Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 02 90 PC MinutesOCTOBER 2, 1990 The Albemarle County Planning Commission neid a public hearing on Tuesday, October 2, 1990, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Phil Grimm; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms. Yolanda Lipinski, Planner; Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Johnson. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. Ms. Scala very briefly previewed the October 9th Consent Agenda which included the following items: High Mowing Agricultural/Forestal District Addition to Keswick Agricultural/Forestal District PUBLIC HEARING Addition to Carter's Bridge Arricultural[Forestal District - Consists of 27 parcels totalling 3,692.364 acres located in three areas of Rt. 20 South. The proposed time period is the same as for the original district, or 10 years from April 20, 1988. The existing Carter's Bridge District contains 7,969.72 acres. With this addition, Carter's Bridge District will be the second largest district in the County. Ms. Scala presented the staff report. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission_ Ms. Huckle moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that the Addition to the Carter's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District be approved. The motion passed unanimously. SP-90-76 Thomas H. Pritchett. Estate (owner). Walter Lee Pritchett (applicant) - Request in accordance with Section 5.6 of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow for a single wide mobile home to be located on property zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 33, Parcel 35 (part of), is located approximately one-fourth of a mile on a private easement off the west side of Rt. 600, approximately .7 mile south of the intersection of Rt. 747 and Rt. 600. This site is not located within a designated growth area. October 2, 1990 Page 2 Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. The applicant was present but offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-76-for Walter Lee Pritchett be recommended to the Board of -Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Albemarle County building official approval; 2. Conformance to all area, bulk and other applicable requirements for district in which it is located; 3. Skirting around mobile home from ground level to base of the mobile home to be completed within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; 4. Provision of potable water supply and sewerage facilities to the satisfaction of the zoning administrator and approval by the local office of the Virginia Department of Health, if applicable under current regulations; 5. Maintenance of existing vegetation, landscaping and/or screening to be provided to the satisfaction of the zoning administrator. Required screening shall be maintained in good condition and replaced if it should die; 6. Mobile home is for occupancy of Walter Lee Pritchett and his family only. Mr. Grimm seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Jenkins asked staff to comment on the road maintenance issue which had been brought up by a neighboring property owner. Ms. Lipinksi explained that"unless the private road has already been approved, family divisions are exempt from road upgrading and there is very little that staff can do." The previously stated motion for approval passed unanimously. SP-90-81 LighthoUge, Baptist Church - The applicant is requesting a special use permit for a 150 seat church [10.2.2(35)] on 5 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 32, parcel 23H is located on the west side of Rt. 785 approximately seven -tenths of a mile north of Rt. 649 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. The site is not located within a designated growth area. 02 October 2, 1990 Page 3 Prior to the presentation of the staff report Mr. Cilimberg advised the Commission that there had been a flaw in the notification for this item, i.e. the date had been stated as Tuesday, October 3rd, rather than October 2nd. He stated the applicant could choose to proceed, but should be aware of a potential legal problem. Though staff advised that the item be deferred, after a brief discussion, it was determined that only two adjacent property owners were involved and both had been made aware of the mistake prior to the meeting. Based on this information, it was Mr. Bowling's opinion that there was no legal problem and the hearing could proceed. Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Ms. Lipinski distributed a copy of a petition of objection containing 48 signatures_ Mr Wilkerson asked staff to comment on VDOT's comments regarding Rt. 785, i.e. "Rt. 785 was upgraded based on the current zoning of the properties and changes of this nature could make Rt. 785 become non -tolerable." Ms. Lipinski responded that VDOT had not recommended that the road be upgraded. Mr. Cilimberg added that VDOT's comments had been based on 10 vehicle trips per day for a single family dwelling unit, as opposed to 75 vehicle trips for Sunday - only traffic for the church. He stated further that it is staff's position that 75 trips on only one day is not a significant increase from 10 trips per day for a residential dwelling. Mr. Wilkerson pointed out that the church would also generate traffic on Sunday evenings and Wednesday evenings. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Mike Henderson, Pastor of the church. He stated that an ultimate membership of 100 is anticipated. He explained that Sunday night attendance is usually only half of what it is on Sunday morning and Wednesday attendance is usually even less than that. He stressed that this is a small church and did not think traffic would be a problem. The Chairman invited public comment_ Mr. Dave Hines, a resident of Rt. 785, addressed the Commission and expressed his opposition to the proposal. He expressed concerns about increased traffic and also drainage from the proposed church property causing flooding and damage to his property and pollution of his creek. There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. October 2, 1990 Page 4 There was a brief discussion about the slope or the property and the drainage concerns expressed by Mr. Hines. Mr. Hines again explained that he was afraid additional impervious area on the Pritchett property would exacerbate existing drainage problems on his property. Mr. Wilkerson wondered if grading could possibly correct the problems described by Mr. Hines, Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that the property would be subject to site plan review which will include an analysis for stormwater runoff issues. Mr. Cilimberg added that the property would be subject to soil and erosion control measures. Mr. Rittenhouse concluded that Mr. Hines' concerns may be alleviated because of the site review process, more so than with a by -right development. Ms. Huckle expessed concern about the proposal and the fact that this is a dead-end road. She felt it might be to the church's advantage to be in an area which is more accessible. Mr. Wilkerson stated his questions about the road had been answered.' Regarding the runoff issue, he agreed with Mr. Rittenhouse that site review would probably make this preferable to a by -right development. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-81 for Lighthouse Baptist Church be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following -conditions: 1. Administrative approval of site plan; 2. Any future or expanded uses including day care shall require an additional special use permit; 3. Seating capacity to be determined by adequacy of septic system area not to exceed.a maximum fixed seating of 150 people; 4. Clearing of trees shall be for construction purposes only and all remaining trees of 3 1/2" caliper shall be maintained, especially along Route 785. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. Discussion: Mr. Rittenhouse stated he would support the motion. He felt that a church was less likely to create traffic at peak times and that site plan review was better likely to alleviate any existing or future runoff problems. The motion for approval passed (5:2) with Ms. Huckle casting the dissenting vote. Mr. Keeler noted that staff was requesting administrative approval of the final plat. He stated he would place a note in the file that the County Engineer would meet with the applicant and the property owners regarding runoff concerns. October 2, 1990 Page 5 Mr. Wilkerson stated he had no objection and if Mr. Hines' concerns were not satisfied, he could request that the site plan be reviewed by the Commission. SP-90-7_7 M ar_the Robin Catholic_ School Corporation (applicant). County of Albemarle School Board (owner) - The applicant is requesting a special use permit in order to operate the existing Greenwood School as a private school with 180 to 200 students [10.2.2.5] on 6.2 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Possible expansion of the building and maximum enrollment of 400 students is proposed as Phase Two. Property, described as Tax Map 54, Parcel 54, is located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of Route 691 and 690 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. In response to Commission questions regarding the closing of the entrance on Rt. 691, Mr. Fritz explained that staff is reluctant to require the closing of the entrance at this time because the County did use the entrance when this building was a County school. He added that the entrance has restricted sight distance, though it is anticipated that it will have limited use. The applicant was represented by Mr. Kurt Wassenar, architect for the project. He corrected a mistake on the schematic, i.e. the small "yellow" structure is not a part of the school property. He explained that this will be a private school, independent from church affiliation. He stressed that the building will be rennovated to meet current codes and standards. Because of plans for possible future expansion of the program, he asked that the Commission grant approval of both phases I and II. He explained that it is anticipated that the existing septic system will need to be replaced. He explained that the existing loop road is a state road and the applicant intends to abandon that road. He explained that at such time as a second phase is contemplated the entrance on 891 will either be upgraded to VDOT recommendations, OR another entrance