HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 21 86 PC MinutesJanuary 21, 1986
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing
on Tuesday, January 21, 1986, Meeting Room 7, County Office
Bldg., Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were:
Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman;
Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould; Mr.
Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark (newly appointed). Other
officials present were: Mr. John Horne, Director of Planning
and Community Development; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Director of
Planning; Mr. David Benish, Planner; and Mr. Frederick Payne,
Deputy County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present.
The minutes of the January 7 meeting were approved as amended
by Mr. Bowerman.
ZMA-85-29 Lake Reynovia (Forest Hills) PUD (Daley Craig)- Request
to rezone +236 acres from R-1, Residential to PUD, Planned
Unit Development including 6 acres shopping center; 37z acres
industrial; 215 single family detached dwellings; 100 multi -family
dwelling units and including roads,recreational areas, and
open space areas. Property, described as Tax Map 90, parcel 36A
(part), is located on the west side of Avon Street Extended
(Rt. 742) from the National Guard Armory to the Lake Reynovia
entrance road. Scottsville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He began by making the
following changes in the report: (1) The name of the develop-
ment should be Forest Hills; (2) Middle of page 9, item No. 1
should have the words and bond the same deleted from the end
of the sentence; (3) Page 11, item No. 4 should have the first
sentence deleted and the next sentence should begin, Preliminary
road layout reflects...; (4) Page 11, item No. 6, sixth line
down, should have the words and be bonded for construction
deleted. He also stated the "location map" was incorrect since
it was representative of the original submittal and the applicant
has since deleted a portion (Mr. Keeler pointed out which part)
from his proposal. Some additional comments of Mr. Keeler's
were as follows:
--The commercial area would not currently be supported by
Neighborhood Four and staff is concerned about premature
commercial development. He stated staff could support
a phased development, permitting a specified commercial
floor area for each dwelling approved, i.e. for each
residential permit the applicant would be authorized
150 square feet of commercial floor area and once the
last residential building permit is issued, he could
complete the development of the commercial area with
whatever floor area he could achieve on the site.
He further explained that the ordinance prohibits issuance
of commercial use building permits prior to issuance of
building permits for 80% of the dwellings in the PUD;
however, the applicant has requested a complete waiver
January 21, 1986
Page 2
of that regulation and staff is concerned and is thus
recommending something that is "between" the ordinance
restriction and the applicant's request for a complete
waiver.
--Public sewer service to the property is feasible and a
number of alternatives are being studied.
--Public water is available to the property from two
locations and while flow is adequate to support
existing zoning, it is inadequate to support the
proposed PUD (particularly in terms of fire flow require-
ments).
Mr. Keeler's report stated the following:
Both Planning and Engineering staffs would emphasize that
final plans may vary substantially, due to engineering
considerations, in physical layout from the Application
Plan. Section 8.5.6.3 requires final plans to be 'generally
in keeping with the spirit and concept of the approved
application plans,' which in staff opinion would
accommodate changes in layout provided (certain) design
criteria are satisfied. (The staff report listed six
detailed design criteria.)
Mr. Keeler explained that staff is recommending that the
applicant agree to the six design criteria and if he does
so, then "basically that would be your recommendation to the
Board, i.e. that the planned development be permitted to
proceed under these six items. If you choose to recommend
approval of the commercial area, you would also need to
address the issue of when it develops." He confirmed
the issue of the commercial area was not covered in the
six design criteria.
Attempting to clarify staff's position, Mr. Bowerman stated
the following: "Basically, you're saying that you are
recommending favorably on the PUD application based on these
six design criteria and your feeling is that the details can
be worked out, the development can be accommodated, if the
developer accedes to these six items plus agreement on the
commercial area."
Mr. Keeler responded, "Yes; what we are trying to establish
here is there are some topographic problems, some soil
problems, there appears to be a lot of rock out there, there
is a telephone easement that runs through the property (and)
on any one of the those factors, the plan could change.
We are trying to establish that the final plans that come in
may not be exactly like this. We are trying to build into
the approval the flexability that the staff can accept plans
that vary from this,provided those six items are met." He
explained staff had approached the Fontaine Avenue application
in a similar manner.
January 21, 1986
Page 3
yam,,,. Regarding the connector road, Mr. Bowerman asked: "Would you
require building it in its entire length prior to any Board
action or would you only require the building of it as a
private road up to the access point between Avon and that
last internal road portion of it?"
Mr. Keeler responded, "Under our proposal the road would be
constructed to that point to serve this development (he indicated
on the map)." He confirmed it would be a private road.
He continued, "The road plans for the ultimate construction
would have to be approved because we would have to know where
additional grading easements were required, and the like. We'd
have to have a set of approved plans for the ultimate roadway.
But the applicant would only build the road necessary to serve
his development." He confirmed that all other roads would be
built to state standards "from the outset."
Mr. Stark asked why the building of the road, "all the way
through" was not one of the six "conditions." It was
determined he was referring to the "connector road going
from Avon to 5th." He felt that was "primary" to the
development of the property.
Mr. Keeler responded, "No,sir; from the legal aspect of that
I don't think we could subject a developer's zoning to an
action that the Board of Supervisors may or may not take in
the future." He continued, "I think the comments in the report
about the commercial area in regard to this road is that,
right now, the commercial area is not readily accessible
from neighborhoods Four and Five, the southern urban area,
but that, in the future, with the completion of this road,
and there is another road on the other side of Avon Street,
the accessability to the commercial area would be greatly
increased from those neighborhoods. What we're saying in
that section is, right now, in our opinion, the primary
people to be served by this commercial area are people south
on Rt. 20 in the rural areas and, depending on the types
of stores, it could draw some people out from Charlottesville."
Mr. Gould asked for clarification of the status of the review
of this plan by the various agencies. Mr. Keeler responded,
"The Service Authority, the Highway Department and the County
Engineer have all been given copies of the plan, and all
those agencies are here tonight. I don't know that there
are any changes in this plan that any of those agencies
feel are necessary. I don't think that there are; they're
here to answer that question." He indicated staff did not
feel "fresh" comment was necessary from other members of
the Site Review Committee since the soils, etc. have not
changed.
cm
January 21, 1986 Page 4
In response to Mr. Gould's question about a phasing plan, Mr.
Keeler explained that there was such a plan early on and will
probably be needed again. However, he felt it was the
applicant's intent to do the single-family first, the multi-
family later on, and he hoped to have the ability to do
the commercial at any time.
Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler to explain why he felt the applicant's
proposal for industrial area was a logical addition to the
present industrial. Mr. Keeler indicated this was primarily
related to the topography.
