. Gloeckner suggested that the Highway Department would probably address the same site plan because the applicant had no other plan to submit. He added that perhaps it appeared that the rezoning request inferred additional uses. Mr. Davis pointed out that Mr. Kincannon could go on and proceed with his approved site plan. Mr. Gloeckner remarked that to meet those conditions could mean an outlay of $40,000 for a non -conforming use and that he would not do this if he were a businessman. Mr. Kincannon asked where this left him with his May deadline. Mr. Bowerman said that it would leave him where he was now, a non -conforming use. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further discussion, pointing out that a great deal of time had been spent on this petition. There was no further discussion and a vote was taken on the motion, which passed unanimously. Amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to show realignment and improvement of Route 631 from I-64 to Route 706. Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment concerning this proposed amendment. Mr. Gary Bibb identified himself as living about four miles from the intersection of I-64 on Route 706, and said this road definitely needed to be straightened. Mrs. Diehl said that improvements to Route 706 were not planned with this amendment, that this concerned Route 631. Mr. Bibb said that this was the route to take to get to 706. Mr. Davis suggested that the actual improvements would be made many years from now. Mr. Keeler pointed out that by incorporating these proposed improvements into the Comprehensive Plan, the County was saving itself money in later acquisition of right-of-ways, such as in the case of the polo grounds. Mrs. Diehl said that it gives the County an additional tool in planning; in the case of future development in that area, this road plan will be considered. Mr. Bibb wondered whether the condition of the road had been a factor in not developing some projects. Mrs. Diehl said that it had certainly been a deterrent, causing that to be a less desirable area. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further public comment. Since there was not, she said that the matter was now before the Commission. Mr. Skove made a statement about approving the CAT study in bits and pieces, that he felt that this was backwards planning. Mr. Keeler said that this was one portion of the CAT study that the Highway Department felt could stand alone and be approved. He added that it had already been a part of the functional classification plan since 1969. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were further comments. Mr. Bowerman moved to approve the amendments to the Comprehensive Plan as recommended by staff: 1) Amend Neighborhood 5 map on page 15 of Detailed Land Use Amendments (April, 1980) to show as a "proposed Roadway CATS)" 2) Amend text for Neighborhood 5 on page 51 as follows: An improvement: to Route 631 (Fifth Street Extended) from I-64 to the inter- section of Route 706 has been proposed by the CAT Study Group. This improvement would straighten and or bypass a series of Aaegel-etie curves near the Country Green Apartments providing a safer access for all development areas located to the south and west e€ that paint. Improved Route 631 is recommended as a four -lane divided major collector road located within a 110 foot right-of- way. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no discussion. Amendment to RA Rural Areas District (Under Old Business, Deferred from February 17, 1981. Mr. Keeler explained that under the existing Ordinance one could have under certain circumstances a parcel divided into 6 lots, all of which were less than 21 acres. He said that the Board of Supervisors wants to change that to 5 lots of less than 21 acres, and if you had a sixth lot, it would have to consist of 21,ac es. Mr. Keeler further explained how 250 acres could be divided under the current Ordinance and under the proposed change. He said that under either Ordinance in order to determine the maximum that could be done, the maximum number of exempt divisions had to be calculated. Mr. Payne said that the calculations remained relatively simple when the divisions were rounded off but turned into a much more complicated matter when dealing with lots of uneven measurement or when someone wanted to retain a ten -acre tract or fifteen -acre parcel and divide the remainder. Mr. Payne said that the formular then changed completely. Mr. Keeler illustrated the new division process with several examples. He stated that from 12 to 31 acres you could get 6 lots under the existing