Laserfiche WebLink
242 <br /> <br />residential unit with 30 parking spaces. Mr. Huja noted that <br />the original plan which was approved by Council, was to have <br />commercial space in the lower level. <br /> <br /> Mr. Huja stated that the Planning Commission recommended <br />approval of the special permit for the following reasons: <br />1) It would not have a significant adverse impact on the <br />surrounding neighborhood and area if conditions are met; 2) <br />The proposal is compatible with surrounding buildings and <br />uses; 3) The proposal allows for additional affordable <br />residential development in the Fifeville area which is <br />consistent with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan and the <br />Housing Strategy for Charlottesville as well as the Fifeville <br />Three Year Action Plan~ and 4) The present B-2 zoning allows <br />uses which could have a greater impact on adjacent R-2 areas <br />which makes the 200 separation requirement less appropriate. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question by Mr. Toscano, Mr. Huja stated <br />that a unit housing approximately 225 persons could be built <br />by right.on the property if parking requirements could be <br />met. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters noted that because of the steep grade parking <br />for 225 persons would be impossible on the site. <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards questioned whether the neighborhood <br />aSsociation was aware of what could be built on the property <br />by right and Mr. Huja stated that they were aware of this. <br /> <br /> The Vice President of the Fifeville Neighborhood <br />Association stated that he did not believe another by right <br />building would be built on the site because of financial <br />constraints. <br /> <br /> Rev. Edwards stated that he felt Mr. Keith Woodard, <br />developer of the property should be commended for bringing <br />forth a housing project of this nature and questioned whether <br />the developer and neighborhood would be open for further <br />discussion on the matter. <br /> <br /> Mr. Woodard stated that he Would like a resolution of <br />the issue as soon as possible, noting that he had requested <br />input from the neighborhood at an earlier date and they did <br />not respond to his request~ Mr. Woodard also indicated that <br />he was under time constraints to proceed with the project. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters expressed concern with the process that had <br />been followed, with Council indicating support of the funding <br />application because of time constraints on Mr. Woodard, <br />without the project first going through the special permit <br />process. Ms. Waters recommended that such projects in the <br />future go through the necessary zoning procedure prior to <br />Council endorsing them. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter stated that she felt the project was good <br />but that problems, while resolvable, remain, though they <br />probably could not be resolved in time to receiving funding <br />in the current budget cycle. <br /> <br /> Ms. Waters stated that she felt the project would have <br />an adverse impact on the site, that the topography presented <br />problems, that the original proposal for commercial space <br />along Cherry Avenue was probably more compatible in the long <br />run, and she felt problems existed with the steep green <br />space. MS. Waters suggested that the home ownership aspect <br />of the project be tried on a smaller project to gain <br />experience. Ms. Waters stated that she would be willing to <br />work on a compatible project on the site but could not <br />support the current proposal. Ms. Waters made a motion to <br />deny the special permit. <br /> <br /> Ms. Slaughter seconded the motion to deny, noting that <br />she did so regretfully as she would like to see something on <br /> <br /> <br />