Ms. Diehl asked if traffic figures were available for the
proposed use of this 236 acres vs. figures if developed as
presently zoned. Mr. Keeler responded that no calculations
had been done in that regard because of the difficulty in
trying to come up with trip generation figures for industrial
areas. He added that though 3712 acres are proposed for
industrial in the rezoning, it is felt that it will not
develop as intensively as it might because of topographic
limitations. Mr. Keeler offered to make calculations for
the commercial and residential proposal and present them
later in the meeting. Ms. Diehl indicated she would be
interested in those figures.
The Chairman invited applicant.
Mr. George Gilliam, representing the applicant, addressed the
Commission. His comments included the following:
--This development will be similar to the developer's
other projects, such as Earlysville Forest.
--The developer was mindful of the county's desire to
channel growth to the south of the city.
--The suggested density, while marginally higher than
by -right development, is substantially lower than
what is suggested by the Comprehensive Plan for the area.
--County staff has been very cooperative with the developer.
--Though the suggested commercial development is more
intensive than that suggested by the Comp Plan, there
is currently no commercial development all the way from
Scottsville to the City limits.
--The commercial will be neighborhood -oriented services,
e.g, grocery story, drug store, etc.
--While the applicant has no quarrel with the phasing
suggested by Mr. Keeler, there are some reservations
as to the practicalities of such phasing.
The developer is not contemplating a "strip" shopping
center, such as Fashion Square.
The minimum square footage for a grocery store is
30,000 square feet and 10,000 square feet for a
drug store.
In
January 21, 1986
Page 5
If restricted to staff's suggested phasing of 150 feet
of commercial development/residential building permit,
the developer will only be able to build "half a
grocery store" after 100 residential units have been
built.
--The current residents of the area (4,300 vehicle trips)
must now go to Pantops or 29North for shopping.
--This commercial development would add some "balance"
for shopping choices.
--The developer feels there is an immediate need for
the commercial development and does not want to wait
until 800 of the residential area is built.
--Being able to develop the commercial land at the
beginning would allow the developer to reduce the
average cost of land and will contribute to keeping
the cost of the residential housing as moderate as
is hoped.
--The 12-inch water main which presently exists at the
southeast corner of the property can provide enough
water to serve by -right development of the property
(390 residences on the entire tract). The water
which exists is adequate to serve all the first phase
residential development, though there is some concern
about achieving required fire flow if commercial
development takes place.
--Regarding the "loop line", if neither Rivanna Water
and Sewer Authority nor the Albemarle County Service
Authority have undertaken this at the time the
development necessitates it, then "it is likely the
(applicant) will enter into an agreement to do this
with the cost being recovered through reduced tap
fees under their regular program.
--There is an existing agreement for the property to
be served by public sewer, though it has not been
determined precisely where it will come into the
property.
Mr. Craig offered no additional comment.
The Chairman invited comment from representatives of the
various county agencies.
Mr. Bren t, representing the Albemarle County Service
Authority, addressed the Commission. Mr. Bren t stated there
may have been some confusion on his part as to the by -right
development of the property, but that the calculations done
by his office indicate that the existing water line on
Avon Street Extended will serve "the equivalent of 230
additional single-family residential units. He had understood
Mr. Gilliam to say the figure was 390. (Mr. Gilliam
indicated his information stated 236 units.) He stated
there is adequate water to serve the residential development,
but development of the property with the commercial and
January 21, 1986 Page 6
industrial development will "necessitate the looping of the
water line between 5th Street and Avon Street Extended,
and, although expensive, that should be a reasonable solution
to this problem." In an attempt to clarify the issue
for Mr. Michel, Mr. Brent confirmed that there is sufficient
water to serve only the residential development in Phase One,
and not any commercial or industrial development. He explained
the reason was because the fire flow requirement is much
greater for commercial and industrial development than it is
for residential. He confirmed that it is a fire flow issue
rather than a usage issue.
Mr. Keeler pointed out there are also 100 units of medium density res-
identialthat require a different fire flow, and would be in addition to
the 215 single family.
Mr. Stark asked if his understanding was correct, that the
developer wished to begin building the commercial area first,
and if so, is there not a problem with the water.
Mr. Bowerman explained, "I think they asked for the flexibility
to do it as they felt it was needed and not be held to the
80%. I think, clearly, if they wanted to build the commercial,
the question of the water, obviously, has to be solved and
supplied before they can build the commercial and there is
no way to do that without installing of this additional water
need." (Mr. Gilliam indicated the applicant would be willing
to accept that as a condition.)
Mr. Gilliam stated the water problem could be solved as early
as this spring or early summer and the applicant fully understands
that the development could not be done until the water problem
is solved. It was determined the three parties involved in the overall
sahtion of the problem were the applicant, the Albemarle County
Service Authority and the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority.
Mr. Brendt explained the Rivanna Authority is currently studying
how to best serve the entire needs of the area along Interstate
64 between Rt. 29 and Rt. 250 and that report is expected by
March 1.
Mr. Echols, representing the Highway Department, stated that
nothing has yet been approved and there might be some modifications
necessary for the roads to meet Highway Department standards.
He said his department has not committed to any type of design
but had advised the applicant of what would be required to meet
their standards.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Susan Mitchell addressed the Commission. She was concerned
about the area that goes into Oak Hill Subdivision and which
was supposed to be condemned. She asked if that would include
her house.
January 21, 1986 Page 7
The Chairman responded, "That's a question we can't answer
tonight because we don't know the alignment." He continued, "The
Comprehensive Plan indicates a connector road in this area;
the alignment of that connector road is very uncertain at this
time; that discretion lies with the Board of Supervisors. That
decision has not been made, i.e. where the connector road is
going to be. The Board of Supervisors lUs made a decision,
at least as far as I understand, not to delete the connector
road between 5th Street, Avon Street and Rt. 20 at this time
but they are studying different routes. This is the route
favored by the County Engineer; whether it is the route
favored by the Board of Supervisors is not at all clear at
this time."
Ms. Mitchell also expressed concern about the possible
effects this development might have on neighboring private
wells (Oak Hill Subdivision has private wells). Ms. Mitchell
also expressed concern about Rose Hill Elementary School
which is already overcrowded.
Mr. Tom Ward, owner of Lake Reynovia, Inc. which is adjacent
to the applicant's proposal, addressed the Commission.
He expressed concerns about the following:
--Visual quality: He asked that a 150 feet buffer
be required between the Lake Reynovia boundary
and that part of the development which backs up
to the boundary.