Ordinance and 5 under the proposed change, still using up all the land and none of it would be available for preferential taxation. Mr. Keeler continued, saying that at 31 acres the existing and proposed ordinance change were identical. At 42 acres there is a difference of one and at 52 they are identical again, in terms of total number of parcels you can do. Mr. Keeler said that the main difference was the ten acres that were needed for the 5 lots. Mr. Gloeckner asked under the proposed change if someone decided to cut out the 21 acres, what would happen to the development rights of that exempt division. He asked whether it could be redivided. /q3 Mrs. Diehl suggested that Mr. Keeler continue giving the staff report, since the explanation was becoming increasingly complicated, Mr. Keeler proceeded to 42 acres, saying that the exempt divisions had to be done first. He said that the 42 acres are divided into two 21 acre parcels under the existing Ordinance, and there are 6 lots, 5 lots and a residue out of one parcel. In order to get 7 lots out of the 42 acres under the existing proposal, these lots have to be bigger in average size than 2 acres. In order to get 6 lots under the proposal out of 42 acres either the minimum can be done or they can be brought up to the same size as under the existing Ordinance. Mr. Payne added that the reason for this was that under the existing proposal nothing is exempt unless at the time you create it, nothing is under 21 acres. Mr. Davis commented that it appeared that the proposed change would force you into 2-acre lots. Mr. Payne said that under certain circumstances that was true and that the proposed change did force a person to make long-range development plans because with the wrong decision at certain points, a development right might be lost. Mr. Keeler added that the proposed change forces you to go to the minimum lot size, as Mr. Davis had noted, in order to realize a maximum development. Mr. Keeler went on to say that for three months the staff had been trying to work with local realtors and attorneys with the new ordinance and this change would mean quite a difference. He also said that recorded plats that would be affected, should this change be approved, were known to the staff and these involved situations where divisions could be made by the first person to use them, to the loss of the adjacent parcel. Mr. Keeler also said that should the Commission approve this change, it might want the staff to actually notify those people affected. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment. Mr. Bibb said that he could not discern the difference yet. Mr. Keeler said that there were break points where they differed, and in other circumstances, at certain acreages, were the same. There was no further public comment, and the matter was before the Commission. Mr. Payne gave an example of what could happen with 210 acres under the existing ordinance and under the proposed change. Under the existing ordinance it could be divided into 10 21-acre parcels, five 2-acre lots and an 11-acre parcel. Under the proposed change, he continued, you could have the 10 21-acre parcels and you could have five lots that consume one whole 21-acre parcel. Mr. Gloeckner said that development rights were what bothered him. Mrs. Diehl said that the only advantage to the proposed change was to keep more of the acreage to be retained in the large farm blocks, but that she did not think it was worth it. Mr. Bowerman asked for an explanation behind the Board's not wanting five lots plus residue and changing it to 5 lots and the exempted 21. He asked what the Justification was for the number 21. /�y Mr. Payne replied that the 21 was 20, the minimum for forestry under the land use tax, minus one for the house incurred. He added that one is subtracted that does not qualify under the twenty. Mr. Bowerman asked what was trying to be accomplished by this proposed change. He added that an awful lot of confusion was being created about future development rights and that it would take three lawyers to figure out the formular. Mr. Davis agreed that there did not seem to be any sense to the proposal. Mr. Skove stated that he also could not agree more with Mr. Bowerman and that if there was any improvement at all to the proposed change it was so marginal as to be insignificant. Mrs. Diehl inquired as to whether the charge to the Commission was to choose between the existing ordinance and the proposed change and make a recommendation to the Board. Mr. Payne replied that the Commission could make whatever recommendation it so chose. Mr. Davis asked how long the Board worked on the 21-acre division. Mr. Keeler replied that the Board had spent about ninety percent of the time on the RA district. He added that at the time of adoption the Board made more changes, the intent of which were misunderstood. Mrs. Diehl said that she understood that the existing ordinance in the opinion of staff accomplished the purpose of preserving farm land and restricting divisions in areas that are not served by public utilities and has as much merit as the proposed change. Mr. Skove made a motion that the existing ordinance be retained as pertains to the RA district. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further discussion. Mr. Gloeckner said that he was opposed to either solution. There was no further discussion, and a vote was taken. The vote was 4-1 with one abstention, Mr. Davis. Mr. Gloeckner voted against the motion. Mr. Gloeckner asked, given the hypothetical situation, if he were new to the area and moved here, and bought 21 acres, who would tell him what he could do with the 21 acres. He asked whether real estate people or the planning department or someone else would tell him that he could not do anything with 21 acres. Mr. Payne pointed out that Ron's diagram was the best development since December and that by punching in figures you could get exactly the answers to what you could do with a given piece of property. Mr. Skove remarked that Mr. Keeler's illustration should be on display at the planning office for public viewing. He suggested that copies be made up to hand out, that it was the clearest explanation he had seen. Mr. Keeler pointed out that once 6 lots were in place, if it were ever changed (to 4, 5 or 10, in either direction), the problem would be that something was recorded at the Clerk's office and something else would be in the planning department. Mr. Keeler said that staff had drawn attention to this problem during the whole process, that a person would have to go to both places, particularly if the regulations were ever changed. Mr. Payne said that it raised significant title problems. He stated that there could be conflict between deed restrictions and zoning restrictions under the ordinance. Mr. Payne said that a note had been drafted after consultation with real estate, the title companies and the Bar to address this problem. He explained that if the surveyor put this note on the plat it states that it is only a zoning restriction; if it is not stated as such, it is a deed restriction potentially. Mrs. Diehl said that if there was no further discussion the Commission would proceed to the next item on the agenda. Under New Business, Discussion of Public Hearing on the University of Virginia Medical Center Relocation. Mrs. Diehl stated that after the previous Commission meeting, when a time was set ✓ for public comment on the relocation proposal, a letter was sent to Mr. Gerald E. Fisher from Mr. Avery Catlin of the University. Mrs. Diehl read a copy of this letter to the Commission. (Copy attached.) Mrs. Diehl said that she and Mr. Tucker had discussed the options open to the Commission in light of this letter and that the Commission could defer a public hearing until the second consultant's report was in, could reschedule the public hearing as a work session, could decide that a public hearing is suitable at this time on this preliminary type plan or determine that some other response would be suitable to this letter. Mr. Skove remarked that he thought that the second consultant's study was requested almost as a result of comments by the County. Mrs. Diehl said that the City had held some meetings on the proposed move. Mr. Davis remarked that it sounded to him as though the Commission was being asked to defer discussion until the University had arrived at a plan that all were in accord with. He added that the County ought to work with the University, at least in pinpointing the site under consideration. Mr. Bowerman stated that as committees begin making recommendations and reviewing issues, they get written in stone and that the proper place for Commission input was during the second consultant's review. He added that a public hearing on the first consultant's study would yield any comments pro and con and that the Commission could then incorporate any remarks it might have after a work session into those public comments, make general recommendations, and forward those on to the second consultant. Mr. Bowerman addeddthat this seemed to be the ideal time 1111(1,19 / �iQ c z 1J C >• 4J C J :3 ro 0U to-, 0 v U - f4 O N ro .0 O C) w U U ^. fA >, a) U S4 n, N 14 11 •H W v m iL 0 •-i O ,-1 U; ", Y4 e: A u U V 1J ;: to v 1J m u C It >,.0 ro w a) 7 C 0 1J 41w C O J; I, m .,.i 'o •-1 0 U 1J yJ aJ QUJ O E to P. m > 14 W cl, E 'O .0 14 C (1) > C:-14 U :3 vvu.aowvo3 vwEvc..