Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 04 81 PC MinutesAugust 4, 1981 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, August 4, 1981, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mrs. Norma A. Diehl, Chairman; Mr. David P. Bowerman, Vice -Chairman; Mr. James Skove; Mr. Allan Kindrick; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; and Mr. Richard Cogan. Mr. Corwith Davis was absent. Other officials present were Mr. Byron Coburn, Assistant Resident Engineer with the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning, Ms. Mason Caperton, Senior Planner, and Ms. Kat Imhoff, Planner. Mrs. Diehl called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of March 10 and March 17 were approved as.corrected and the minutes of March 24 approved as submitted. Mrs. Diehl said that the first item on the agenda was a DEFERRED ITEM, Supplementary Regulations for Churches and Cemeteries. Mr. Keeler gave the background on this matter and read the Staff Report. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. Payne if he had any comments before the Commission reviewed the proposed amendment. Mr. Payne replied that Section 5.1.24 c addressed proper concerns of the Commission, but cautioned that staff was suggesting that they be strictly construed. He said that a church could not be denied beca1ase of a few too many cars. He added that the next paragraph identified some additional concerns but should not be thought of as being in the nature of a special use permit. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any comments or questions on the definition of church. When there were none, she proceeded to the next section under Supplementary Regulations. Mr. Cogan asked for a clarification of when child care facilities would not be regulated. Mrs. Diehl said that the distinction was when such child care was provided during normal worship times. Mrs. Diehl asked about vacation Bible schools, saying that she would not want any restrictions on them. It was ascertained that they were exempt as written. Mr. Skove asked about why nursing homes and orphanages would be included, since they are already regulated. Are they accessory uses, he asked. Mr. Payne said that personally these seemed not to be accessory uses; if anything perhaps the church could be accessory to them. He said that he thought staff was saying that even if such an operation were run by a religious order, such a rest home or nursing home would have to comply with the regulations for such an establishment. Mr. Keeler said that the opinions of the Zoning Administrators have varied since he has been with the County. He explained that at times day care centers have been considered a church function and not subject to the other regulations of day care centers. Mr. Skove asked about parsonages. Mr. Keeler said that as currently stated in the Ordinance the parsonage could be constructed with the church. Mrs. Diehl said that. she had a question about allowing auctions and outside yard sales. She said Mr. Keeler had said that the Board could waive any of these regulations for one-time events. Mr. Cogan said that he thought churches normally had dinners, sales, auctions outside and he would not want to seem them prevented from continuing these activities. There was a concensus to drop the wording "and auctions." in the wording of the Supplementary Regulations. Mrs. Diehl asked the Commissioners how they felt now about addressing churches in this manner. There appeared tobe a concensus that the Commissioners were more comfortable with this approach. Mrs. Diehl asked what action should be taken at this point in order to forward a recommendation to the Board. Mr. Payne responded that since this was such a significant change from the Board's proposal, he advised that the Commission should take two actions, if the Commission chose not to recommend adopting the Board's proposed amendment to make churches by special use permit in all districts. Mr. Payne said that one action would be to move that the Board's amendment not be recommended, as a response to the Board, and the second action would be to have staff pass on to the Board the information that the Commission had adopted a Resolution of Intent to add Supplementary Regulations and to allow churches by right in all residential districts. Mr. Skove and Mr. Bowerman said churches should for the sake of consistency be allowed by right in the RA district as well. Mr. Cogan concurred and suggested that the Commission's intent should be made known to the Board. Mr. Keeler said that the Board's Resolution addressed both churches and cemeteries. He said that cemeteries in staff opinion did not differ, whether commercial or church -owned, and should be regulated by special use permit. Mr. Skove moved that cemeteries be permitted only by special use permit in the residential districts, including the RA Rural Areas, but that special use permits not be required for churches in those districts, including the RA Rural Areas. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. Mr. Payne suggested to Mrs. Diehl that the Commission now adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend Article 10 of the Ordinance to provide for churches by right in the RA district and amend Articles 3, to add the definition of churches and 5 to add Supplementary Regulations for churches. Mr. Gloeckner so moved, and Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Keeler said that for the sake of clarification he would like to point out that there were two residential districts, PUD and PRD, where cemeteries were not allowed at all. He asked whether it was the intent of the Commission to include them now by special use permit or to exclude then. Mr. Payne ascertained that it was the intent of the Commission to exclude those two districts and thereby remain consistent with the intent of the Board. Following are the proposed amendments contained in the Resolution of Intent adopted by the Commission, with the exception of Article 10. 