--The visual quality of the area is a main attraction
of his business and this development will severely detract
from that visual quality.
--Trespassing on Lake Reynovia property by residents of
proposed development, including security problems
that could arise from such trespassing, thereby causing
Lake Reynovia's reputation as a family camping facility
to suffer.
--A permanent barrier should be placed around Lake Reynovia at
the expense of the developer. This would also protect
the residents of the development from Lake Reynovia.
A natural barrier has always existed between the Lake
and surrounding residences, but with this development,
that will no longer be the case. The developer should
bear the expense of such a barrier since he is imposing
this situation on Lake Reynovia.
--Developer should be mindful of common rights -of -way (road,
water and sewer) which Lake Reynovia currently
holds over the northeast and northwest boundaries
of the property proposed for development.
--The two proposed entrances to the property should be
farther apart.
--Proposed road does not conform with the natural land
form and greatly impacts the existing character of the land.
--Extensive screening should be required for the both the
w✓ industrial and commercial area.
--The area labelled as "Industrial No. 1" should not be
rezoned as industrial, but perhaps as residential.
--He expressed concern about staff's statement that
January 21, 1986
Page 8
"the plan may substantially vary" from that which is
currently under review. 4160
--Though Mr. Ward had several reservations about the plan
and the many unanswered questions, he felt a PUD is
the best use for the land.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Stark asked Mr. Keeler to comment on Mr. Ward's referral
to the existing rights -of way on the property. Mr. Keeler
replied that if a right-of-way exists, then the applicant
"will have to design around that." He added that if his
understanding was correct and the right-of-way was only
over the property line 25 feet, it probably will not
substantially effect the development. He added that if
Lake Reynovia ever built that as a state road, then this
would cause those lots effected to be "double frontage lots"
(i.e. there would be a street in front of the lot and a
street in back). Regarding the existence of water and sewer
easements referred to by Mr. Ward, Mr. Keeler replied, "If they
have these easements, that is a matter of record that the
developer will have to deal with just as he will have to deal
with the telephone easement."
Regarding the issue of entrances, Mr. Keeler explained that
the Highway Department has indicated they would not oppose
one entrance directly onto Avon Street from the Commercial
area. He stated earlier plans had shown two entrances and
the Highway Department wanted one of those removed. Regarding
the location of the entrances as referred to by Mr. Ward, Mr.
Keeler explained that the proposed locations were the only
ones possible which would meet Highway Department standards.
He stated the locations were dictated by the topography of the
property and the alignment of the road was dictated by the
Highway Department standards.
Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Keeler if he had been able to calculate
the traffic counts as discussed earlier in the meeting. Mr.
Keeler responded the count would be a little under 6,000 vtpd,
excluding industrial traffic and "captured" trips. He added
that it is felt the commercial area is probably going to serve
the traffic that is already on Avon Street and the only
new traffic generated by the proposed commercial development
would depend on whether the services provided would be of a
type which would draw traffic from Charlottesville. He
stated, "This commercial area would be 'capturing' people who
are already on the road."
Ms. Diehl asked what the figures would be if the property
were to be developed at R-1 as presently zoned. Mr. Keeler
responded that 230 units of R-1 would generate 1,600 trips.
He again explained the proposal would generate 6,000 trips, *490
not counting industrial but not subtracting out captured
trips. He confirmed this was based on the applicant's proposal
of 6 acres for commercial development.
Page 9
January 21, 1986
Ms. Diehl stated Mr. Keeler's figures were consistent with
those of the Highway Department, i.e. three to four times what
is presently expected from that site.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that Avon Street and Rt. 20 are already
"at or above" the projected traffic counts for year 2000.
Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Elrod (County Engineer) to comment on the
buildability of the soils, particularly how his analysis
might differ from that of the Conservation Service.
Mr. Elrod explained that though the report of the Conservation
Service had indicated that some of the soils were not suitable
for construction, the report had referred to the status of
the soils "in place," and it is possible through mechanical
measures,to change the nature of the soil so that "it can do
very well." Regarding the statement that some of the
soils had poor drainage qualities, Mr. Elrod pointed out that
those soils are almost entirely located under the commercial
development and not under the residential development where
they would cause concern. He stated he was not as concerned
about the drainage characteristics of the soils as far as
the residential development, as he was about the necessary
blasting of rock which is very near the surface. He stated,
"In that area where you see the multi -family housing, and to
the south where the single family is shown, I think it is
going to take a considerable amount of grading, either cut
or fill, to make it work." He speculated that it would cost
the developer 10-20% more to develop the property,than would
ordinarily be case,because of topographic problems.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that the current plan had been changed
considerably because of the soils and topographic considerations.
It was determined the average size of the single-family lots
was 1/3 acre.
Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Echols if the Highway Department's position
remains as was stated in the letter of October 24, i.e. that it
could not support the rezoning based on the increased traffic
that would be generated on roads for which there are currently
no plans for improvement. Mr. Echols responded affirmatively.
Mr. Michel asked, "Why are we looking at PUD I and PUD II,
with the same owner, the same roads, etc.?" He stated that
part of the reason to do a PUD is to get the overall
picture and he felt only 1/2 of the overall picture was
being presented.
Mr. Keeler responded, ,This is one of the changes that we feel
needs to be made on the plan, to delete all references to
any possible future PUD, to PUD II." (He indicated the location
of PUD II on the map, which was south of Lake Reynovia and
encompassed a lot of the drainage area to Lake Reynovia.)
Mr. Keeler continued, "My understanding is that the applicant
January 21, 1986 Page 10
is trying to re -think the use of this land."
Mr. Michel asked if it was a staff recommendation that the
applicant "drop" PUD II for the time being.
Mr. Keeler responded: "(1) I see no relationship between PUD I
and PUD II; there is no internal connection; they are two
individual developments; it's one tract of land but two
different properties; (2) The applicant can get almost
the same number of units under existing zoning and he can
do clustered lots under existing zoning, which raises the
question of whether or not he really wants to pursue that
rezoning; and (3) The disposition of the lake is a major
issue and (since) the applicant wanted to move forward with
the plan, the easiest way to do that was to sever that whole
separate issue from this rezoning petition."
Referring to the fact that the current plan is "less than
clearly defined," Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler if staff
felt it is good, or at least satisfactory, planning to
approach this issue in this fashion, i.e. staff and the
Commission have basic concerns which staff feels can be addressed
by statements which are attached to the PUD which can be dealt
with subsequently as the project solidifies. He asked if the
lack of information was connected to the fact that the devel-
oper is waiting for some indication of the Commission's position
before proceeding.
