HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 28 1992 PC Minutes4-25-92
E4
APRIL 28, 1992
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, April 28, 1992, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Waiter Johnson,
Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr.
Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other
officials present were: Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; Mr.
Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Mr. Rich
Tarbell, Senior Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County
Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of April
14, 1992 were approved as submitted.
ZMA-92-01 Ednam House Limited Partnership - Petition to
amend the existing R-10 Residential (Proffered) zoning on
1.892 acres to PRD, Planned Residential Development to
permit three dwelling units in the existing Ednam House.
Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 28A1 is located on
the south side of Worthington Drive in Ednam in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District. This site is located in a
designated growth area (Neighborhood 6) and is recommended
for low density residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre).
KI�to]
SP-92-12 Ednam House Limited Partnership - Petition to
operate a Class B Home Occupation [19.3.2(5)] for a realtor
on 1.892 acres zone PRD, Planned Residential Development.
Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 28A1 is located on
the south side of Worthington Drive in Ednam in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District. This site is located in a
designated growth area (Neighborhood 6) and is recommended
for low density residential (1-4 dwelling units per acre).
Mr. Fritz presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval of ZMA-92-01 and SP-92-12 subject to agreements and
conditions.
Mr. Johnson Celt the intent of the proposal was unclear. He
felt it should be stated that the 1.892 acres was being
combined with the existing PRD. Mr. Fritz explained: "It
is clearly the intent and simply by stating it that point
has been made." Mr. Cilimberg added: "In the record before
the Board of Supervisors it will be stated and w?11 he a
part of their action --if they choose to approve it."
4-25-92 2
The applicant was represented by Caleb Stowe. He offered to
answer questions.
The chairman invited public comment.
The following persons addressed the Commission: Mr. Robert
Englander and Ms. Alice Stull. Answers to their questions
were as follows:
--1.892 acres are involved in the rezoning to Planned
Residential Development (around the manor house); there is
no effect on any other acreage.
--The manor house and pool cover approximately a total
of 6,000 square feet (4,500 house/1,500 pool), or slightly
over one -tenth acre.
--The special permit is to allow the operation of a
home occupation (realtor) in one of the three dwelling units
proposed in the rezoning. A home occupation is allowed, by
special permit, in any residential area.
Mr. Fritz read the recommended agreements and conditions
attached to the requests.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question related to fire
protection, Mr. Fritz explained that Fire Official approval
was a part of the building permit process. Mr. Stowe added
that he had already met with the Fire Official who has
indicated that fire protection is acceptable. He noted that
part of the building is already sprinklered.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Johnson again stated that he felt the intent of
agreement No. 1 was unclear, i.e. as written it seems as
though 140 dwelling units are being approved on 1.892 acres.
He felt that there should be a description showing that this
property is being combined with the existing PRD. Mr. Blue
agreed with Mr. Johnson's concern.
To address this concern, Mr. Keeler suggested that the
identifying statement attached to the agreements be revised
to state: "Recommended Revised Agreements for ZMA 80-19 to
Incorporate ZMA 92-01."
Mr. Johnson was agreeable to this suggestion.
Ms. Andersen moved that ZMA-92-01 for Ednam House Limited
Partnership be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for
approval subject to the following agreements with the
applicant:
Recommended Revised Agreements for ZMA 80-19 to Incorporate
ZMA 92-01:
ad.5
4-25--92 3
(1) Approval is for a maximum of 140 dwelling units in
locations and types in accordance with land use summary of
the approved plan. (Commission approved the amended land
use summary.) Specifically, multi -storied residential
structures shall be restricted to Site A, E and G (Land Use
Summary enc.);
(2) Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval of commercial entrances and road improvements as
shown on the approved plan;
(3) County Engineer approval of internal roads and parking,
drainage, grading plans and impoundment dam;
(4) Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water
and sewer plans including booster station and other
appurtenances;
(5) Fire Official approval of fire hydrant locations and
fire flow requirements, emergency access provisions, and
handicapped parking;
(6) County Attorney's approval of Homeowners' maintenance
agreements;
(7) The Existing Manor House on Tax Map 60, Parcel 28A1 may
be converted into three dwellings.
Ms. Huckle seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The Commission then discussed SP-92-12.
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's questions as to why the
special permit was limited to Caleb Stowe only, Mr. Fritz
explained: "The original special use permit was specific to
Caleb Stowe and I am simply ... trying to keep some
continuity in the actions which have occurred on this
property."
Ms. Huckle asked if Mr. Stowe planned to live in one of the
apartments being creating in the manor house. Mr. Bowling
explained that Mr. Stowe would have to live in the dwelling
in order to qualify for a home occupation.