+Q)1 3 3 U) E YI 11 v , m O N E >, Q) -. m U Q) a) ro C a: •1 0 > .0 C N m JJ v 11 " N aJ N Q) b O 11 '[ v G > +� 11 O (2) 0 U +, (1) E 1t Q) C w Q) a, U. Q m • ..,.i l.J N c E N (1) 7 a C N C JJ N N 11 1J m w 10 m 1+ + Q) c m C 11 O w E +J C N C m 0 R: K C A L O .i Q) O U w 04 (1)m C U, --i 3> -a O •H JJ U)..1 N m N 7 N 4J-i H N 1J C: U) oN vsaaa)a,-+.c N C E O 1J p) C E 0 a 1 N 0 U•- AU rou R O E Q) N N M >. v N O ro C '0 Q) 14 "i 11 O 'O O aj O a 3 tl rro n. M O a •H 41r, 3[. 11 .n E H N ) v r, > "I m E Q) C 41 E E v'U I N U Yi C) 11 Q' L -1 n �c'C' «: C) W a) N 4.1 Q) ro 1 O :7 N 1: Q) O 4J C U Y[.-� N aJ E +J N YI 0 E C C: C 0 O 1 O O C 7 0 1+ to •H C N umc• w 30 E Q) E U to -4 UJ 0 11 to 1J N C m m 11 a) ' c S4 N O C A W, m> C U O N -H --1 .+ O N n, n, w 14 >, W v JJ -,-1 .i Q) N m 4-) '0 14 11 H (D --i 7 F J:: ton, F 11 n. U '00 E " � w U) o u> C)u 0) oC>Acv m -QC C O E 7• i+ �A U n> N C J v N c -+• n. .1 O m� m U v C T1 11 v 14 m C JJ 1a 1J Q) o m 14 m U+vrnv v ;J > O U) U) 11 T) J-J W v '0 1) N 0 W 41v 0 0 3 C Q) • E O ro v u ro .+o0 +1 En Q) 0 3 U OJ c CHn.a vw v -1 n. w 'a .0 +, U) 11 Q) Q) m iJ U)u U C A A Q) C: 1'1 JJ to C m C .0 -mro ro cl ; 1J yJ U yJ C C O > 0 C 0•-+ O C 7 N 7 .0 aJ O 1t 0 ..� m --i -i to3"i 4J n,0 JJrow n, 11 7 1-. ro 0 C) 1J .0 .[ C V) ro o c ro r- ro ro 41 1J 1-I Q) ro N m C 0 Ql m Q i E {m U) 41 0 A 0) 41 w O 0 N -+ H E '0 N Q O 0 1J N L.)3 41 1 w ,o 1J Q) W rW N C a) to Q):J 7 0 w +J O C O --� N () N o u to • > .� Q1 ..J aJ > C C -0 Q) Q) 0) '0 a) m 0 --, O C A C '0 Ql +J C) O A [. 'O .0 U JJ U O a) 14 --1 O C Q) ro E: C .cc n,ro vvNvvi m n,- > c, v E V -u 11 1 m U Q) V v m to U. U) Q C Q) • C C Q> 1J 1 Q) C AJ 41 0 - F C1 (' JJ ti 'LS N v Ic > C .i '0 O E 13U C .c -a -, C:: 41 m u u ro a4 . U u w -a C m C U Q) Q1 C •i 0 C 3 S. c E rJ 4 JJ U Cl ;J C O Q) C1 O lJ m •U) C .-i m to Q) to N to N (0 a --1 C N 3 W Q) C) Q) a) •JC-) a) m 41 U toP, ,O to C, O N 1J 14 .-, 11 U U ;J H m v Q) w Y, v v c (1) ro Q) 1. 'o • tP 41 _ ': > ✓ 11 U). __, T 7 C N C•;, N C iJ 0 C O O .(: O a to C •-, a' Q) O. 11 IJ V is a1 U•. 14 O 14 U 1, N N N N Q) ') '0 w O N t: 11 y a ro a 11 N .0 . I Q) v n. 0c C 11i aJ O• % >, Q) O 17 N m N .0 ,., (A C i�--I N 1J :1 ') 1a Cl. U• ! 1 V Q) P, -1 N u: () 0 41 11 N aS li U 1J 1 m 1, H 1 O '0 m a --( v v u g c >4.H v W iJ U) - w m u M O C id G w w W (D W � 10 o m o au U > ,pro--,„„ F- C w C n m c v Its 0 N E W N >, m 41 H N 7 +J -H N c u a) 4 m • t- o 4J C >,1J U JJ 1J :j ..i v 11 N 3 C 1: N C m 14 0 iJ F E -i G 0 0 'LS 0, U iJ Y4 C Q) 7 O N > y O V :J C ro >J to N U) JJ A -C: 14 N v c v > N ro r a -, ro J 1, C O E -c:' to a N Q) C) ro a: 0 1J 1J u N C: IJ N .0 N •-, ro w <mJJ nI- N JJ N i C m m (1)c o 0 0 Z) V- I Q) Q Q)o (00 0 u u (0ro 4-40 v U) C) C S 14 +1 N m O N 0 41 0 U 1J 0 -.i O >, C N a) N 1J f• m N m 11 •.i M ti > o AJ C v U) A .H EH 'U A w {J E Q) iJ O C.) j 7 ...i U) RJ c N > v 1 yJ ci + O > m --1 O :J C 1i O CO a m a m v n v ,. 1+ rn ro .c m O C 1J 1J a) U U "i 1J 11 N '0 C 0 O yJ >, C Ql iJ [L 1J N V (D ro C) A E , t + i; 1a F N E: N m ,I- >, 1t O a) --i N O 13 Q) U 11 a U-�>v0. JJ U -A 1 v m m NSW NC 4JW r. r: 0 4J -� a, iJ a) iJ C U .0 >, W •.i 0 N Y4 14 }.) IJ H E --i c: n) O 1-J O -u wH 7 N U 0) _1 O .1 • N 14 m 0 A 1J (1) v. >,N ., r. cro S: 1•+ N N a) -1 +J }J C •'� .�: E: 0N O N aJ 1) N a) H U t: v s4H U N 11 C, •rl 11 r. E 3 •.1 O O Q) Q) Q) r..N 14 rx vl. :J A l '44 41 . J yJ to have any true objections of the first study taken into account. Mrs. Diehl asked whether it was Mr. Bowerman's intent to provide this information to the second consultant in a cooperative spirit. Mr. Bowerman confirmed Mrs. Diehl's impression. Mr. Skove added that he also thought that the time for public input was now, before further committee work. Mrs. Diehl pointed out that the University is a State agency, not subject to County ordinances, and that any action should be taken in a cooperative manner. Mr. Skove asked whether there was a time table for the second consultant's report. Mrs. Diehl replied that the letter mentioned several months. Mr. Bowerman reiterated that public input should be an early part of the whole process and that perhaps a second public hearing should be held after the second consultant's report was completed. Mr. Gloeckner asked whether the second consultant was going to address the same site. He questioned whether the Commission knew what to address. Mr. Payne said that the Commission should concern itself with what