3.0 DEFINITIONS Church: A place of public religious worship 5.0 SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS 5.1.24 CHURCHES a. Accessory uses and activities (such. as day care, child care, and nursery facilities; private shcools; group homes; homes for the developmentally disabled; adult care facilities including such uses as rest, convalescent, and/or nursing homes; orphanages; hospitals; community centers; cemeteries and day and/or boarding camps) shall not be exempt from the requirements of this ordinance and shall be subject to the regulations of the district in which such uses are to be located and all other applicable requirements of this ordinance. Child care facilities and schools of religious instruction, operated during normal worship activities and provided for the use and convenience of the congregation shall not be subject too this provision; b. Such subordinate and fund-raising activities as bingo,^raffles,^zn�d shall be conducted in enclosed buildings only. Noise generated from such activity shall not exceed forty (40) decibels at the nearest agricultural or residential property line. No such activity shall be conducted between 11:00 p.m. and 8:00 a,m.; c. Prior to site development plan approval, the Commission shall deterTaine that the proposed use at the location selected will not endanger the health and safety of the users and/or residents in the area. In making such determination, the Commission may consider such matters as: the adequacy of existing public roads in the area to accommodate traffic which may reasonably be expected to be generated by such use; the extent to which, by virtue of the pry -posed location, traffic may reasonably be e-,. ted to increase on primarily residential streets; and the adequac,, :- the proposed site location to support the intensity of the proposed The Commission r,.y, for the health, safety, and general welfare of the community, require such additional conditions as it deems necessary, including but not limited to provisions for additional physical buffering such as fencing and/or planting or other landscaping; additional setback from residential uses in the area; additional on - site parking space; and. location and arrangement of lighting; d. The requirements of 4.1 notwithstanding, where public sewer is not reasonably available, no such use shall be established without written approval from the 'Virginia. Department of Health of the location and area for both original and future replacement septic fields adequate to serve such use with particular attention to peak.demand character- istics of such use. Establishment of accessory or subordinate uses shall require Health Department review, SP-81-14 McClenahan Broadcasting Corporation - Located on the southwest side of Little Yellow Mountain, north of C. & 0. Railroad, approximately 2� miles west of Crozet, adjacent to Mint Springs Park. White Hall Magisterial District, County Tax Map 55, Parcel 25 (part), approximately one acre out of 53.95-acre tract zoned RA Rural Areas. Proposal to seek relief from a condition of approval of SP-80-07, to increase height of antenna from 298 feet to 360 feet. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. Mrs. Diehl asked Mr. McClenahan if he wished to speak at this time. Mr. McClenahan stated that he thought Mr. Keeler had explained the problem that they were experiencing due to weather and terraine. He further stated that the tip of Little Yellow Mountain interfered with the peak of the antenna, consisting of two bays designed to transmit a stereo signal. Mr. McClenahan said that the resulting static was most objectionable. He stated that Federal requirements had been met for an environmental impact study, copies of which had been provided to the Planning Staff, and which stated that no earth -moving activities whatsoever would be involved in the installation of the proposed beacon. He explained that the existing tower would be utilized and the project only involved adding an additional sixty feet, two more guy wires, and would take a half a day of labor. He stated that FCC regulations would be followed in converting from a two bay antenna to a single bay antenna. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was any public comment on this petition. When there was none, Mrs. Diehl declared the matter before the Commission and asked the Commissioners for their questions and comments. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. McClenahan whether he was convinced that the signal interference was due to the height of the antenna. Mr. McClenahan said that he had to depend on the technicians advising and consulting on the project. He said that this was the conclusion of the R.C.A. engineers on the project as well as a consulting engineer from Washington and his own people, who had spent a week in the service area investigating the problem. Mr. Bowerman asked whether the sixty feet was the optimum increase in the height. Mr. McClenahan replied that it was and the tower would not support any further addition beyond the sixty feet. Mrs. Diehl asked whether in determining the problem transmission had been isolated from each of the bays in order to ascertain that in fact the horizontal bay was the problem. Mr. McClenahan replied that this was done and even more elaborate tests run to determine the source of the problem. Mrs. Diehl asked about other Commission reviews of antennas in the area, whether Skyline officials would have to also review this application, as had been done in some past cases. Mr. Keeler replied that this application would not. Mr. Skove asked whether additional blinking lights would be needed with this addition of 62 feet. Mr. McClenahan said that he was not certain at this time whether more sight lights would be required. The FAA had been notified, Mr. McClenahan stated, as well as the Virginia Aeronautic Association. These agencies have approved the project, he remarked and have not required additional lighting. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any additional questions or comments. Mr. Gloeckner moved for approval of SP-81-34, subject to the conditions recommended by staff, including conditions 4) as amended and 5) an addition: 1) Only those trees necessary for the erection and guying of the tower and location of the equipment building and fence shall be removed; 2) Staff approval of fencing around the tower to discourage trespassing; 3) Tower shall be removed within 90 days of abandonment, if such shall occur; 4) Tower shall be limited to a height of 299 360 feet; 5) Notification of FAA and Virginia Department of Aviation of increased tower height. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. ZMA-81-23 Marvin & Carolyn Spencer, Lillian C. Boggiano, Anthony & Evelyn Guttilla - Located in Rockbrook Subdivision, between Stonehenge and Rio Road. Rivanna Magisterial District, County Tax Map 61A1, Section 1, Block A, Parcels 1, 2, 3, 4 and Block B, Parcels 1, 2, 3, approximately 2.5 acres. Request to rezone 2.5 acres currently zoned R-2 to R-10 WITH PROFFER. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report and explained that this property consisted of the entire Rockbrook Subdivision, which was approved by the City in 1964. Mr. Keeler said that the water lines met City regulations and that the roads also met the `o City subdivision ordinance requirements. He said that further development was en- visioned, at the time these water lines and roads were constructed. Mr. Keeler explained that the Staff Report was being revised, in light of Highway Department comments which were received after the Staff Report was prepared. He passed out additional materials which included an amended PROFFER from the applicants, plats of both the Rockbrook Subdivision and Stonehenge, and a letter from Virginia B. Greene. Mr. Keeler also gave some background on the zoning of this property, saying that when two-family dwellings were eliminated from R-1 and R-2, it was not known that a two-family dwelling already existed in Rockbrook. He added that Mr. Spencer had stated that he had visited the office of the Planning Department to check the map and text to make certain that he could proceed to construct two-family dwellings in this subdivision. Mr. Keeler said that originally the zoning was R-6, the same as Stonehenge, but that it was changed to R-2 in the belief that Rockbrook was being developed as a single-family subdivision. Mr. Keeler said that the Highway Department recommendations would be presented by Mr. Byron Coburn, Assistant Resident Engineer of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Mr. Coburn proceeded to read the text of the Highway Department letter of July 31. He elaborated on the recommendation that access to Rockbrook be exclusively through Stonehenge Drive and Stonehenge Road, saying that there was no structural obstruction to this remedy, if any legal restriction could be overcome. Mr. Coburn said that the Highway Department would have no objection to the rezoning if the current entrance to Rockbrook were changed from Rio Road to access through Stonehenge. Mrs. Diehl asked the applicant if he would like to make a statement at this time. Mr. Marvin Spencer said that Mr. Keeler had done an excellent job in presenting the applicants' point of view. He asked to give some brief background information on the Rockbrook subdivision, explaining that it was divided in 1964 and that the City drew up the specifications for the roads, curbs and gutters, and utilities. He also explained that the remainder of the property was later sold to Stonehenge, and the residents of Rockbrook had not desired traffic through their subdivision, although they had allowed Chuck Rotgin use of the road for a while. Mr. Spencer said that Mr. Rotgin had agreed to close the road after he had finished, which he did. Mr. Spencer said that both the Stonehenge Road and the Rockbrook Road are private roads, and that Rockbrook residents have no desire to see the former road opened up again. Mr. Spencer continued, saying that it was strange that land zoned R-2 with two- family lots, bought that way and invested in, should have R-6 all around it. He said that this property was in the midst of Stonehenge and would be very difficult to develop in single-family dwellings. Mr. Spencer said that the community was actually a townhouse development. He said that what he had in mind was very attractive two- family attached housing that would lend itself to houses already in existence. Concerning the road, Mr. Spencer said that in 1964 the Highway Department recommendations were followed to the letter, including 56' width of the road and an entrance built to Highway Department specifications. He claimed that if a car came out of the old Rio Road right-of-way, there was good visibility. Mr. Spencer said that good visibility existed from the driveway down the hill to the dangerous curve. The accidents that have occurred in the past, he stated, took place at that curve. He said that in the fifteen years he had resided in Rockbrook he knew of no accidents at the entrance to the subdivision. Mr. Spencer further stated that when he puts blacktop on the entrance, it will be just as good as that of Stonehenge. Mr. Spencer pointed out that there was a deceleration lane coming right down into the entrance to the subdivision. Mr. Spencer