Ms. Polly Englander, a member of the public, asked why this
dwelling was different from the others in the community,
i.e. why can a business be conducted there and not in other
dwellings? It was explained to Ms. Englander that anyone
has the right to apply for a special permit to conduct a
home occupation in their residence, regardless of the
neighborhood. It was noted, however, that some
neighborhoods may have restrictive private covenants which
limit home businesses, but that is a private matter between
VO4
4-25-92
4
individuals and the County has no involvement in such
private agreements.
It was noted that Mr. Stowe already has a permit to conduct
a realty business on the property, but a new permit is
needed because of the rezoning of the property.
Mr. Englander wondered if any consideration was given to the
fact that allowing "a real estate office in a development
where the realtor is living" might provide an "unfair
advantage" to other realtors. Mr. Grimm explained that any
other resident of the same neighborhood has the same right
to request a special permit for a home occupation (real
estate or whatever).
Questions were raised as to how the rezoning from commercial
to residential effected Mr. Stowe's existing right to
operate a real estate business. (It was pointed out that
the property is currently zoned residential (R-10) and Mr.
Stowe has an existing permit to operate a real estate
business under the R-10 zoning.) Mr. Englander was under
the impression that the Homeowner's documents prevented the
operation of a commercial enterprise from and residential
dwelling. Mr. Bowling again noted that it is not within the
realm of the Planning Commission to enforce private
homeowner's agreements.
Mr. Stowe explained that the "Public Declaration" adopted at
the time of the initial development of the property (1980)
sets forth the rules governing the community and also allows
for the operation of a real estate business. He also noted
that changing from a fairly large real estate operation, as
has existed in the past, to a small home operation would
greatly "soften" the real estate use.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
It was again clarified that the intent of the ZMA proposal
was to allow 3 dwelling units on 1.892 acres which was being
added to the original PRD. Mr. Cilimberg added: "You still
have 140 dwelling units--max--for the entire PRD and that
has not changed."
Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that SP-92-12
for Ednam House Limited Partnership, be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following
conditions:
1. Permit is issued for use by Caleb Stowe only.
2. Off-street parking shall be limited to the approved
parking areas on TMP 60-28A1 and adjoining TMP 59D(2)-060I
indicated on Attachment C and initialled WDF 4/9/92.
�Or
4-25-92
5
The motion passed unanimously.
SDP-92-016 Ednam Pool Condominiums Prelimina Site Plan -
Proposal to construct a condominium building with five
dwelling units served by sixteen parking spaces. Access
shall be through the Ednam Manor house property. The
existing manor house will be renovated for three additional
residential units. Property, described as Tax Map 59D(2)
Parcel 1 and Tax Map 60 Parcel 28A1 is located in the Ednam
PRD off of Wellington Drive. Zoned PRD, Planned Residential
Development and R-10, Residential in the Samuel Miller
Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated
growth area (Neighborhood 6).
Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
In response to Mr. Johnson's question, Ms. Hipski explained
that the ARB had authorized administrative approval of the
final Certificate of Appropriateness.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Bob McKee. He offered
to answer questions.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Martha Begans asked for an explanation of the location
of the pool in relation to properties 4 and 5. Ms. Hipski
described the location.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Ednam
Pool Condominiums Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals
for the following conditions have been obtained. The final
site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater
detention plans and calculations;
C. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion
control plan;
d. Inspections Department approval of required
fireflow or to satisfy the sprinkler requirements of finial
water and sewer plans;
,� a6
4-25-92 6
e. Service Authority approval of final water and sewer
plans and acceptance of easements for the existing sewer
line;
f. Issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness;
g. Staff approval of new fire hydrant to be relocatd
per minimum separation requirements for hydrant and
structures;
h. Staff approval of road maintenance agreement;
i. A note on the plan indicating that the carriage
house setback will not encroach upon the sight distance at
the carriage house;
j. Removal of references of travelway to be upgraded
at time of future development.
2. Administrative approval of final site plan.
3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until
a. Fire Official final approval.
4. Staff approval of final plat.
The motion passed unanimously.
SDP-92-044 Raintree Phase 8 Preliminary Plat - Proposal to
create 17 lots averaging 0.252 acres and 1.997 acres of open
space from a 7.124 acre property. The lots are proposed to
be served by an extension of Raintree Drive, a public road.
Property, described as Tax Map 61 parcel 126A (part), is
located at the end of Raintree Drive just north of its
intersection with Robin Hill Court. Zoned R-2, Residential
in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This property
is located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 2).
