Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 12 85 PC MinutesMarch 12, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on Tuesday, March 12, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Build- ing, 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. James Skove. Other officials present were: Ms. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Ms. Amelia McCulley, Planner; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Marcia Joseph, Planner; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. Mr. Bowerman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the February 19 and February 26, 1985 meetings were approved as written. Willow Lake Townhouse Site Plan - Proposal to locate 64 townhouse units in 16 buildings, served by 128 parking spaces. Property is located adjacent to Piedmont Virginia Community College, off proposed state road Maple View, off proposed Willow Lake Drive. Zoned R-4, Residential. Tax Map 77E(1) part of parcel 1. Scottsville Magisterial District. Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. Mr. Cogan expressed interest in the location of the areas with slopes in excess of 25%. In response to Ms. Diehl's inquiry, Ms. McCulley stated the High- way Department has indicated the roads will meet state approval. Ms. Diehl asked Ms. McCulley to point out areas where buffering is of concern. Ms. McCulley pointed these areas out on the map. She added that a great deal of mature trees are existing. Mr. Gould also indicated concern regarding building on 25% slopes and was interested in knowing how much of the site is involved. Ms. McCulley confirmed that Brookhill Drive has adequate room at the end to create a cul-de-sac, if accepted into the state system. Mr. Keeler pointed out the areas of 25% slopes on the original plan. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Fred Hermanson, president of Willow Lake Developers, addressed the Commission. He stated that the County Engineer had included -749 March 12, 1985 Page 2 those lots that have 25% slopes in the approval. He stated the only change in the current plan from the original is that some numbers have been added which relate to views from various parts of the property. He stated that the concerns that were expressed at the time of the original review have been met. He pointed out the changes that have been made since the original approval: Request for a reduction in required pavement width has been withdrawn; Pedestrian traffic will be kept out of the State right-of-way; Parking areas have been connected with the middle range of townhouses; Recreation area has been changed slightly to allow more parking area on the upper level. He pointed out what he believed to be two errors in the staff report: (1) The Willow Lake Developers have agreed to either pave Brookhill Avenue from Rt. 20 to its present termination OR to contribute $5,000 to upgrading it to state standards, not both as indicated in the staff report; and (2) Regarding staff's conditions 2(c)-- If Brookhill Avenue is not accepted into the state system, a maintenance agreement must be approved by the County Attorney -- he stated Willow Lake Developers have agreed to cooperate with residents of Lakeside, by contract, but if Lakeside chooses not to enter into a private road agreement, the Willow Lake Developers should not be penalized. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Daniel Lowe, a resident of Lakeside, addressed the Commission. He indicated he had been unable to hear what Mr. Hermanson had said regarding the contractual agreement. Mr. Hermanson repeated his earlier comments. Mr. Joseph Garland, a Lakeside resident, addressed the Commission. He stated he felt that earlier problems have been worked out with the Willow Lake Developers. He stated he was still concerned about potential increased flooding of Rt. 20 south. He questioned the capability of the receiver pipe further downstream to handle the additional run-off. He stated this was probably the County's problem rather than Willow Lake's. He stated Willow Lake's engineers are providing larger pipes underneath Willow Lake Drive, but these are not matched by the receiver pipes downstream. Mr. Sam Saunders, civil engineer for Willow Lake, stated that the additional run-off from this development will be slight. He stated the larger pipes are being proposed not because of the Willow Lake development, but because the flooding already exists. He added that a large amount of the run-off from this subdivision will be diverted into the lake, thus making it a large storm - water detention facility. He stated he was not familiar with possible problems further downstream. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. -744 March 12, 1985 Page 3 Responding to Mr. Cogan's previous question regarding areas with critical slopes, Ms. McCulley stated that areas involved are single-family lots 18, 19 and 20 and townhouse lots K, R, S and T, of which lot K is involved in this site plan. Mr. Bowerman asked the County Engineer to comment on the cap- ability of the downstream pipes. Mr. Elrod responded that he has not looked at the downstream pipes. He added that the applicants are providing for storm - water detention. In answer to Ms. Diehl's question, he stated most of the site plan will drain into the lake, and he agreed that the quality of the lake would be decreased. Mr. Gilliam, representing the applicant, stated that he felt that the intention of condition 2(c), as previously stated, is that if the portion of Brookhill Avenue between Willow Lake Drive and Rt. 20, NOT the entire existing length, is not eligible for acceptance into the state system. Mr. Cogan stated he was not in favor of the term "eligible" being used since something can be eligible, but not be acceptable. He was in favor of the term "if it meets the require- ments for acceptance." The applicant indicated this would be acceptable. Ms. Diehl asked if there were anticipated problems with that portion of Brookhill Drive which might prevent it from being included in the state system, making the rest of the road in- eligible also. Mr. Hermanson stated he interpreted condition 2(c) as meaning the agreement for the Brookhill extended. He stated the developer expects that anything they wish to be accepted by the state system will be accepted, and it is simply that the other sub- division (Lakeside) has to agree to create the private agreement. Mr. Michel indicated this was his understanding also. Mr. Hermanson stated that while Willow Lake developers have created Lakeside Drive, which is to be accepted into the state system, they have only given access to Brookhill. He pointed out that Brookhill has been in existence for a number of years. He explained that Willow Lake is offering to upgrade Brookhill, but they are not suggesting that the Lakeside community be forced to create a private road agreement if they do not wish to do so. Mr. Bowerman asked Ms. McCulley for comments on condition 2(c). Ms. McCulley stated that perhaps said condition was not necessary since a bond will be required to assure that it is accepted into the state system. Inn March 12, 1985 Page 4 Mr. Elrod stated that the part of Brookhill Avenue from Rt. 20 going into the development will have to be bonded and dedicated 14 to the County, but the part of Brookhill Avenue that goes on back into Lakeside subdivision may remain a private road. Mr. Bowerman ascertained that condition 2(c) could be deleted. Mr. Payne stated there was no reason to be discussing Brookhill Avenue. He explained that Brookhill Avenue now connects to Rt. 20, but it will no longer connect to Rt. 20 when the development is complete because Willow Lake Drive will be the road that connects to Rt. 20. Ms. McCulley confirmed this. In answer to Ms. Diehl's inquiry, Ms. McCulley stated staff is requiring that a grading plan be approved before a permit is issued so that it will be assured that the grading will be sensitive to the mature trees that could be lost during construction. She also confirmed that the proffer regarding maintaining existing wooded areas would be taken into account. Mr. Lowe, a Lakeside resident, stated that Brookhill Avenue has been dedicated to the state system. Referring to staff's condition 1(g)--Evidence of agreement for joint use of, or dedication to public use of, Brookhill Avenue, to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the County Attorney --Mr. Cogan asked Mr. Payne if any bonding should be required. Mr. Payne replied negatively. Regarding the existing trees along the northwest boundary (between Willow Lake and Piedmont Virginia Community College), Mr. Cogan asked if any construction would take place around those trees which might damage them. Ms. Diehl referred to a note on the plat which states that "additional cedars shall be placed, 15' on center, along PVCC boundary wherever continuous vegetation is deleted." Mr. Hermanson stated that while there are some desirable trees in existence, most are not desirable and will be replaced. Ms. McCulley stated the bond (condition 2(d)--Planning Staff approval of replacement of mature trees which die during con- struction, and were intended to screen or buffer; a bond of $5,000 will be required to cover replacement costs) had been aimed specifically at the maple trees; however, Mr. Payne confirmed that the bond could be used to cover other trees as well. Regarding the applicant's request for administrative approval for the site plan for the remaining townhouse units, Ms. Diehl stated she would like to have a progress report on this current proposal, in view of the very intensive use of this area. She stated she was also concerned that the Highway Department's approval has not yet been secured. 4Ai March 12, 1985 Page 5 Mr. Michel moved that the Willow Lake Townhouse Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Issuance of an erosion control permit; Planning staff approval of any grading permit for limits of construc- tion; b. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and computations; C. County Engineer approval of construction on slopes of 25 0 or greater; d. County Engineer approval of parking lot design, side- walk and pavement specifications; e. County Engineer approval of road and drainage plans and computations; f. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and computations; g. Evidence of agreement for joint use of, or dedication to public use of, Brookhill Avenue, to be provided to the reasonable satisfaction of the County Attorney; h. County Attorney approval of homeowner association documents; i. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans and water line easement; j. Fire Official approval of hydrant location and building separation; k. Planning staff approval of landscape plan and recreation plan; 1. Planning staff approval of sidewalk location. 2. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Official final approval; b. Vacation of the unopened portion of Lakeside Drive; C. Planning staff approval of replacement of mature trees which die during construction, and were intended to screen or buffer; a bond of $5,000 will be required to cover replacement costs. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion. It was the consensus of the Commission that no administrative approvals be given to other site plans until a progress report has been made to the Commission. The previously stated motion was unanimously approved. Eden M. Lyster Preliminary Plat - Proposal to divide 13.95 acres into 3 lots ranging from 2.4 to 6.4 acres. The 2.4 acre parcel is a family division. Property is located in Farmington on the south side of the intersection of Brook Road andDogwood Lane. 441 March 12, 1985 Page 6 Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 60E3, parcel 10. Samuel Miller Magisterial District. Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. She added condition 1(e) as follows: • Planning staff approval of easement location. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Ron Wiley, attorney representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated the applicant would not object to the addition of condition 1(e). He added that the applicant is merely asking for a recognition of what already exists. He also stated that Planning Commission approval is being soucrht first and the Homeowners Association approval will be sought next before the final plat is proposed. Referring to Mr. Bowerman's suggestion that a condition might be added requiring Homeowners Association approval, Mr. Payne stated this would not be appropriate. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. Kendrick Dure, representing his family, adjoining property owners, addressed the Commission and stated his family did not object to the subdivision and are in favor of it. Mr. John Armitage, president of the Farmington Property Owners Association, addressed the Commission. He stated it has long been the policy of the Association that subdivision of the lots in Farmington is contrary to the purpose for which the Farming- ton community was organized. He stated no approval of such a subdivision has ever been granted and indicated the Association is opposed to this proposal. Ms. Elizabeth Peters, a neighboring property owner, addressed the Commission. She stated the Property Owners Association, in 1983, did approve two subdivided lots from the Pollock property. She stated she felt the covenants of Farmington are long-standing and property owners have always been able to subdivide their land until 1979 when the Association said there was a policy; however, Ms. Peters did not feel that a policy was the same as a covenant. She also stated she did not recall such a policy ever having been voted on by the property owners. She indicated she was in favor of the sub- division. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. In response to Mr. Wiley's question about condition l(a)--County Engineer approval of driveway locations --Ms. McCulley confirmed this only applied to new driveways. March 12, 1985 Page 7 Mr. Michel stated he could see no objections to this proposal and he indicated he was in favor of the addition of 1(e) as previously stated. Mr. Cogan stated he was in favor of an entrance coming in off the front road on Lot C since he was disturbed by the entrance which goes very close to an existing dwelling. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Eden M. Lyster Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat will not be signed until the following conditions have been met: a. County Engineer approval of driveway locations; b. County Engineer approval of septic setback from pond; C. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement, if deemed necessary. d. Fire Officer approval of hydrant location and flow. e. Planning staff approval of easement location. Mr. Michel seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Buck Falls Final Plat - Proposal to create four lots with an average lot size of 6.5 acres from a 26.058 acre parcel. Pro- perty is located on the north side of Rt. 666 approximately 1/4 mile northwest of the intersection of Rt. 664 and Rt. 666. Zoned RA, Rural Areas. Tax Map 18, parcel 19. White Hall Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. Ms. Joseph confirmed the Highway Department would have to approve a public road if the Commission requires a public road. Mr. Elrod, the County Engineer, confirmed that he is recommending a public road since he can see no reason for it to be a private road. It was determined that if a public road is required, condition l(a) should be amended to read: M County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of public road and drainage plans and computations. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Morris Foster, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated he felt the applicant was interested in a private road due to the character of the area and the property. However, he indicated there would not be much difference in the cost between a public and private road. 4w.l March 12, 1985 Page 8 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Cogan asked for an explanation of lot A, since it falls on both sides of the road and retains two development rights. Mr. Foster stated the applicant would have no objection to waiving one of those development rights. Mr. Cogan interpreted this as meaning that the lots could then be arranged so that they would all be over five acres and acceptable for a private road. Mr. Wilkerson indicated he was in favor of a public road since the cost would not be any greater. Mr. Bowerman agreed. Regarding the two parts to lot A, Mr. Foster stated he was under the impression that part of the parcel had been placed across the road to insure that the view from the other part of lot A would not be obstructed, i.e. to assure that no house would be built on the opposite side. Ms. Diehl moved that the Buck Falls Final Plat be approved, subject to the following conditions: (Mr. Keeler stated staff's conditions 1(c) and 1(d) could be eliminated). 1. The final plat will be signed when the following con- ditions have been met: a. County Engineer and Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of public road and drainage plans and computations. b. Issuance of erosion control permit. C. Planning staff approval of technical items. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Branchlands Shopping Center Site Plan - Proposal to locate a commercial shopping center, the buildings will measure 80,640 square feet and will be served by 463 parking spaces on a 32 acre site. Property is located on the west side of Rt. 29N, just north of the City limits. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. Tax Map 61Z, Section 3, parcels 1 and 2. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. She stated that both the staff and the County Engineer are recommending deferral because this area is under consideration for a rezoning and also because the applicant has not conformed to the original conditions as outlined in the PUD for Branchlands. March 12, 1985 Page 9 Mr. Keeler pointed out that the schedule for the rezoning petition was tentative since no plans have been received from Dr. Hurt showing the proposed road system. To date, only an application requesting the deletion of the collector road has been received. In response to Mr. Skove's question, Mr. Keeler explained the only way to amend the conditions of an approved PUD is by an additional rezoning petition. Ms. Joseph confirmed that staff felt it was desirable that the Commission make a determination on the collector road before the site plan is reviewed. Mr. Keeler suggested that since there are several property owners involved who have interest in further development in Branchlands, it would be beneficial to see one unified plan. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Mark Keller, an engineer representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. Regarding the possibility of substituting a wetlands for stormwater detention, he stated it would be nec- essary for all the property owners to agree to this idea and he did not feel it was appropriate to make the approval of this site plan dependent upon acceptance of the wetlands idea. He added his client is interested in the development of the wetlands, but because of the time and cost involved in the study of the wetlands proposal, the applicant has gone ahead with a design for a stormwater detention pond. He suggested that since most of the interest in this project lies with the County Engineer, the Watershed Management official and the University of Virginia, they should get together on the issue aside from the approval of this plan. Regarding concerns about drainage, he stated solutions are in the process of being worked out. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. James Cosby, representing Church of the Incarnation, the adjoining property, addressed the Commission. He stated that while the Church is ready to discuss re -location of the collector road, he agreed that a decision should be deferred on this site plan until all the owners can meet and negotiate a solution that is mutually agreeable to all. Mr. Ron Wiley, representing Bishop Sullivan, title holder to the property, addressed the Commission. He stated he was in agreement with Mr. Cosby regarding deferral. He also stated that the Bishop is concerned that whatever site plan is ultimately approved should make appropriate provision for access to all of the Branchlands parcels. He stated the Bishop is also concerned that appropriate buffers be provided along the eastern margin of the property. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. -,0- March 12, 1985 Page 10 Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Elrod if it might be possible to reach a conclusion to the concerns within a time frame that would allow everything to be considered when the site plan and rezoning are reviewed, possibly within 60-90 days. Mr. Elrod replied that the applicant had been asked to provide survey information. He stated that a survey would take approximately two days to complete. However, he did not know, given the number of people involved with the wetlands idea, if a conclusion could be reached within 60-90 days. Ms. Diehl expressed concern regarding the environmental impact of a wetlands. Mr. Elrod stated that some wetlands areas do exist in other states, but he was not familiar with any impact statements. He added that the information that has been gathered from the existing wetlands may not apply to Virginia. It was determined that University of Virginia personnel from the Engineering and Environmental Sciences Departments were involved with the project. Ms. Diehl urged that information be gathered from the UVA personnel since she felt many potential problems could develop with such a wetlands in an urban area. She requested that information on the projected ecology of this project be available at the time this application is presented again. Mr. Elrod incidated all County officials are also concerned about the ecology of the proposal, particularly since it will probably be managed by the County, using state funds. Responding to Mr. Cogan's concerns, Mr. Elrod stated the wetlands would not provide detention in terms of abatement of major storms. He stated that is not the idea behind the proposal, but rather it is to trade off stormwater detention effects for the water quality improvements effects. He stated that he did not feel that another stormwater detention basin would have much effect on the stream below this project. He emphasized that the idea is experimental and it may be found that there are no noticeable effects on water quality. He also stated the project would not involve a termendous cost and in the event state monies should run out, it would be up to the County to decide whether to do away with it or assume the cost for maintenance. He stated the money will come from the Chesapeake Bay Soil and Water Conservation Agency. Mr. Keller emphasized that the applicant is very interested in further discussion of the wetlands, but he stated the applicant views this as a separate project and the requirement for storm - water detention for this project has been satisfied. The Chairman reminded the Commission that the question before them was whether to defer this application. He stated the major issues are the connector road the the rezoning request A-- March 12, 1985 Page 11 for the entire PUD. He felt it would be appropriate to defer the matter indefinitely to allow the application for the rezoning to be decided upon and to allow time for the issue of the collector road to be decided upon by all those property owners involved. This was the consensus of the Commission. Mr. Skove moved that the Branchlands Shopping Center Site Plan be deferred indefinitely. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The meeting recessed at 9:15; reconvened at 9:25. Duane Snow - Request for a site plan waiver; proposal to locate temporary nursery sales on west side of Rt. 29N adjacent to Shopper's World Shopping Center. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. It was determined this site would be served through the existing entrance to Shopper's World. The applicant offered no comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. There being no Commission objection, Mr. Cogan moved that a site plan waiver be approved for Duane Snow subject to the following conditions: 1. Operation of the sales area will not be allowed until: a. Applicant has posted a bond to ensure the area remain free of debris when the seasons of operation have expired. b. The gravel parking has been installed to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. C. Applicant restricts the sales to nursery related items. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Regarding the Branchlands deferral, Mr. Bowerman stated that the Commission expects that the plan which is presented will include the approval of all of the relevant property owners that are subject to that approval for the connector road and any other questions that may arise on the rezoning. Mr. Skove confirmed that was the intent of his motion. !0" d March 12, 1985 Page 12 It was determined that all discussions between the property owners involved should occur prior to the Commission meeting. OLD BUSINESS Sandra Lloyd Preliminary Plat - Request to extend approval for the preliminary subdivision plat by six months (expires March 25, 1985). The plat creates 4 lots, average lot size 11,867 square feet from a 1.09 acre parcel, to serve a single family house and triplex. Located on the east side of Barracks Road between Rickey Road and Bennington Road. Tax Map 61K-8-A-12. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. McCulley gave the staff report. She stated that amendments to the Zoning Ordinance have been prepared which would preclude the creation of the lots proposed with this subdivision plat. Mr. Keeler gave a summary of the proposed amendments. He explained the amendments had occurred as a result of this application, and one other, because the Planning Commission was concerned about in -fill of dissimilar unit types in existing developments, (e.g. single-family detached residential subdivisions with proposals for tri-plexes on small, odd -shaped lots). He stated that staff had recommended that a minimum lot size be included in these higher density districts. He added that while the proposal was not curative of the issue of location of triplexes in single- family areas, at least it would overcome the apparent ambiguity in the Ordinance regarding density. He stated staff had requested that the Commission not act on those amendments until a determi- nation had been made on the bonus issue so that the charts in the Zoning Ordinance would only have to be revised once, thus reducing the chance for error. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Ms. Nancy Caperton, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. She pointed out that the neighborhood is not exclusively single-family dwellings and she also referred to the varying types of surrounding zoning. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman, referring to the fact that he was opposed to this application in the beginning, indicated he was not in favor of an extension. Mr. Cogan agreed. He stated he felt it was never intended that this type of development should happen, and he felt it had been approved because of a technical problem with the Zoning Ordinance at the time the original application was presented. Ms. Diehl, referring to the fact that amendments have already been prepared, indicated she could not support the extension. March 12, 1985 Page 13 Mr. Wilkerson stated he was in agreement with Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Diehl and Mr. Cogan. In response to Mr. Skove's question, Mr. Payne explained there has been no new application; this is simply a request for an informal extension of the original preliminary plat. Mr. Keeler explained there is no set procedure in the Subdi- vision Ordinance for the Planning Commission to extend a pre- liminary plat, but historically if a preliminary plat is about to expire, and there have been no change in circumstances to warrant an additional review, the Commission has "breathed new life into the proposal." He stated that it seems that the Commission feels there has been a change in circumstances in this case in that this type of development is no longer intended and amendments have already been developed to preclude this type of subdivision. It was determined that if the Commission takes no action, the preliminary plat will expire as of March 25, 1985. Mr. Keeler stated that he could not recall an extension of this type ever having been turned down. However, Mr. Payne pointed out that these requests are usually not controversial. Ms. Caperton asked if the Commission was contemplating denying this extension because of contemplated changes in the Ordinance. She stated that nothing has actually changed as of this point. Mr. Bowerman confirmed this, but added that the only reason the amendments to the Ordinance have not been acted upon is because of the necessity of dealing with another issue first. Mr. Payne explained that the Commission has an obligation to review an application if presented in due course; however, the Commission does NOT have an obligation to accelerate the procedure for reviewing, which is what is being asked in this case. He stated the Commission is being asked to forego the ordinary procedures and approve this as if it is not going to expire, and they are under no obligation to do this. Mr. Payne confirmed that the Commission could simply elect to take no action. It was the consensus of the Commission that no action be taken on the request for an extension of the Sandra Lloyd Preliminary Plat, thus the plat will expire March 25, 1985. Georgia Leake - Request for relief from condition concerning vacating existing entrance. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. 9 in March 12, 1985 Page 14 The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. McCann, representing his sister, the applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated one existing driveway has been in use for 40 years and the other for 18-20 years. Though Mr. McCann stated the driveways were not particularly safe, he pointed out there has never been an accident. Based on the fact that the applicant could subdivide in some other manner, he requested that the Commission approve the request for a waiver and allow the existing driveways to be used. He stated the applicant is willing to trim the vegetation to improve the sight distance on the east driveway. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Chairman asked for comment from Mr. Echols of the Highway Department. Mr. Echols stated there are actually three entrances within 100 feet of the road. Mr. McCann pointed out that changing the driveway would mean that the applicant's parking area would have to be moved also. Mr. Michel indicated he would be in favor of the waiver since the entrance has been in existence for such a long time. Mr. Gould agreed. Mr. Michel moved that Section 18-36(f) of the Subdivision Ordinance, allowing relief from condition concerning vacating existing en- trance, be waived for the Georgia Leake Subdivision. Mr. Gould seconded the motion. Mr. Cogan stated that though he sympathized with the applicant, he could not find sufficient reason to grant the waiver. Mr. Bowerman agreed. The above stated motion for approval of the waiver was denied with Messrs. Gould, Michel and Skove voting in favor, and Messrs. Wilkerson, Cogan and Bowerman and Ms. Diehl voting against. BONUSES - General discussion. Ms. Scala gave the staff report. Mr. Skove asked Ms. Scala to explain how doing away with the bonuses might lengthen the approval process, as had been suggested. *40 .0.. March 12, 1985 Page 15 Mr. Payne explained that it would not except in cases where an applicant desired something that he could have with the bonuses now, but would not be able to have without a re -zoning. Thus, some additional re -zonings would be seen. Mr. Michel asked for Ms. Scala's opinion. Ms. Scala responded that she had found it extremely difficult to come up with new bonuses. She also stated that all other areas' bonuses were very vague. She stated that from an administrative standpoint, it would be easier to delete bonuses. She felt this would mean that better proffers would be offered for a rezoning. Mr. Skove stated he would be in favor of keeping the bonus for low-income housing if there had been any past applications, but since there have been none, he acknowledged that there probably would not be any in the future. Mr. Gould agreed and stated he would not be opposed to deleting all bonuses with the possible exception of dedication of land. Though Mr. Bowerman suggested this could be done through a rezoning, Mr. Payne stated it could not. Mr. Keeler suggested that a provision could be added such as "density increased by virtue of dedication of land to public use." Mr. Cogan indicated he would be in favor of this, and thus delete all bonuses. Mr. Bowerman pointed out that on the applications that have been approved, there has never been general agreement on any of them in regard to the bonuses. He added that some of the land has been used very intensely with every useable square foot being used and the rest being thrown into open space. It was the consensus of the Commission that staff be directed to move forward with a public hearing on April 9, 1985 to delete bonuses. Mr. Michel asked if it would be possible to allow parcels of less than 3 acres to be developed as PRD's. Ms. Scala and Mr. Payne indicated this could be possible. Mr. Cogan suggested an alternative to this would be to create an R-20 zone. Mr. Payne suggested it would be better to leave things as they are and wait to see if any situation comes up. It was determined none of the Commissioners were in favor of keeping the bonuses. :ti_1V March 12, 1985 Page 16 The Commission complimented Ms. Scala on the excellent report. It was determined that increased density would still be possible `W for dedication of land to public use, but it would not be handled through a bonus. Mr. Cogan moved to adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the Zoning Ordinance to: 1. Delete all references to bonuses; 2. Amend the statement of intent for the PRD zone which now reads "...it is also intended that the PRD be employed in areas where the Comprehensive Plan recommends densities in excess of twenty dwelling units per acre." (Change to in excess of fifteen dwelling units per acre). 3. To include minimum lot size provisions in all residential districts. 4. Maintain density incentive for dedication of land to public use. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. ppeal to the BZA - Mr. Bowerman reported that the BZA had upheld e Zoning Administrator's determination allowing auto -body shop in the C-1 zone. He stated Mr. St. John had made it clear to the BZA that they were not a forum to correct oversights in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Wilkerson moved to adopt a Resolution of Intent to add auto - body shops to the Zoning Ordinance as a specific use, separate and distinct from auto -repair or truck repair shops. Mr. Skove seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. The Chairman also requested that staff look at the HC zone since places like new car sales may have body shops. Miscellaneous: Meeting with Greene Co. - Mr. Bowerman stated he would not be able to attend this meeting. It was determined Mr. Wilkerson would take his place. Sub -Standard -Housing Tour - Mr. Skove gave a brief report of this tour and stated it had been very eye-opening. CIP Schedule - Mr. Bowerman stated Ms. Imhoff would present a revision of the CIP schedule on March 19. There being no further business, the meeting ad' urned at 10:20 p.m., AJA"d 12 n A AJAA,# James R. Donne ly, Secretary DS