confirmed that, as Mr. Keeler had indicated, he had made several trips to the Planning Department to confirm the zoning on this property. Mr. Spencer said that it was during a trip out of the country that his property was rezoned. He stated that he had never intended to increase or decrease the original density allowed on this property, which from 1969 to December of 1980 was R-2 which permitted two-family dwellings. Mr. Spencer also stated that some of the residents of the existing three houses might have need of basement apartments as they enter retirement and these residents fully support this proposed rezoning. Mr. Spencer said that it was difficult to understand neighboring opposition, when his only intention was to build two-family houses instead of single-family, and adjacent property permitted two-family dwellings. He added that every effort had been made to comply with all authorities, even to the point of installing a ten -inch water line that seemed large at the time but now supplies Stonehenge. Mrs. Diehl asked whether any of the applicants wished to speak. When they did not, she opened the meeting to public comment. Mr. George Allen, an attorney for the Stonehenge Homeowners Association, asked to explain the position of homeowners in Stonehenge. Mr. Allen stated that it was generally believed that the zoning map took a great amount of time and effort and NOW was carefully thought out and that therefore the zoning as shown should be respected. H97 Mr. Allen continued, saying that in addition, the Stonehenge homeowners concurred with the Highway Department's determination that the entrance as it exists today is VaW hazardous and could only become more so if additional units were constructed. He took exception to Mr. Spencer's comparison of the Rockbrook entrance with that of Stonehenge. Mr. Allen stated that the entrance to Stonehenge was divided with an incoming and outcoming lane. He said that the deceleration lane to which Mr. Spencer referred was in fact part of the egress and ingress of Stonehenge. Mr. Allen said that the proposed rezoning could result in an increase of units to a total of twenty-four. He said that even with R-4 or R-8.5 (which he observed does not really exist) zoning, the density would be higher than than of Stonehenge. He said that Rio Road was a dangerous road and that any additional intensity of use could only make the road situation worse; he pointed out that what was applicable in 1964 on Rio Road was certainly not so today. Mr. Allen said that it was also felt that the additional traffic and building would change the character of the area. He said that Stonehenge homeowners had an investment to protect in a quiet community; he said that they have a pool that could be an attractive nuisance to newcomers, private roads, a strictly -enforced dog leash ordinance, and that these homeowners are concerned about the possible problems this rezoning could bring. Mr. Allen said that the proffer of the applicants did not speak to height, which under R-10 zoning would allow 65 feet. He said that 35 feet might have been implied by the applicant, but that there was nothing in the proffer to restrict height to 35 feet. Mr. Allen explained that other property in the area in a similar stage of development to Rockbrook were zoned R-4. He added that it was not relevant to compare Rockbrook to Stonehenge or speak to the two properties once having been one and the same. He said that Stonehenge was a fully developed community with roads that met standards over and beyond the necessary requirements for the intensity of use. Mr. Allen said that the Stonehenge Homeowners Association did not wish to see any rezoning, but if the Commission were to consider any rezoning at all, for the sake of consistency, R-4 would be the only possible choice, although other property so zoned in the area did not have the road problems that Rockbrook had. Mr. Allen said that with bonus points Stonehenge could almost get 8.5 dwelling units per acres, Stonehenge having R-6 zoning to start with. Mr. Allen took issue with giving Rockbrook density of 8.5 when other developers had to earn the bonus points to allow such density, though green space, sidewalks, roads, etc. Mr. Allen said in closing that this property should remain R-2 and the zoning map and Highway Department concerns should be respected. He read into the record a petition requesting denial of this rezoning request, which was signed by 61 unit owners of Stonehenge and 8 renters. Mr. Arthur E. McCabe, President of the Stonehenge Homeowners Association, spoke next as a resident of Stonehenge. He said that he could not understand how a peti- tion requesting R-10 zoning, in such conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, could even be considered. He explained that residents of Stonhenge had spent a lot of time and money to make their community what it was today and that they feared the impace of high density in the area. Mr. McCabe also described an accident that he had narrowly avoided in coming to the meeting, which involved a car in the deceleration lane of Stonehenge cutting across Mr. McCabe's path in order to enter into Rockbrook. U69 Mr. Lucky Stone, also a resident of Stonehenge, said that he would like to point out that the deceleration lane being referred to is actually on Stonehenge property. He explained that his sole objection was any increased use of this already dangerous intersection. Due to the rise on the front of the Stonehenge property, he explained, it is necessary for Stonehenge residents to pull out into the deceleration lane in order to have any visibility. He said that the only reason there weren't more accidents was due to the fact that everyone drove slowly. Mr. Stone said that he agreed with Mr. Spencer that