staff is going to prepare the public hearing for. He said that he thought it would be very difficult for staff to prepare anything without knowing what was being considered by the second consultant. Mrs. Diehl remarked that Mr. Payne was talking about the second consultant, but in the case of the staff report already prepared, should the Commission proceed to public hearing on that. Mr. Payne said that it might be completely meaningless if the second consultant found the first consultant's report totally in error and recommended that the center remain where it is. Mrs. Diehl asked what direction the Commission wished to take. Mr. Gloeckner suggested that perhaps in response to Mr. Catlin's letter he be asked what the University is asking of the second consultant. Mr. Bowerman stated that he still did not see how anything could be lost by holding a public hearing to review the staff's recommendations. He added that if the University was considering the Blue Ridge site or thinking of discarding it, public input could only give them more ammunition one way or the other. Mr. Gloeckner said that he thought that money would determine the outcome, that the issue was funding, cost, a tremendous project that could mean vacation of a tremendous asset. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the City had held a public hearing on the proposed Blue Ridge site, whether the public had had an opportunity to address the possible *%WII relocation site. Mr. Davis said that he really did not believe that a public hearing would make much difference but that in the spirit of cooperation he thought that a liason person might work with the consultant to keep the Commission comprised with any developments. Mrs. Diehl stated that she thought that Mr. Catlin was suggesting that the planning staff serve in that capacity. She also clarified that what was being discussed for now was actually a public meeting, not a public hearing, both due to advertising deadlines having passed and due to there not being a definitive plan to present. Mr. Gloeckner said that he just did not know what would be discussed with the public, whether or not to move the center, the peculiarities of a given site. He said that he thought that the first decision to be made was whether the move was going to be made and maybe public comment on that was appropriate. Mrs. Diehl said that the public meeting is scheduled for a week from tonight. Mr. Bowerman said that whether or not many people turned out for the meeting, it would give the public their first opportunity to offer input. Mrs. Diehl said that there had been a luncheon meeting consisting of planners from the University and department heads and that another one was scheduled for the first or second week of April and that she would be glad to speak for the Commission if the Commissioners wished to respond in some way to Mr. Catlin's letter. Mr. Gloeckner moved to cancel the public meeting scheduled for the next week and to wait until the University had an opportunity to evaluate their second consultant's findings as to whether they are going to move at all. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion. There was no further discussion and a vote was taken. The vote was 4-2 with Mr. Bowerman and Mrs. Diehl voting against the motion. Mr. Gloeckner stated that he did not want his motion to be misunderstood, that he did wish to see public input but not until a decision had been made on whether to move or not. Mrs. Diehl asked whether the Commission wished to draft a letter of response to Mr. Catlin. Mr. Payne concurred that this would be appropriate and should include a request to be kept informed at every stage. Mr. Keeler stated to the Commission that the Code of Virginia had been amended to allow notification to adjoining property owners to be sent First Class rather than by Certified mail for rezonings and special use permits. He said that the Zoning Ordinance must be amended for site plans and mobile homes, but that the same change will be enacted for those applications as well. 9 Mrs. Diehl remarked that she would like to mention to the Commission and for the record something that she had discussed earlier in the afternoon with Mr. Keeler. She said that she visited two of the three sites under consideration tonight and had not found any notices posted on the rezonings. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler to look into what the problem might be, to check with the zoning department to clear up the matter. There was no further business, and the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. +ert W. Tucker, Jr. - S cr y