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
Mr. Nitchmann asked what was meant by the term "minimum
amount necessary" in condition 1(j) related to clearing for
the proposed sewer line. Mr. Tarbell was uncertain but
estimated "wide enough to get a backhoe through there, maybe
10 feet." He explained: "We just have to go out and try to
get the line to work between the trees to the greatest
degree possible."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Scott Williams. He
explained that, "on a preliminary basis, the sewer line was
"running 5 feet into the property line on the back side for
the first three lots on the right hand side." He noted that
in addition to the sewer line, a storm sewer must also be
accommodated with the idea being "to share 10 feet of the
4-25-92 7
easements between the two lines so we will only have to
clear, hopefully, at most, 30 feet." The developer is
trying to eliminate as much clearing as possible and in
addition, the original approval requires additional white
pine screening spaced 25-feet on center.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, it was determined the
buffer area ranges in width from 25 feet to 90 feet.
Mr. Tarbell explained that the location of the sewer line
would be shown on the plat so that prospective purchasers of
the lots would be aware of the easements.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Ms. Alice Brower asked that as much of the natural area as
possible be preserved.
Mr. Mike Cameron, a resident of the Fieldbrook Subdivision,
expressed concern about the effect of the availability of
new homes on the resale potential of existing homes. (Mr.
Grimm indicated the Commission could not address that
question.)
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before
the Commission.
Mr. Blue brought up the issue of access between adjacent
subdivisions. He recalled that many years ago developers
had been required to make provisions for access to adjacent
properties (even without a master plan). However, at some
point that policy changed when subdivisions decided they
wanted to be "islands unto themselves" and the requirement
for access to adjacent properties was no longer imposed. He
felt this was probably one of the reasons there are so many
traffic problems on Rt. 29 and Rio Road and he asked "why we
changed our thinking on this."
Mr. Keeler responded to Mr. Blue's question. He explained:
"We have always attempted to connect subdivision roads
wherever possible. There is a provision where a development
has more than 50 units, it should have two connections.
That was the case here, but it was such a major issue to get
one connection that we didn't pursue trying to get other
connections." Mr. Keeler also stated that 30 years ago a
type of residential suburban development was envisioned with
blocks and grid street layouts, but that has not happened in
Albemarle County "because we did not make use of these
connections." He explained that these former provisions for
access have all been vacated. He stated that "it has been
very difficult to make the connections once houses are
already built in a subdivision.
4-25-92 8
Mr. Blue noted that this results in school buses having to
come onto Rt. 29 to get from Carrsbrook to Woodbrook. Mr.
Cilimberg explained that the Comprehensive Plan had shown a
connection between Carrsbrook and Woodbrook but the Board of
Supervisors had deleted that recommendation and the Board
also abandoned rights -of -way (at the request of landowners)
which would have, at some time, allowed possible connections
between neighborhoods.
Mr. Blue concluded: "We're charged with addressing good
planning and if the Board of Supervisors overrules us for
political considerations, that's all right, I don't object
to that, but I think we ought to make sure we are at least
trying to do professional planning."
It was determined that a connection from Old Brook Road to
Rio Road already exists.
Without further discussion, Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by
Mr. Blue, that the Raintree Phase VIII Preliminary Plat be
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor
shall it be signed until the following conditions are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations;
c. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater
detention plans and calculations;
d. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion
control plan;
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
road and drainage plans and calculations;
f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
final water and sewer plans;
g. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of
water and sewer easement locations;
h. Staff approval of homeowners documents;
i. Staff approval of final recreation provisions;
j. Staff approval of selective clearing of existing
woodlands. The amount of clearing for the proposed sewer
line shall be kept to the minimum amount necessary;
k. Bonding or installation of the screening trees as
noted on the plat;
1. Note on plat stating "No concrete pads, building
corners, decks, porches, or any part of a structure shall
encroach on water and sewer easements."
2. Administrative approval of the final plat.
The motion passed unanimously.
�09
4-25-92 9
SDP-92-013 Broadus Wood Elementary School Preliminary Site
Plan - Proposal to construct a 12,950 square foot addition
to the existing 36,900 square foot school with 53 new
parking spaces and a 5,400 square foot paved play area.
Property, described as Tax Map 31 Parcels lA and 2 is
located on the west side of Route 663 approximately 1/2 mile
north of its intersection with Route 743. Zoned RA, Rural
Areas in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is
not located in a designated growth area.
Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended
approval subject to conditions.