Rockbrook's entrance was as good or better than that of Stonehenge, but he pointed out that this was due to use of Stonehenge's deceleration lane as access to Rockbrook's road. Mr. Stone said that any further development to Rockbrook would only increase the use of this dangerous intersection. He said that if Stonehenge were to block off its deceleration lane for private use of residents, Rockbrook would have no visibility at all. Mr. Bruce Williamson said that to add to Mr. Stone's remarks, the Highway Department had already found 12 units unacceptable, but what Mr. Spencer's verbal proffer would indicate would be a minimum of 14 units with potentially an addition of 20 vehicles crossing Stonehenge property and further adding to a dangerous situation. Mr. John Wilson said that he was a resident of Cheshire Court in Stonehenge and a height of 65 feet of any building in Rockbrook would substantially reduce the amount of sunlight hitting Cheshire Court. Mr. Ben Ran, another resident of Stonehenge, said that he was in the car that was almost struck this evening en route to the meeting. He said that he had a heart condition and that it could have been a serious situation. Mr. Ran said that his concern was an increase in use of Stonehenge's pool, tennis court and playground, which was already a problem from children in the neighborhood. He said that there are 102 lots in Stonehenge owned by Suburban Savings and when homes are built, there would be 187 residents instead of 81 using the already dangerous access. Mr. Tom DeBerry said that he had only learned of this rezoning petition this evening. He said that he had walked around the periphery of the property and found no posted notice, which he believed was a requirement. He said that Stonehenge had covenents and bylaws; he said that it was probably environmentally insulated and protected, even though zoned R-6. He said that most trouble came from trespassers and there was a fear that from a higher density development, there would be more problems of this nature. Ms. Virginia Greene said that her property was adjoining the three vacant lots of Mr. Spencer's. She said that she could sympathize with Mr. Spencer wanting to put up two-family dwellings, but that the dangerous access would make any further construction of dwellings undesirable. Ms. Greene said that she shared a driveway with Rockbrook and had to contend with both Stonehenge's and Rockbrook's entrances when entering or exiting from her own property. She said that she had had a bad three -car accident a few years ago, making a left turn into her property. She also added that once R-10, it could not be known what would become of this property, and she also worried about her privacy and a possible decline in property value. Mr. Wayne Besecker, also a resident of Stonehenge, said that the school bus stop for the vicinity happened to be at this dangerous intersection and any increase in children could only further worsen an already bad situation. Mrs. William Pace said that she was a resident of Stonehenge and that coming out �rry of the Rockbrook road, which does not come out 52 feet, entailed coming out into Ms. Greene's driveway and the deceleration lane. She said that a right-hand turn was impossible from the Rockbrook road, without going into the Stonehenge deceleration lane. She added that she had lived in the area for some twenty years and had moved from a single-family dwelling into this community, which was very proud of its way of life and wanted to preserve its character and safety. Mr. Mack Marshall, a homeowner in Stonehenge, said that the residents of this community took pride in taking care of it and that putting so high a density next to Stonehenge could well ruin the future growth of Stonehenge. Mr. Steve Martini, also a resident of Stonehenge, said that he had moved into the community with the idea of its being uncrowded. He said that he thought the County should stay with its zoning plan and Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Martini added that the homeowners had invested sizeable amounts of money in their homes. When Mrs. Diehl determined that there was no further public comment, she gave Mr. Spencer an opportunity to make any closing comments. Mr. Spencer said that R-10 was being requested at the suggestion of the staff. He said that it was immaterial to him whether it was R-10 or R-4 or whatever. He said that he had explained his intent in detail and that he only wanted to put up two- family dwellings such as those in existence across from Stonehenge already, which he said were quite attractive and resembled single-family homes. He said that it would be ridiculous to suppose that he would put up a 65 foot building; he added that he would not be doing anything to jeopardize his own single-family home and would not want to devalue his own property. Mr. Spencer asked for further guidance on what more he should do or whether he should request a different zoning in order to proceed with what he wanted to do. Mrs. Diehl declared that the matter was before the Commission. She added that she would read the applicant's proffer for the benefit of all the concerned public who were present and might not have had an opportunity to review it. Mrs. Diehl asked whether this language was binding on the applicant. Mr. Keeler replied that it was. He also said that when Mr. Spencer initially applied for the rezoning he did not have a plat. Mr. Keeler said that they had estimated that about two and a half acres would be rezoned. Mr. Keeler said that he did not know whether the applicant intended it as a verbal amendment to his proffer, but that he seemed to be indicating that he would not exceed two dwelling units per lot, which would mean with seven lots, fourteen dwelling units or a density of five