Mr. Keeler responded affirmatively. He added, "Basically I
think a PUD ought to be an improvement over what you can
achieve under conventional zoning, and I think the applicant
has agreed to make provision for this road; we have been
able to work out the issues of access and some other items.
Again, that doesn't mean that the final plan is going to look
exactly like this. There may be some changes and there may
be some protracted discussions at the time the final plans
come in because, obviously, the developer wants to be able to
achieve this number of units or something close to it."
Regarding Mr. Keeler's statement that the applicant has agreed
to make provision for this road, (i.e. an east -west connector),
Mr. Cogan indicated he was concerned because this has been
discussed many times before. He was also concerned about the
lack of definitiveness of the proposal and envisioned it coming
back to the Commission many times with the Commission having
to make compromises that it should not have to make.
Mr. Keeler indicated he did not like using the indefinite words
in the report (probably, maybe, possibly, etc.), but he
pointed out that "this is a possible connector because the Board
of Supervisors has made no decision on it."
Mr. Cogan stated, "But all of our studies have shown that it
won't connect that way; we've been going at this for a long
time now. The Highway Department has stated they will not
let you go up under I64 that way."
em
January 21, 1986
Page 11
It was determined Mr. Cogan's interpretation was incorrect.
1�ft,►a Mr. Keeler responded, "That's not what is showing. This
is an alternative that the County Engineer developed; it is
one of many alternatives for an east -west connector road and
he favors this alignment,connecting Avon Street to 5th Street,
over the alignment that is shown in the plan that carries it
up under Biscuit Run." Mr. Cogan indicated he understood.
Mr. Keeler continued, "We were in the posture where the appli-
cant is bringing this piece of property in where the County
Engineer has a road alignment through there and the Board has
made no decision; so what we're trying to do is keep the door
open."
Mr. Cogan stressed that his concerns were not related only
to the road, but to the overall project.
Mr. Michel stated he shared some of those concerns. He
indicated he could support the residential proposal and that
he was in favor of the PUD and the proposed density was
not a problem. However, he stated he could not support
a waiver on the commercial request at this time. He was
concerned also that the water and sewer issueswere still
not finalized and about placing more traffic on a road
that would make it non -tolerable. He too was concerned about the
use of the "weasle" words and though he had no doubt that
staff could follow through on a PUD, he felt "the wording
on this just isn't quite there and probably isn't there
because the plan isn't there yet."
Mr. Bowerman asked if Mr. Michel was talking about a deferral or
a denial. Mr. Michel indicated he could favor a deferral.
Mr. Bowerman asked the applicant, "This is before us tonight
at your request because you were unable to finalize with
staff the PUD. What is your pleasure? If you feel it is
moving towards deferral, would you rather us take action on
it, as to denial or approval, or (would you rather we) defer
the item?"
Mr. Gilliam responded, "We would prefer deferral to denial."
He added, "Tying down some of these 'weasle' sections is
beyond our control, as in the case of tying down where the
sewer is going to enter the property. Mr. Brendt will tell
you that they have a contractual obligation to bring sewer
to the property and all we're discussing is what's the best
way to get it there. Until we can justify spending really
substantial sums of money to do the definitive engineering
work, etc., some of these things just can't be pinned down
enough to make sense. We have a 'chicken and egg' problem. If
we are assured that the PUD, in substantially this form,
will be approved, then we can justify spending some of the
very large sums of money that will have to be spent to pin
1%w some of these things down."
January 21, 1986 Page 12
Mr. Bowerman stated he was sympathetic to Mr. Gilliam's
comments; however he stated "We have dealt with things like
this in the past and we have given approvals were plans were
not worked out totally, and we have run into serious problems
after the fact. One of the concerns you are hearing here
tonight is that some of the information that we don't have we
feel is critical. It might also be that some of what
has been proposed is not acceptable to all Commissioners."
Ms. Diehl commented, "I agree with what has been stated already,
that it is too nebulous in its present form for me to be
comfortable with it and approve it. I am concerned about
getting some more concrete information about the water and
the sewer. I couldn't support a PUD that is going to increase
traffic generation to the extent that the proposed plan does.
The 3 to 4 times generation is going to change the road from
tolerable to non -tolerable. I could not support that. I can't
support the industrial zoning that is requested when I look
at the topographical map and see the slopes that are involved
in most of the acreage that is requested to become industrial.
I don't think that land is appropriate to use in that fashion.
I think that this area is already served commercially and I
couldn't agree to adding more commercial zoning in this
region until a PUD or a large subdivision was built in the
general area to support it. So I couldn't support commercial
zoning prior to the development of the PUD, especially since
we have just approved a large shopping center in the southern
area of town. I think that the area will be adequately served
until a large community like this is developed. I am concerned
also because I don't see a sensitivity to the particular
environmental situation of the adjacent neighbor, Lake Reynovia,
in siting of a number of these house lots. I don't think Reynovia
is your standard neighbor; I think this is a development where
the livelihood, the business, would be directly affected by
some of the placing of those houses, and I would like to see
some sort of sensitivity to that fact and adjustment of the house
lots that would impact on Reynovia."
Mr. Gould stated he felt this "was here much to early." He
added, "I really don't think that the Commission, which is
supposed to be acting in the best interests of the County,
should have the burden of approving something and then being
faced with terrible compromises later on, which has already
been experienced in a number of situations before. I would
certainly move for deferral until we have better information.
Secondly, there is no way that I would support asking for the
waiver on the commercial, and I never agreed with the
development study that suggested there was a need for more
commercial. I thought that that study was flawed and that
there were serious problems with it, so I couldn't support
that part of it. Again, I have the continual problem of the
road situation which will probably make it very hard for me
to support it in the end anyway."
January 21, 1986 Page 13
Mr. Stark stated, "It becomes obvious to me that we need
something more definitive in what the applicant is ready to
do. The words 'applicant likely would entertain agreement
to provide the loop' are very uneasy to me. I just can't
accept that and it goes along with what Mr. Cogan has said
and the others on the Commission. I support much of what
Norma Diehl has said and it makes good sense to me that we
defer."
Mr. Wilkerson stated, "There is not a lot left to say. I
appreciate the fact that Mr. Ward, while he has concerns
and certainly didn't support (the proposal), he didn't
oppose it. I am for the PUD but I do have a lot of concerns
and am uncomfortable with what has been presented to us
and even more so, if this were to be passed, I feel that
down the road, staff would be uncomfortable. I certainly
would be in favor of deferring it."
The Chairman pointed out that there seemed to be a consensus
for deferral. He asked if there were any additional
concerns.