The main issue identifed in the staff report was VDOT's
recommendation for a left turn and taper lane on Rt. 663,
which was "based on safety, not traffic volumes." The
applicant objected to VDOT's recommendation for the
following reasons: (1) Constraints of grade differentials
on both sides of Rt. 663; (2) 1,700 feet of right-of-way
acquisition would be required; (3) Existing sight distance
is very good; (4) Speed limit will be reduced to 25 mph
with flashing signs; and (5) No past history of accidents.
Staff stated this was the first instance they could recall
where a VDOT recommendation had been based only on "safety."
This issue was discussed at length later in the meeting.
Ms. Huckle expressed concerns about past problems with
septic drainfields and adequate water supply. Mr. Tarbell
described the location of the drainfields and explained that
the area approved by the Health Department for the new
drainfield included area for both a primary and 100% backup
field. Mr. Keeler explained the the existing septic system
at the front of the property would continue to be used but
would not be connected to the new drainfield. Ms. Huckle
expressed concern about potential failure of the
drainfields, especially in consideration of the location of
the playing field on the drainfield.
Regarding the issue of adequate water supply, Mr. Tarbell
explained that the State Water Control Board has approved
the two existing wells for a population of 533 and there
will be a 10,000 gallon storage tank for fire protection.
Mr. Johnson noted that this site did not meet the
recommendations for a school site as stated in the Community
Facilities section of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically,
he stated the recreation area is deficient by 40-50% and the
parking area is 2-3 times larger. He felt this
non-compliance with the Plan should be identified.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that an effort had been made to make
this site comply with. the Comprehensive Plan as much as
possible given the fact that it is an existing site. He
stated that complete adherence to the Plan would not be
CIO
4-25-92 10
possible without the purchase of additional property which
the Board has already determined to be unfeasible.
Mr. Al Reeser, representing the Education Department,
explained that additional parking is needed because there is
a serious lack of parking availability on the site and there
is no available parking along the roadway.
Mr. Cilimberg read the parking requirement as stated in the
Zoning Ordinance for elementary schools, i.e. "one space per
12 students and additional, where possible, overflow parking
shall be provided...."
Based on Mr. Johnson's comments, Mr. Nitchmann, asked staff
if the proposal was in compliance with the Comprehensive
Plan and why was the Commission not being asked to make a
determination as to whether it complied with the Plan. Mr.
Cilimberg responded: "This particular facility does not
comply with the specific standards that were set out in this
Community Facilities Plan and it was noted when this was
passed by the Board of Supervisors that they considered this
to be a guide and they realized that in various cases it
would not be attainable, particularly on existing sites."
He explained, several times, that because this is an
existing site, a review for compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan is not required, and that the
recommendations in the Plan for school sites apply to new
sites only.
Ms. Huckle stated: "I deplore the fact that the School
Board is trying to cram all this on a insufficient site. I
am sorry they didn't leave this one the way it was with a
limited enrollment and build another school that would be
more adequate. I'm sure they did the best they could with
what they had to work with, but I still think it's extremely
deficient...."
Mr. Blue asked if the site met the State Department of
Education Standards. Mr. Reeser confirmed that it exceeds
those standards.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Clint Custis, the
engineer for the project. He offered to answer questions.
There followed a lengthy discussion about the issue of the
left turn lane, initiated by Mr. Blue. Mr. Blue stated he
would not support the proposal if a left turn lane were not
required since VDOT feels there is a safety issue.
In response to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Custis stated he
agreed with the applicant's position that a left turn lane
was not needed. He stated that good sight distance exists
in both directions and there are a limited number of buses
which serve the site.
arf
4-25-92 11
[Ms. Andersen excused herself from the remainder of the
hearing due to a possible conflict of interests.]
Mr. Blue asked if staff's recommendation would be the same
if the applicant were a private rather than a public school
in terms of the left turn lane. Mr. Cilimberg explained
that once a private school has been approved the County
would have no control to require additional measures at some
later time, whereas with a public school the County can
decide to spend additional monies (through the CIP) to add a
turn lane at any time. Regarding staff's possible position
for a private school, Mr. Cilimberg stated that the issue
might possibly be left up to the Commission just as is being
done in this case.
In response to Mr. Blue's statement that he felt staff's
recommendation would have been different if the proposal was
for a private school, Mr. Keeler stated: "I invite you to
look back in the record on some other public schools which
the planning staff has reviewed and made recommendations
that were not popular with the School Board." (Mr. Tarbell
pointed out that the staff had taken no position on the left
turn lane, but rather had given the Commission the choice of
two options for condition (f), one requiring the left turn
lane and one without the requirement. The final choice was
left to the Commission.)
The Chairman invited public comment.