dwellings per acre, a density less than that of Stonehenge. Mr. Keeler said that his initial understanding was that the residents of Rockbrook wanted to restore their original zoning, which was 8.5. Mr. Skove and Mrs. Diehl both remarked that from the proffer it was not exactly clear what the applicants intended. Mr. Payne said that as he read the proffer, the uses were being restricted to single-family detached, semi -attached and attached units in terms of the building type and a density of 8.5 units per acre. Mr. Cogan said that this could mean almost 21 units. Mrs. Diehl said that they seemed to be contradictory terms. SJO Mr. Payne said that not necessarily, because under this proffer, the applicant could proceed with 8.5 density, permitting each lot one single-family unit or something else. Mr. Payne said, for example, that if the density worked out properly, there could be a way to have a two-family dwelling and a detached single-family *40 dwelling on one parcel legally, as the proffer was written. He added that he did not see this proffer as limiting density to two units per lot. Mr. Cogan said that the proffer should be clarified because the concern was in the other possible uses permitted under a rezoning of 8.5 density. Mrs. Diehl said that the Commission had to address the written proffer as presented, but that at the discretion of the applicant he could make any changes before the Board's public hearing. She ascertained that there was a problem about the language. Mr..Skove asked whether development with 14 units on this property would exceed the density of Stonehenge. Mr. Keeler said that if developed with 14 units, the density would be 5 units per acre and Stonehenge is zoned 6 units per acre. Mr. Bowerman said that at no point tonight had any indication been made by the residents of Stonehenge as to whether an access to Rockbrook could be through Stonehenge. Mr. Allen responded on behalf of the Stonehenge residents, saying that when it was learned that the Highway Department would only approve this rezoning if access were through Stonehenge, residents of Stonehenge had been alarmed that their property could be condemned and that the County could require access through Stonehenge. Mr. Allen said that he explained to residents that only if the State were to build a road through Stonehenge could property be condemned. He said that although it had not been extensively discussed, he believed that the homeowners would be opposed to increased traffic going through their community. Mr. Bowerman said that the issue of density aside, he was very familiar with the site and had visited it today. He said that he could not support any further use there without closing the existing entrance to Rockbrook. Mr. Bowerman said that it was a very bad situation even today, untenable, with cars coming out of Rockbrook having to use the Stonehenge deceleration lane, where Stonehenge cars nose out for visibility, and that it was out of the question to contemplate increased density. Mrs. Diehl said that she tended to agree with Mr. Bowerman. She said that she had no difficulty with the issue of density, but unless some alternative could be worked out whereby Rockbrook could use the existing roads in Stonehenge, she could not support the rezoning request. Mrs. Diehl stated that she had no problem with increasing the density to that in the surrounding area. Mr. Payne said that this is a case where zoning could be used to protect roads. He said that he thought the Supreme Court had indicated that where a problem existed with roads, use of those roads could be oDntrolled by restricting the density permitted in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Payne said that this interpretation came from studying the Hilton case. Mr. Skove asked about reopening the former road, and Mrs. Diehl said that it seemed not to be desired by the Stonehenge residents, but that she did not believe discussions had taken place. Mr. Keeler said that this former road also served another piece of property zoned R-4 which contained a dwelling. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were further questions or comments. Mr. Skove said that he was in rough agreement on the density question, but that the road was the problem. He and Mr. Cogan discussed the difference in height between Rockbrook Road and Rio Road. Mr. Gloeckner said that Mr. Bowerman had mentioned a sizeable grade difference. Mr. Kindrick concurred that this was so. Mr. Bowerman said that it might be ten feet. It was determined that Rio Road was lower, by at least ten feet, than Rockbrook. Mr. Cogan moved for denial of ZMA-81-23 in its present form. Mr. Gloeckner said that he would second the motion, although he thought he could support duplexes if the road issue could be worked out. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was further discussion. Mr. Kindrick said that the two units per lot was acceptable, but the entrance and road problems were not. There was a concensus among the Commissioners on this point. The motion carried unanimously with no further discussion. Mrs. Diehl announced a five minute recess. ZMA-81-24 Knopp Enterprises, Inc. - Located on northern side of Route 250 West, approximately one half mile west of the intersection of Route 240 and Route 250 West. White Hall Magisterial District, County Tax Map 56, Parcel 17B(1). Request to rezone 16.174 acres currently zoned R-1 to R-6 WITH PROFFER. Mr. Gloeckner said that he would like the record to show that he did the site plan on this property a long time ago, but that he had not been involved recently and therefore had no conflict of interest. Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report. Mr. Byron Coburn of the Highway Department said previously Col. Washington had raised the question of a left turn lane into Western Albemarle, and the Board subsequently decided to have the County fund the construction of this lane under permit. He added that this was causing the difficulty now, with the entrance at the existing location. Mr. Coburn referred to the Highway Department recommendation that an entrance be located from 250 directly across from Western Albemarle High School. Mr. Knopp said that his firm was at a disadvantage, having received approval of a site plan in June of 1978, but having let it die. He said that when interest was renewed this year, it was discovered that the property had been rezoned. Mr. Knopp said that he was never informed of the rezoning. He stated that this plan had been approved by the Highway Department three years ago and that only today had he learned that the Highway Department had another recommendation. He said that he had been unable to contact the other party who would be involved if the entrance location were changed, and that he could not comment at all on whether in fact this change could be made. Mr. Knopp said that he did find the proposed relocation to be sensible. Mr. Knopp said that he would not have subdivided this property as it was done, but that it was already subdivided when he purchased it, leaving the front piece under a separate owner. He said that the location adjacent to the high school was most desirable and that it was hoped to cater to the teachers. Mrs. Diehl remarked that Mr. Knopp had expressed some concern about not having had adequate time to respond to the Highway Department recommendation. She offered to defer consideration of the petition or to proceed, as he wished. Mr. Knopp responded that time was everything and that probably he would prefer that the Commission proceed; he asked whether it was possible to grant approval with certain conditions or provisions. Mrs. Diehl answered that the Commission could not initiate any conditions on a rezoning, that any such conditions would have to come from the applicant in the form of a proffer. Mr. Knopp asked whether it was too late to amend the proffer. Mr. Payne replied that it could be amended any time prior to the public hearing of the Board. He specified that it must be in writing. He added that in this case it would probably be to the applicant's interest to wait and work out the question of the entrance, because it was not within his power to assure that the entrance could be relocated, since the applicant did not own that property. Mr. Keeler said that the Board was due to hear this petition on September 2, 1981, and that his next meeting was September 1, but that as a rule the Board did not like to hear a petition the day after the Commission had acted on it. He suggested that perhaps the petition could be scheduled on one of the other meetings of the Commission, without changing the Board date. Mr. Keeler consulted with other members of the staff and ascertained that it could be deferred to August 18, 25 or September 1. Mr. Knopp responded that August 25 might be more convenient, to allow for survey and legal work. Mr. Skove moved for deferral of ZMA-81-24 to August 25, 1981. Mr. Kindrick seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. Mr. Cogan said that he had a question on the language of the proffer, which states the intent of the applicant to continue with original plans which would produce a density of 3.71 dwelling units per acre. Mr. Knopp explained that the only change from the original plan was in types of dwellings, not in the total number to be constructed. He specified that 25 one -bedroom, 25 two -bedroom and 10 three -bedroom units were planned. Mr. Cogan suggested that it would be helpful to have that clarified on the amended proffer, and Mr. Knopp agreed. Mrs. Diehl said that the next item on the agenda was Planning Commission review of the City of Charlottesville's proposed expansion of gas service into certain areas of the County for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, as directed under State Code 15.1-456. All gas mains would be located within existing public road rights -of -way. Specific projects to be reviewed are as follows: (a) Extension of service along Route 29 North to the General Electric site at Routes 29 North and 606; (b) Extension of service along Route 250 West to Ednam Forest; (c) Extension of service along Route 250 East to the S. L. Williamson Company asphalt plant east of Luck Quarries. 50-J OR Mr. Keeler gave the Staff Report, adding that all correspondence received from the public on this item was favorable. Mr. Roger Wiley, attorney for the City, said that Mr. John V. Berberich, III, Director of Public Works for the City, would show the specific location of the proposed gas line extensions and explain the project to the Commission. Mr. Wiley added that there were already about 600 County residents who were customers. He said that the City Council had approved funding for these extensions; he said that several of the industrial users would help reduce the cost to customers. Mr. Berberich pointed out the proposed extensions on an exhibited map, illustrating the City limits, existing lines and the extensions. He said that the Staff had done a thorough job of explaining the proposal and this would simply serve to illustrate it. Mr. Berberich said that the reason for this extension was to increase the unit base so that the rates per unit could be reduced to offset rising costs of fixed items such as labor and fuel. Mr. Berberich passed out a list of potential customers on each of the lines who have expressed interest in becoming users. Mr. Berberich said that this project represented a sizeable investment but would become self-supporting within this area. He said that the Highway Department had under