Mr. Cogan stated, "I think the leader of that qroup is the
commercial (proposal). A PUD of this size will not support
(the type of commercial development proposed)." He felt
it would be difficult to draw tenants for the commercial
development because of this issue. Regarding the industrial
proposal Mr. Cogan stated, "Industrial No. 1 might make
some sense because the grades are better and it's adjacent
to armory." (Ms. Diehl indicated she could go along with
that, as did Mr. Michel.) Mr. Cogan continued, "But for
Industrial No. 2, I have to agree with Norma." Mr. Cogan
also stated as many of the arbitrary words as possible
should be eliminated from the staff report to reduce
the chance of misunderstandings.
Mr. Stark added that he too would like to see the sensitivity
toward the neighbor, Lake Reynovia, spelled out by the
applicant.
Mr. Cogan stated he agreed with that to a certain point, but
"the applicant got his entrance road come in right on the
boundary line and some of his facilities are very close to
the boundary line so some of these things he is going to
have to live with and other things I don't think he should
have to live with. You have to look at it from both sides
in all fairness."
to
Mr. Michel stated he would also like feel/more secure with
the water and fire issue.
In answer to Mr. Bowerman's question, it was determined the
by -right development of the property was approximately 236
units.
January 21, 1986
Page 14
Mr. Bowerman thus concluded that the commercial proposal
was the major traffic generator.
Mr. Stark moved that ZMA-85-29 for Lake Reynovia (Forest Hills)- PUD
(Daley Craig) be indefinitely deferred.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
In an attempt to clarify the industrial issue, Mr. Keeler
stated, "Some of the earlier plans had acreages noted as to
developable area and open space, etc., but it wasn't really
delineated in the plan so we asked them to take that off."
Since there was some question as to whether or not
industrial areas 1 and 2 were acceptable, Mr. Keeler stated
that "if you leave that under existing zoning it would
be Rl." Therefore, he asked, "Am I to read what you're
talking about, your concern of the industrial is that only
those areas that are appropriate for development be susceptible
to development and the rest of it be shown as open space,
because we've got to show it as something?"
The Commission replied affirmatively.
The previously stated motion for indefinite deferral was
passed unanimously.
The meetinq recessed at 9:20; reconvened at 9:30.
ZMA-85-31 Luck Stone Corporation - Request to rezone 29.512
acres from RA, Rural Areas to Rural Areas with Natural Resource
Extraction Overlay. Property, described as Tax Map 79, parcels
23D, 23E, and 20, is located on the west side of State Route
729 adjacent to the Rivanna River, the C & O Railroad and the
Stone Robinson School property. Rivanna Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. (Before presenting the
staff report, Mr. Keeler presented copies of a letter of opposition
which had been received from the Stone Robinson PTO. He also
presented some additional proffers which were made by the
applicant after the staff report was written.) Mr. Keeler
prefaced his staff report with a definition of a proffered
zoning as follows: "A proffered zoning is where the
applicant proffers or offers certain limitations on the
zoning, or to do certain things, and if the zoning is
approved, that is binding on the property. It becomes a
part of the zoning and travels with the land." Mr. Keeler
reported the applicant's proffers were as follows:
1. The three parcels shall not be used for extraction or
crushing of stone.
2. Installation of a chain link fence for a distance
of 1057.91' as indicated by the red line on the plat.
The chain link fence shall be of equal quality and
height as the chain link fence that now exists on the
Stone -Robinson School property.
3. No entrance or access road onto State Road 729 from
either Parcel 23D or Parcel 23E of Section Map 79.
January 21, 1986 Page 15
Mr. Keeler's report stated: "Staff opinion is that the provisions
1%W1 of the NR zoning and the applicant's proffer are insufficient
in terms of buffering, permitted uses and access to protect the
public interest in this particular case. More specifically
staff opinion is that the applicant's proposal does not satisfy
the stated intent of the NR district."
In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Mr. Keeler explained that
the applicant had originally intended to proceed under the
Borrow, Fill or Waste Area (S 5.1.28) of the Ordinance; however,
the Zoning Administrator had determined this to be an expansion
of the quarry use, thus the need to rezone to natural resource
zoning. Mr. Keeler stated that while staff agreed that the
Zoning Administrator's determination was correct, staff feels,
in this particular case, the NR provisions will not provide
as much local control as the Borrow, Fill or Waste Area provisions
which had been developed in anticipation of that type of activity
occurring anywhere.
Mr. Cogan asked if an activity in the Natural Resource District
would be subject to 5.1.28 or if that district has its own
regulations to address the issue. Mr. Keeler responded, "The
NR District has its own regulations." He also confirmed that
5.1.28 also addresses itself to zones other than the NR Overlay.
Mr. Stark expressed interest in knowing why the applicant could
tw..r not place a fence all the way around the operation, rather than
on just one side.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Joe Andrews, Vice President of Corporate Development for
Luck Stone Corporation, addressed the Commission. His comments
included the following:
--The company has done business in Albemarle County for
50 years.
--The current request covers 29.512 acres to be covered
by the Natural Resource Overlay District. The rest
of the operation, other than parcel 20, that has been
operating all through the years, is under the NR Overlay
District.
--11.512 acres (parcel 20) is being used with current
plant activities and has been for 10-15 years; it is
considered a legal non -conforming use. Parcel 20 is
being included in the request for the Natural Resource
Overlay District so that it will be in conformance with
its current use.
--The remaining 18 acres of the request (parcels 23D and 23E)
are not currently being used.
--Those 18 acres have rough, sloping terrains and probably
would not be suitable for percolation or as a building site.
--When the land was purchased it was intended to be used
1,60 as a place to put the overburden, waste material.
January 21, 1986
Page 16
--The fill would start above the flood -plain area (dark
blue part of the plan).
--The fill and berming would be extended over a period of
time; it would be done as a fill-in type operation
along with the quarry activity.
--The berms which exist along Rt. 250 are constructed for
sight buffer and noise buffer and they are currently
the most effective buffer for a quarry site.
--The company has proffered not to extract or crush stone
on any of the parcels.
--The term "extract" means that the company will not be
"blasting" stone. It will not be dug or hauled away
with hauling units.
--The crushing facilities that currently exist would not
be moved onto those parcels.
--We have agreed to placing a chain link fence.
--We have agreed to no access off parcels 23E or 23D.
--Regarding staff's suggestion that the 25 feet buffer
be increased to 50 feet, Mr. Andrews stated, "We have
committed to 25 feet from the property line to the
toe of our berm that we would leave undisturbed."