will be constructed from the existing side of the building along the edge of the property. However, Mr. Wassenar noted that condition 3 would not limit the viability of the project. He pointed out that the approval of this proposal will provide alternative education choices for County residents as well as allow the County to sell a building which has been vacant for some time while at the same time possibly reducing the pressures for additional County schools. In the interests of guiding plans for the future of the school, he asked that the Commission approve the permit for both Phase I and Phase II. October 2, 1990 Page 6 There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission_ Mr. Jenkins asked staff to comment on the applicant's request for the approval of both phases. Mr. Fritz explained that staff had been provided no information regarding expansion to 400 students. He stated staff was not certain if the soils could accommodate a septic field for 400 students. Mr. Rittenhouse also noted that VDOT's analysis had been based on 200 students. Mr. Rittenhouse expressed real concern about the entrance on Rt. 691. He explained that he felt this was more of a concern with this use than it had been as a County facility because this school will not be using buses and therefore there will be a great deal more automobile traffic. He stated he was reluctant to support leaving this entrance open because it is considerably deficient in sight distance. He did not think the County's use of the entrance should imply that a precedent had been set. It was noted that the applicant planned to improve the entrance with the second phase of development. Mr. Wilkerson indicated he was in agreement with Mr. Rittenhouse. He added that sight distance may not have been as impaired with a school bus because it is much higher than an automobile. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he could approve the request with some amendment to Condition No. 3 . Mr. Wilkerson suggested that Condition No. 3 be changed to read: "Existing entrance on Rt. 691 shall be closed until sight distance is improved according to VDOT recommendations." Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-90-77 for Marthe Robin Catholic School Corporation (applicant), County of Albemarle School Board (owner), be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval of Phase I subject to the following conditions: 1. Use shall be limited to Phase I (200 students); 2. Use shall not commence without approvals from the appropriate state, local and federal agencies; 3. Existing entrance on Route 691 shall be closed until sight distance is improved according to VDOT recommendations; 4. Staff approval of site plan for improvements to Phase I. Site plan shall be in general compliance with plans dated 9/14/90. Mr. Grimm seconded the motion which passed unanimously. S October 2, 1990 Page 7 . -HU-UZ Free Union -Country School - The applicant is proposing to amend SP-88-33 in order to increase enrollment from 48 to 55 students in a private school [10.2.2(5)] on 2.0 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. No additional buildings are proposed. Property, described as Tax Map 29, parcel 15D is located on the west side of Route 601 approximately 700 feet southeast of the intersection of Rt. 601 and Route 665 in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to approval of the same conditions of SP- 88-33 with amendment to conditions 3 and 5 (NOT 4 and 6 as stated in the staff report). The applicant was represented by Mr. Tie McIntosh. He explained that the increased enrollment would allow for improvements to the school through an increased budget. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Ms. Huckle's question regarding adequate square footage, Mr. Fritz stated that the facility had passed the Inspections Department's inspection. Mr. Keeler added that those concerns would be addressed under Condition No. 4 related to state licensing requirements. Mr. Wilkerson moved that SP-90-82 for Free Union Country School be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. If licensure is not required by the State Welfare Department, this approval shall be construed to include waiver of Section 5.1.6(a) of the Zoning Ordinance. All other requirements of Section 5.1.6 shall be met; 2. Permit is issued to Free Union Country School, Incorporated and is non-transferrable; 3. Enrollment shall be limited in accordance with recommendation of the Site Review Committee, provided that enrollment shall, in no case, exceed fifty-five (55) students; 4. Compliance with the Virginia Department of Welfare's Minimum Standards for Licensed Child Care Centers; 5. Staff approval of site plan amendment adding a minimum of two parking spaces. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The meeting recessed from 8:45 to 8:55. October 2, 1990 Page 8 - The applicant is proposing to rezone 6.532 acres from CO, Commercial Office to R-15, Residential [PROFFERED]. Property, described as Tax Map 78, parcel 12A, is located on the north side of U.S. Route 250 approximately 0.26 miles west of State Farm Boulevard in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located within a designated growth area. Staff recommended approval subject to acceptance of all the applicant's proffers except for Proffer No. 2 (No currently existing structures will remain on the property). Mr. Fritz explained that this was intended as information only and should not have been included as a proffer. (Note: Mr. Fritz noted the addition of the following language to proffer No. 5: "...Occupancy, in the event tb-a-t the CTP projopts for whiph this cash proffer are intended as referenced in staff's regort are not undertaken, the abgye proffer will ]2e used -for other projects in the ., ) Mr. Fritz called the Commission's attention to letters received by staff related to this proposal's compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. He stated: "It's our opinion that this site represents the westernmost boundary of the area designated as high -density residential. Regarding the issue of traffic generation, he stated that staff believes that R-15 zoning will result in fewer vehicle trips than would CO designation. Mr. Fritz answered Mr. Rittenhouse's questions about the access to lots 12 and 12B. In response to Mr. Wilkerson's question about possible grading, Mr. Fritz explained that the applicant has not provided detailed construction plans but that issue would be reviewed at the time of final site plan. The applicant was represented by Mr. John Johnson. He explained that as site plans are finalized grading will be minimized. He felt grading could be limited to less than 15 feet across the site. He explained the plans for the development, i.e. 96 apartments with 36 one -bedroom units and 60 two -bedroom units targeted at "young retirees and young professionals." Rents are anticipated to range from $550 to $675. He explained the appearance of the buildings and presented pictures of the site from various areas including Ashcroft and Monticello. The applicant had calculated the cost to the County to be $52,400. (The County had calculated $52,478.) He stated the applicant's cash proffer is based on this figure. He explained that the applicant disagreed with the County's projected school -age children, i.e. the County had estimated 17 children and the applicant estimates 13 to 15. He stated there would be minimal impact to schools because all schools impacted are currently under capacity. October 2, 1990 Page 9 The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Ellen Orsantic, representing the League of Women Voters, read a statement (Attachment A) which expressed concern about building on slopes of 25% or greater. Mr. Andrew Drucopoli, representing Mr. Eugene Worrell, expressed the following concerns: (1) That existing mature trees be preserved; (2) The scale of the project as viewed from Rt. 250 East; and (3) The color vinyl which will be used on the buildings. Ms. Sherry Buttrick, representing the Piedmont Environmental Council, addressed the Commission. She noted that this is "one of the first cases where by accepting a cash proffer the zoning will be vested as a result of House Bill 721 passed this year." She suggested that it would be a good idea, in cases such as this, to add a "sunset clause" which would protect the County in the event this zoning is not used by the present applicant at some future time. In relation to the Entrance Corridor Ordinance (recently adopted), she stated it was her understanding that the Architectural Review Board would review these plans. She cautioned that if the Board were to approve these plans prior to ARB review, then the plans would possibly be vested. She felt the ARB should make the determinations as to site design and that the Board should be careful not to unintentionally vest the design. She also asked that it be made very clear that proffer No. 2 was not to be accepted as a proffer. There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowling commented on the question of vested zoning. He stated this is a new Code section and it is difficult to say at this time how it will effect the latitude which governmental bodies have. He added that the "sunset provision" mentioned by Ms. Buttrick may be a good idea because "it would enable the Board and Commission to change the zoning if such were appropriate at some future time if the development didn't occur." Mr. Cilimberg asked how this would work, i.e. "does it have to be accepted under the proffers for a rezoning or can the County impose a certain time link for the zoning approval?" It was determined the legal aspects of this issue would have to be researched more fully. Mr. Cilimberg noted that historically, rezonings have kept their designation even when surrounding properties have been downzoned. Mr. Keeler added that when the present Zoning Ordinance was adopted all proffered rezonings and all planned developments (which had been approved prior to that date) were carried over with proffers in place. Mr. Cilimberg stated sunset clauses would be a new issue for the Board to consider. 