consideration the permit application and as soon as approval was received from the Highway Department and the Commission acted on this request, it would be hoped that the project could commence. He explained that some of the larger commercial customers were hoping for the service for heating purposes before the cold weather. Mr. Skove asked whether these lines were such that they could be extended further. Mr. Berberich replied that they could be extended further. The size of the main, he explained, permitted increase of pressure to provide for greater volume, if necessary. He said that lateral valves would be available along these lines for future expansion of service. Mrs. Diehl asked what Mr. Keeler had been referring to earlier about the situation at Luck Quarries. Mr. Berberich explained that this was an example of the sort of customer desired. He said that industrial users were process loads that helped during the otherwise slack time when the larger number of heat customers were not buying, thereby reducing the unit cost in year round rates. Mr. Bill Wiech of the Public Works Department said that he believed Highway Department approval had already been received on the 29 North gas line. Mr. Byron Coburn of the Highway Department confirmed that the 29 North permit had been approved. Mr. Coburn said that he had visited the line on 29 North and 250 with Mr. Dorsey of Mr. Wiech's office. He said that he did not know why they had not been approved. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment. When there was none, she declared the matter before the Commission. _5� Mr. Gloeckner asked whether the 29 North line ended just beyond General Electric. Mr. Coburn replied that it ended near the intersection with Route 763. *400 Mr. Skove moved to find the proposed gas line extensions to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. Under OLD BUSINESS, Mrs. Diehl proceeded to the next item. Huntwood, Phase 4 Final Plat - Request to amend lot lines for Lots 7 and 8 in order to show the existing cemetery within the common open space. Ms. Kat Imhoff, Planner with the Planning Department, gave the Staff Report. Mr. Tom Sinclair represented the applicant and explained that the purpose of this amendment was to make the deed to those two lots more simple. Mrs. Diehl determined that there was no public comment and announced that the matter was before the Commission. Mr. Glockner moved for approval of this final plat, subject to County Attorney approval of an amendment to the maintenance agreement, if necessary. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. Spring Hill Final Plat - Request to increase the size of Lot 15 from 6.365 acres to 10.931 acres. Mr. Gloeckner disqualified himself and left the room. Ms. Kat Imhoff gave the Staff Report. Mr. William Rieley, representing the applicant, said that he would have no additional comment since the request was for an increase in size of one of the lots from a purchaser and did not involve any new building lot. Mrs. Diehl asked whether there was public comment. She announced that it was before the Commission. There was no discussion, and Mr. Skove moved for approval, subject to County Attorney approval of an amendment to the maintenance agreement, if necessary. Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which passed with one abstension, Mr. Gloeckner. U. Va. Polo Club - Request for reconsideration of landscaping. Ms. Mason Caperton, Senior Planner of the Planning Department, gave the Staff Report. Mr. Tom Sinclair, representing the applicant, said that Mr. Roger Rinehart had spoken to him that afternoon and was adamant in not wanting trees at the Polo Club. He mentioned that it was believed by Mr. Rinehart and the Club that for aesthetic reasons trees were not desirable. Mr. Sinclair also mentioned that money was running out. Mrs. Diehl asked for public comment and when there v,7as none, she announced that the matter was before the Commission. Mrs. Diehl observed that after going to horse shows in the summer heat, trees might be very welcome. Mr. Gloeckner said that he also wondered about some relief from the sun; he asked Mr. Sinclair whether there were any shade trees already in existence at the Polo Club. Mr. Sinclair replied that there were none and that grading had already taken place. He said that down around the pond there might still be a few trees. Mrs. Diehl remarked that staff suggestions for landscaping were really minimal. Mr. Sinclair said that he wished to stress that the entire facility could not be seen from the road. Mr. Gloeckner reiterated Mrs. Diehl's opinion that trees were desirable. He mentioned having attended Foxfield and roasted in the sun. He added that he really did not think that nine trees would hurt the Polo Club. Mr. Gloeckner moved to approve the staff recommendation that nine (9) trees be required to be planted in the areas marked in green on the site plan marked "Recei,;ed July 7, 1981." Mr. Bowerman seconded the motion, which passed unanimously with no further discussion. sm Mrs. Diehl asked whether there were any other items under OLD BUSINESS. Mr. Keeler said that in the form of an announcement, he wished to make the Commission aware that the Board had requested that staff prepare a report on suggested policy for land use at interstate interchanges, as per the Sally and Joe Gieck application. Mr. Keeler said that probably a Staff Report would be compiled during September on this issue. He explained that this would be an interim measure, prior to the comprehensive update and review of the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Keeler said that the Board would hold public hearing on this matter in October. The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:15 p.m. Ro ert W. Tucker, Jr. Setretary on