Mr. Andrews then called the Commission's attention to
a drawing of a typical berm (shown on the corner of the
plan). He indicated that ultimately, after the berm
was completed and seeded, the buffer from the property
line to the opposite toe of the berm would be 150 feet.
--Regarding Mr. Stark's suggestion that the fence be
extended, Mr. Andrews stated there would be no "construction
or that type of activity" on the parcel Mr. Stark had
Iwo
referred to.
--The proposed berm will be higher than the one which
currently exists on parcel 20.
--Under the NR District, the operation will fall under
the Division of Mined Land Reclamation, the state
agency that oversees land disturbing activities. A
bond is required by this agency for every acre that is
disturbed. Having the county oversee the operation
would be a duplication of effort.
--The activity that will take place on the parcels is
no different from what has been done on adjoining
properties for years.
--It will be a continued policy that the environment and
adjoining neighbors will be utmost in the applicant's
mind.
--It is possible the applicant may wish to stockpile some
of its finished product on parcel 23D or 23E. This
would not be done until after the site is complete and
all the berming is in place. The applicant would
like to have this option.
--The applicant has proffered no entry onto Rt. 729 from
parcels 23D and 23E, which leaves the option of entering
from parcel 20. Mr. Roosevelt (Highway Department) has
previously indicated there would be no problem with
such access, provided a decel lane is installed.
--The applicant contacted most adjoining neighbors and
their suggestions have been addressed in either the
proffers or the site plan.
aJ&
January 21, 1986 Page 17
Mr. Cogan asked if the berm would be built at the start of
the operation or if the applicant would start in the lower
part of the property.
Mr. Andrews indicated that, for environmental reasons, the
operation would begin in the lower part, i.e. to provide
retention of runoff which will act as a settling basin
for the water before it goes into the river. He stated
after that had been accomplished, the operation would start
at the top and begin to "cover over the whole area."
In response to Mr. Midiel's question as to how long it will
take to build "that." Mr. Andrews responded, "About five
years."
Mr. Gould indicated confusion about Mr. Andrews' statement
about access to Rt. 729. He asked if the applicant currently
has access to Rt. 729. Mr. Andrews responded, "I would
assume if we wanted to enter 729, because we presently
don't, we may have to get a permit from the Highway Department."
He further explained that he had approached the Highway
Department about this issue last summer, and they had
indicated there would be no problem provided the applicant
constructed a turn-off lane, decel lane.
Air. Gould asked if his understanding was correct that the
applicant would have no trouble with local supervision under
5.1.28. Mr. Andrews responded, "What I said was that we would
have no additional cost and it would not cause us additional effort;
but it does seem to be a duplication of effort. I do not
think the state will relinquish their authority."
Mr. Michel asked, "If you were to stockpile on the site near
the school, (is it correct) that you would not do so until the
berm is completed?" Mr. Andrews responded, "Yes, I would say
that."
Mr. John Balum, Vice President of Operations for Luck Stone,
addressed the Commission. He stated the following: "The
way we would plan to build the berm would be in thirds,
splitting it down from top to the upper area to the river,
so that we would, for instance, go in and clear trees off
of one-third of the area to be filled. Because it is
going to be done over a period of years, we wouldn't strip
off the trees all in one cut. Then we would proceed to
build that third segment and complete it before we would
take the trees off the next third. It would certainly have
to start in the lower areas and build up, and we would be
sure that along the lower regions that we had strong
compaction and fills and a lot of rock in those areas to keep
the stability there. We'd have to build up, rather than
from the top down. That isn't to say, if we had the opportunity,
according to the lay of the land, we couldn't do some filling
W up above, just as long as we didn't disturb what was going on
down below."
January 21, 1986 Page 18
The Chairman invited public comment.
The following persons addressed the Commission and indicated
their opposition to the proposal: Mr. Gene Delaridus; Mr. Pete
Craddock (representing Stone -Robinson PTO); Ms. Rosemary Sylvester;
Ms. Patricia Smith; Mr. Pedar Little; Mr. William Orr; Ms.
Kathleen Clump; Mr. Bill Brendt; and Mr. Jeff Kerwin. There
concerns and reasons for opposition included the following:
--The dust problem, both with regular operation and while
the berm is being constructed,will cause a health hazard
to students at the school. Ms. Kathleen Clump, a
Respiratory Specialist, explained the danger of chronic
exposure to silica which can lead to silicosis. She
stated the berm would not prevent particles from
reaching the school.
--Increased truck traffic in front of the school.
--Excessive noise level would interfer with students'
classes and learning processes.
--It will be at least five years before the site is completely
planted and the buffering is in place.
--Chain link fence is not adequate protection considering
the size of stone that is dumped from the trucks.
--The school will be left with no room for expansion and
will be forced to develop in a different area.
--Hazardous condition of the "corner coming around Rt. 250,"
and additional truck traffic would greatly increase the
hazard.
--The blasts from the current operation can currently
be felt in homes which are much farther away from the
operation than is the school.
--Would greatly limit the school's area for well drilling
possibilities. (Mr. Little pointed out that the school
has recently had water problems and had some trouble
in locating a satisfactory well.)
--Undesirable visual impact of such an operation.
--This type of activity should not be next door to an
elementary school.
--Mr. Brendt quoted the following from the 1977 Comprehensive
Plan: "A prime factor that is of importance to foreground
impact is the horizon. In a county with as much topography
as Albemarle, the natural horizon becomes very prominent.
Any serious modification of the natural ridge lines
in the county would modify the visual character of an
entire area. In general, man-made objects should not
be perceptible as high as the nearest ridge."
--Indefiniteness of possible accessory uses.
--Devaluation of school property, which is owned by the
taxpayers.
--Negative impact on water quality in the river and
in surrounding wells.
--Negative impact on the historic Rivanna Canal System.
--The school would be surrounded on three sides by quarry
activity. w
January 21, 1986 Page 19
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
h before the Commission.
Regarding access to parcel 20, Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Echols
if adequate sight distance exists. Mr. Echols indicated he
was unsure. He stated, "It's marginal whether or not they
can get it because of the curving alignment on Rt. 729 to
the south."
Mr. Stark asked about the possibility of an entry onto Rt. 250.
Mr. Echols responded, "I think they would have very bad grade
problems trying to tie in to 250."
Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Payne if proffer No. 2 meant that the
applicant could not come from Rt. 729 through parcel 20
and then on to 23D and 23E. Mr. Payne replied, "No, that is
not the way I read it." Mr. Cogan indicated he was
concerned about this possibility.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he had a lot of concern about the
application because of its proximity to the school and the
length of time involved before the area would be stabilized.