9 October 2, 1990 Page to Mr. Bowling stated that there may not be a vesting problem with this proffer, "depending on how you read the. Code of Virginia... it appears to relate to proffers that involve cash payments for construction of substantial public improvements, the need for which is not generated solely by the rezoning itself." Mr. Rittenhouse stated: "These have all been related directly to (this development's) impact." Ms. Buttrick pointed out that "House Bill 721 has changed the situation so that the Board of Supervisors continues to have the option to come back and do a downzoning it it so desires, whereas in this case --the way the legislation reads --the County, if it doesn't go ahead and put a sunset clause in, which wouldn't be a detriment to the applicant, the County would lose the ability in the future to come back and do what Ron was saying, if it felt it was best to do a downzoning. So the sunset clause would provide a protection to the County a couple of years down the road." Mr. Bowling again indicated he did not feel there was a potential vesting problem in this instance. He explained: "The proffers .relate directly to the Capital Improvement Program for which the funds are going to be spent." Mr. Johnson stated his advisors had explained that "if we offered an impact fee to provide services not directly related to this complex, then we would face the vestment problems, but if we limited our impact fee to costs directly associated with this development, it was their opinion that it would not." Mr. Rittenhouse asked that staff address this question before the Board hearing. The applicant stated he would not be adverse to a sunset provision provided it was for a reasonable period. Referring to the proffers related to design, Mr. Cilimberg explained it was staff's intent that through these proffers the developer was agreeing to abide by the Entrance Corridor Overlay District and if staff or the ARB determined changes were necessary to the plan, then such changes would be made during the development process- (Mr. Keeler felt this was not completely accurate. He noted that the Board had yet to act on the EC District and the ARB and staff has always been very reluctant to forestall an applicant based on something that "might, maybe, sort of, could" happen in the future.") Mr. Fritz pointed out that the applicant had revised the plan based on some of the requirements which are proposed for the EC District. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was prepared to support the request for the following reasons: (1) Traffic generation will be less than for commercial development; (2) Compliance /D October 2, 1990 Page 11 with the Comprehensive Plan; (3) High density is a better buffer than regional service commercial zoning; and (4) The applicant has shown an awareness of the Monticello and Ashcroft viewsheds. Ms. Huckle stated she had concerns about the proposal. She felt approval at this time would be premature because the site plan and the extent of grading required on critical slopes are not yet available for review. She noted that the light colored buildings would be considerably more visible after leaves have fallen. She stated she could not support the proposal primarily because of the critical slopes issue. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that approval of this rezoning did not guarantee development and does not contemplate that the Commission has given any indication to the developer that he can develop on critical slopes. He noted these were issues which would be addressed at site plan review. Mr. Wilkerson agreed with Ms. Huckle's concerns about visual impact and grading. He also expressed concern about traffic generation. In response to Mr. Grimm's and Mr. Rittenhouse's questions, staff answered questions about the future plans for improvements to Rt. 250 and also about what types of uses would be allowed with CO zoning. Mr. Grimm concluded he had no problems with the rezoning. He noted that he felt it could be developed in such a way as to be an attractive entrance to the City. Mr. Grimm moved that ZMA-90-12 for Beacon Realty Corporation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to acceptance of applicant's proffers 1, 3, 4, 5 (with addition read by staff) and 6. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. Discussion: Ms. Huckle indicated she felt the applicant could propose a more attractive plan. Mr. Jenkins expressed an understanding of Ms. Huckle's concerns and noted that this was a "landmark piece of land" and there is no assurance that the BC District will be passed. It was confirmed that the motion was for approval with the deletion of proffer 2 and with proffer 5 as read earlier in the meeting by Mr. Fritz (and stated previously in this record), October 2. 1990 Page 12 Ms. Huckle noted that by not granting approval at this stage the applicant might be more inclined to offer a more attractive plan. Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that if this were to be developed under CO zoning the Commission would not have this opportunity to discuss the appearance and design of the development. He also pointed out that the developer could not develop on critical slopes unless the Commission chose to grant a waiver. Mr. Jenkins stated he felt that residential usage was better than commercial, but he was still concerned about placing three-story buildings on high ground_ Mr. Jenkins called for the question. The motion for the question to be'ealled-passed unanimously. The motion for approval failed to pass (3:3) with Commissioners Grimm, Andersen and Rittenhouse voting in favor and Commissioners Jenkins, Huckle and Wilkerson voting against. Mr. Wilkerson moved that ZMA-90-12 for Beacon Realty Corporation be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. The motion failed to pass (3:3) with Commissioners Jenkins, Huckle and Wilkerson voting for denial and Commissioners Grimm, Andersen and Rittenhouse voting against. Because the Commission was unable to reach a majority decision, the proposal was passed on to the Board with no recommendation. - The applicant is requesting a special use permit for a 30 child day care center [10.2.2(7)] on 11.196 acres zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 56, parcel 67 is located on the north side of Rt. 240 opposite ACME Visible Records in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is not located within a designated growth area. Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The applicant, Mr. Jim Willis addressed the Commission. He felt this property was well -suited for the proposed use. He explained that the structure would resemble closely a single-family home. /_2 October 2, 1990 Page 13 The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Barbara Schulman, an adjacent property owner addressed the Commission. She felt the description of the proposed parcel and building site were "grossly misrepresented." She objected strongly to the proposal as she felt it would destroy her f amily's life style. She noted that her husband's veterinary practice was not in site of any residence along Parkview Drive in either summer or winter. She explained that the proposed structure would be in full view of every angle of her home. She questioned how consideration could be given to locating a business 700 feet back from the State road when all other businesses in the area are located "along the State route." Dr. Schulman addressed the Commission. He noted that the staff report had failed to mention the proximity of his family's home. He, too, strongly objected to the proposal - He noted the following differences in his veterinary business and the proposal under consideration: (1) His business was located on property originally zoned LI, but the property was later downzoned to RA; (2) His business generates only 30% as many vehicle trips per day as the proposed usage will generate (150 vtpd as estimated by VDOT); (3) His business' "common road usage is only 75 feet along Parkview Drive and the applicant's proposal is for 700 feet of shared access;" and (4) His business has approximately 4 vehicles at a time using the common drive, while the proposed usage could have as many as 30 vehicles using the private drive at one time. He read a letter of objection on behalf of the other 8 homeowners along Parkview Drive. The letter stressed that the shared road was a Private road which was not maintained by either the County or the State. Dr. Schulman stressed the dangerous situation which would be created by the additional traffic on this Private road and also pointed out the conflicts with farm vehicles. There being no further comment the matter was placed before the Commission. There was a brief discussion about the access onto Parkview Drive. Mr. Keeler concluded that "in terms of the site itself, the school and the access is in the best location." Ms. Huckle expressed concern about the precedent of placing a non-agricultural use in an agricultural area. She also recalled discussions on other proposals which do not drain into Lickinghole Creek and she feared a precedent in this respect also. Mr. Grimm indicated he was in agreement with Ms. Huckle and he also expressed concern about this type of use in an area that was intended for single-family residences. /�3 October 2, 1990 Page 14 Mr. Jenkins did not question that the building was positioned in the right location on the site, but he pointed out that the road in question is a narrow farm lane and, because of the anticipated traffic, children would have to be well protected. He stated the proposal would be more acceptable with a building site closer to Rt. 240 and with an entrance opposite the veterinary entrance. He stated he had reservations about the proposal. Mr. Wilkerson indicated he was sympathetic to the neighboring homeowners. Mr. Rittenhouse stated he perceived a major objection was the increase in traffic on a private road which functions very casually. Mr. Jenkins moved that SP-90-79 for James H. & Sue Willis be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for denial. Ms. Huckle seconded the motion. Discussion: - Mr. Rittenhouse stated the issue of most concern to him was not related to the private road or the traffic, but rather was a concern about establishing a structure in the rural areas for the particular purpose of day care. The previously stated motion for denial passed (5:1) with Ms. Andersen casting the dissenting vote. and Willow Lake Final Phase - The Commission unanimously granted staff administrative approval of both these items. The Chairman reminded the Commission of an upcoming meeting with the Board of Supervisors scheduled for October 10 at 3:00. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. i . Way Cilimbe ecretary DS 1�'L