He was also concerned about the possible continued use of
the site for storage even after it has been stabilized.
Mr. Bowerman stated, "I just don't think it's appropriate
next to a public educational facility." He stated he was
concerned about the dust, which he felt would be very
difficult to control, and about noise. He stated he did
not feel the expansion of the school was an issue since,
as Mr. Payne explained, that was a proprietary function,
i.e. if the School Board wants to buy it they can do so.
Mr. Bowerman stated he could not support the application.
Mr. Cogan stated Luck Stone has always been very conscientious
about trying to "keep their profile low" and this addition
to their operation, in any other location, would be acceptable;
however, this location was not acceptable because of its
location between the school and the river. He stated he
could not support the application.
Ms. Diehl stated she agreed with Mr. Cogan and moved that
ZMA-85-31 for Luck Stone Corporation be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for denial.
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Mr. Stark stated he was in agreement with the other Commissioners
and could not support the proposal.
The motion for denial passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board of Supervisors on
,, February 5, 1986.
January 21, 1986 Page 20
SP-85-86 Vincent L. Jones - Request in accordance with Section
10.2.2(15) of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to allow
a home for the developmentally disabled on a vacant 2.310
acre parcel, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as
Tax Map 87, parcel 35C1. Entrance to the property is
approximately 1,500 feet east of Rt. 29 via Rt. 712 and Rt.
760. Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. The report stated: "Staff
opinion is that the proposed use does not satisfy the criteria
for issuance of a special use permit and therefore staff
recommends denial."
In response to Ms. Diehl's question about the size of the
septic fields, Mr. Keeler explained that the fields would
be approximately .4 acre each, provided there are no extra-
ordinary problems with the soils, etc.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Vincent Jones addressed the Commission. His comments
included the following:
--The home would have a maximum of 20 residents, "including
resident staff members."
--Those persons to be housed are "developmentally disabled
persons" as described in Section 15.1-486.2 of the
Code of Virginia, reference 5.1.7: "All persons housed
as residents will be certified as meeting this criteria
by appropriate social service and other applicable
authorities."
--He and his wife intend to live in the facility and will
be the staff personnel.
--The facility will be 12 bedrooms, rather than 20 as
stated in the staff report. (10 rooms for residents and
2 for staff)
(Mr. Jones indicated some confusion as to the meaning of the
term "private road." He stated he had purchased the property
with the understanding that the road was "an access for anyone
to use.")
--The road would be paved.
It was determined the length of the road was less than 200 feet.
Mr. Bowerman explained to the applicant that the road was
termed a private road because it was not a state road. He
further explained that a state road is state owned and main-
tained while a private road is owned and maintained by those
people living on the road.
Ms. Diehl stated she thought "Mr. Jones was referring to the
road to the property from the little county road in front
of his house. He is speaking of the driveway. It's a
county road that goes in front of the site."
January 21, 1986 Page 21
Mr. Keeler explained, "There's a pipestem, about 320 feet in
length, and Mr. Jones' property and the adjoining lot have
access over that pipestem. So it does come under our private
road provisions. At the time this plat was approved the
Planning Commission approved it and required compliance with
the private roads provisions. What we mean in terms of upgrading
it to appropriate standards and re -negotiating the maintenance
agreement, is that the maintenance agreement anticipates a
single-family dwelling on each of these lots. We feel that
the traffic from Mr. Jones' lot will be greater than the other
lot and, therefore ought to pay a greater share and the road
ought to be developed to a standard to accommodate that additional
traffic."
Mr. Jones indicated the facility would generate very little
traffic.
The chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Terry McLauglin, adjoining property owner, addressed the
Commission. She presented a petition of opposition signed by
29 persons, the majority of whom live within sight. of the
proposed facility. Ms. McLauglin stated she was opposed to
the proposal because it would not fit in with the surrounding
neighborhood. She also presented a copy of the road
maintenance agreement that is attached to the property.
,%WW Mr. Tom Wyant, architect for the applicant, addressed the
Commission. He spoke in favor of the proposal and stated
the applicant knows where his residents will come from and
he is also aware of the requirements he must meet. He also stated
the applicant was prepared to investigate the possibility of a package
treatment plant for waste disposal if that should become
necessary.
The following persons spoke in favor of the application: Ms.
Caroline Reeves; Mr. Curtis Bias, an adjoining property owner;
Mr. Leroy Jones; and Ms. Julia Jones.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Ms. Diehl stated she was very familiar with the site and there
is a need for this type of facility. She commended the Joneses
for their interest and concern. However, Ms. Diehl stated she
felt the site was not appropriate for the project and the
project was not appropriate for the area. She felt it was
too large a development for rural residential zoning. She
stated she could support a smaller project as suggested by
staff, i.e. a "family" designated facility which would allow
6 residents, including the Joneses.
on
January 21, 1986 Page 22
In response to Mr. Michel's inquiry, Mr. Jones stated his
intention when purchasing the land was to build a single-family
dwelling. He also indicated there was the possibility of
his being able to acquire additional land to add to the
property.
Mr. Jones indicated he would like to be able to understand,
if the request was to be denied, the exact reason for denial,
and he asked for guidance from the Commission as to what he
should do to make the application approvable. (Mr. Jones
repeated this several times during the course of the meeting
and seemed to lack complete understanding of the process.)
Mr. Michel asked Mr. Payne if approval of such a request would
be precedent setting.
Mr. Payne replied, "Certainly, for group homes and for the
developmentally disabled. I think the point of it is, and
what staff was telling you, is the idea of any residential
use, whether its for developmentally disabled or otherwise,
is to be substantially similar. I think the purpose of the
statute that Mr. Jones cited was to keep localities from
discriminating against people with developmental disabilities.
It was not intended, in my opinion, to eliminate a distinction
between different kinds of land uses. In essence, this is
in the nature of a boarding house for a certain type of person,
and the fact that that person is of a certain type, doesn't
mean that it's not in the nature of a boarding house. It is
more similar to a boarding house than it is to a single
family dwelling. I think Mrs. Diehl's comment, if it were
restricted in terms of the numbers, to a number comparable to
a single family dwelling, then it would be more nearly
consistent with the other uses in the district."
In response to Mr. Cogan's question, Ms. Diehl explained her
comment that this was not the right area for the facility had
referred to the fact that it did not fit in with surrounding
single-family residences and did not refer to the rural or
remote aspects of the area.
Both Mr. Cogan and Ms. Diehl indicated they could perhaps
view the request in a different light if it were on a larger
tract of land.
Mr. Stark expressed interest in the applicant's plans for
staffing the facility and questioned whether a staff of
2 could maintain such a facility. Mr. Jones indicated that
he and his wife would operate the facility; he did not
suggest that any other staff would be hired.
Mr. Michel asked if the state has requirements for ratios
of care givers/patients. Mr. Jones indicated it was his
understanding from social services that his proposal was
acceptable. *400
January 21, 1986 Page 23
Mr. Jones again asked for "the exact criteria" he should follow
to make the proposal approvable.
Mr. Payne stated that while he sympathized with Mr. Jones request,
it was not appropriate for the Commission to do that. He
stated, "In the first place, the Commission doesn't have the
last say, the Board of Supervisors does. The second thing is
clearly the decision that would be made as to the appropriatness
of a particular use as it relates to the nature of that use and its
juxtaposition with the particular site. Mr. Keeler would, of
course, give Mr. Jones as much opinion as he can give him and
Mr. Jones should be guided by your comments tonight, but I
don't think that you can give him the kind of specific guidance
that he wants."
The Chairman explained to the applicant: "It seems that the
nature of what you want to do is very commendable. The
locati is not consistent with the use that is already there.
That's ilemma we're faced with along with some other issues
such as water and septic systems." Mr. Bowerman stated the
staff's comments would remain the same even if the proposal
was for 10 people. He continued, "It's either 6 as a group
home, or all the other criteria in the staff report, as
reasons for denial, hold, for any greater number."
Mr. Keeler explained that the "10" suggested by staff had
been based on water consumption. He confirmed that none of
staff's other comments would change, except in the case
where the building design chances to the point where it was
a single-family dwelling.
Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Jones if he would be interested in having
the permit approved for 6 people. Mr. Jones replied, "Not
at this time." He did indicate, however, that he would not
rule out that possibility at a future time.
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler which zones permitted this type
of use. Mr. Keeler responded that a home for developmentally
disabled is permitted in all residential districts.
Mr. Bowerman understood this to mean R-1 and above, but Mr.
Payne pointed out that such homes are permitted in "all"
districts, including the RA and VR. Mr. Payne explained,
"The concept of this, when this statute was adopted, the
County made a conscious decision to allow this use in all
districts. The statute only requires that it be permitted
in at least one district, but Albemarle County made the
decision to allow it in all residential districts."
Mr. Keeler added, "It's permitted in different fashion in
districts; in many districts it's by right, it's by
special use permit in the RA."
Ms. Diehl stated the options were either to approve it,
deny it, approve it as a six -person establishment, or
defer it. She felt Mr. Jones had indicated he would be
in favor of deferral. However, Mr. Jones indicated he
was not in favor of deferral.
January 21, 1986
Page 24
Mr. Jones again indicated he
Commission could not give him
repeatedly asked why he could
proposal would not work.
did not understand why the
more specific guidance. He
not be "shown" why the
Mr. Payne stated, "Mr. Chairman, that is just not a proper
issue for you to be discussing. The nature of a use permitted
by a special use permit is that it is not compatible with the
uses in the district unless it's shown to be compatible. I
think it is a big mistake for you ever to answer the kind
of specific questions that Mr. Jones is asking, not just
in this case, but in any case except where you are required
by statute to do so."
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the concerns of the County and
staff were explained in the staff report. In addition, Ms.
Diehl has stated her concerns which parallel and add to
the staff's concerns. He explained that Ms. Diehl had also
suggested the possibility of granting the request for
a total of 6 residents, which the Commission would be inclined
to approve. He stated that 10 or 20 residents was not acceptable.
Mr. Jones again expressed a lack of understanding of the
staff report.
Ms. Diehl suggested that a motion be made approving the
permit for 6 residents. She explained to the applicant
that his request would remain the same before the Board of
Supervisors (for 20 people), but the Commission's
recommendation to the Board will be for 6 people. She
explained that would give the applicant some time, before
the Board hearing, to address some of the issues raised.
She explained that by approaching the matter in this way
the applicant would not be going before the Board with
a recommendation for denial.
Ms. Diehl moved that SP-85-86 for Vincent L. Jones be
recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject
to the following conditions:
1. Occupancy limited to six (6) persons, including the
applicant, his family and all resident developmentally
disabled persons.
2. Permit is issued to the applicant and is non-
transferrable.
3. Planning Commission approval of site plan and reapproval
of subdivision plat.
4. Fire and Building Official approvals and approval of all
appropriate state and local agencies.
Mr. Stark seconded the motion.
January 21, 1986
Page 25
The Chairman allowed Mr. Wyant to comment before calling
for a vote.
Mr. Wyant indicated there was a good chance the applicant
would be able to acquire additional land since that seemed
to be a main concern. He asked if would be possible for
Mr. Jones to amend his proposal to reflect this possibility.
Mr. Bowerman explained that such an amendment was not possible
"tonight," because that would entail a different application.
He also explained that such a change would also require
re -advertisement of the application and could not go on to
the Board as scheduled.
Mr. Cogan suggested that Mr. Wyant might be able to work with
Mr. Jones and enlighten him as to the concerns of the Commission.
The previously -stated motion for approval passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on February 5, 1986.
ZMA-85-32 James D. & Alice H. Shisler - Request to rezone
0.635 acres from R-6, Residential to C-1 Commercial. Existing
use as apartments and dance school. Property, described as
Tax Map 45, parcel 149, is located on the northeast side of
Rt. 631 (Rio Road) approximately 1,000 feet west of Rt. 29N.
Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Keeler gave the staff report. He added that the applicant
has proffered the following:
1. To close permanently the entrance from the property
onto Rio Road.
2. To move mail boxes from Rio Road that are controlled
by the applicant.
In response to Mr. Bowerman's question about use of the road,
Mr. Keeler indicated he could foresee no problems with the
road that would be caused by the change in zoning. He added
that the use of the building would be limited by the
availability of existing parking and if uses are contemplated
that will occasion the need for more parking then a site
plan review will be required. Mr. Payne added that when
he reviewed private road documents he was much more liberal
about commercial activities than residential ones.
The applicant invited applicant comment.
Mr. Shisler addressed the Commission. He explained that
the surrounding commercial development has made apartment use no
longer practical. He stated he was in agreement with staff's
comments.
January 21, 1986
Page 26
The being no public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Stark moved that ZMA-85-32 for James D. and Alice H.
Shisler be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the proffers of the applicant.
Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on February 5, 1986.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
11:45 p.m.
John Horne, Secretary
DS