A member of the Albemarle County Engineering staff addressed
the Commission. (He did not identify himself.) He stressed
that public schools are as concerned about pupil safety,
perhaps more so, than the Planning Commission. He stated
that if safety was felt to be in jeopardy then more funds
would have been requested to install the left turn lane. He
stated: "We presented what is our evaluation of the
situation and it is not based on safety of students.
....the traffic standards that VDOT put together could not
warrant this turn lane." He noted that VDOT, some months
ago, had not recommended a left turn lane, but they
subsequently added the recommendation for the turn lane and
reversed their original position. The reason for this
reversal is not known.
Mr. Blue suggested that the County staff should have asked
VDOT to explain why they had changed their recommendation,
i.e. "why are you requiring it for safety reasons now when
you didn't before." The represenatative from the County
Engineer's office stated that had been done, but no
satisfactory answers had been received.
Mr. Blue stated that the Highway Department has determined
that the left turn lane is necessary for safety reasons and
he did not think such a position would have been based on a
C211.2
4-25-92 12
"whim." The Engineer (County office) pointed out that if
VDOT had said that the turn lane was "necessary" for safety
reasons, it would have been required, but they did not say
it was "necessary," they only said that it was
"recommended." Mr. Blue felt that VDOT was more expert in
the safety issues of highways than was the Education
Department.
Ms. Deloris Bradshaw, a parent of children at Broadus Wood,
addressed the Commission. She stressed the need for
additional parking and pointed out that there was still
plenty of room left for adequate recreation areas. She also
stated that, based on several years of experience with the
school, she had never felt there was a safety hazard when
making a left turn into the site. She also recalled that
there have been several times in the past when VDOT has made
recommendations that were not readily explainable.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed
before the Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that the expansion of Broadus Wood
would take some of the excess from the Hollymead school
district. Staff does not anticipate any significant
increase in traffic, school or non -school related, coming
from the north which traffic coming from the south would
have to wait for to make a left turn. He felt that had
played a part in the overall consideration of the proposal.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that staff has attempted, over the
years, to get VDOT to identify which roads they feel are
safe, etc., "and being their roads, they are reluctant to
make those sort of statements."
Mr. Blue wondered why they were making this statement about
safety when they have not done it in the past. Mr. Keeler
stated that staff was not able to identify anything that
this peculiar about this school compared to Murray
Elementary where there had been no recommendation for a left
turn lane. Mr. Blue felt there was a big difference in the
location of the two schools.
Mr. Johnson stated
position regarding
was the first time,
that VDOT has used
he was in agreement
the left turn lane.
in his experience
the word "safety."
with Mr. Blue's
He noted that this
n the Commission,
Mr. Jenkins asked what recourse the applicant would have if
they choose to disagree with the requirement for a left turn
lane. Mr. Cilimberg explained that if the left turn lane is
required the School Board will have to seek additional
funding for the construction of the turn lane, or they can
appeal to the Board to have the requirement removed.
4-25-92 13
Ms. Huckle stated she could not support the proposal- She
stated: "I think it's wrong to spend the money to put
something in here which is going to be inadequate from the
very beginning. It's inadequate now without the addition
but it's going to be even more inadequate with this
addition. I think it's wrong; I think it's unfair to the
children to be squashed into a little area like that and if
something goes wrong with that drainfield they are not going
to have any recreational area at all. I think the School
Board should go back and find another spot and build another
school and leave this to function with a smaller
enrollment."
Mr. Grimm stated he could support Mr. Blue's position for a
left turn lane.
Mr. Blue moved that the Broadus Wood Elementary School
Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following
conditions:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of
the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals
for the following conditions have been obtained. The final
site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions
are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and
drainage plans and calculations;
b. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion
control plan;
c. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff
control permit;
d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
drainage plans and calculations;
e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
curb and gutter length and transition to a rural section;
f. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of
right-of-way improvement plans to include a 200' x 200'
right and left turn and taper lanes;
g. Staff approval of a final landscape plan noting the
size and number of white pines to be planted in the
landscape buffer;
h. The new paved play area shall include two
basketball goals.
2. Administrative approval of the final site plan.
3. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the
following condition is met:
a. Fire Official final approval.
Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion.
.0!4
4-25-92 14
Discussion:
Mr. Jenkins stated he would support the motion but he
questioned that adding a "stacking lane" would decrease the
hazard because "people that drive so fast that they could
not stop before rear -ending a school bus, are now going to
be traveling on the right hand side" at a much greater
speed.
Mr. Johnson stated he would support the motion because he
felt this was a fait accompli; however, he noted he agreed
with Ms. Huckle's concerns.
The motion for approval passed (5:1:1) with Commission
Huckle casting the dissenting vote and Commissioner Andersen
abstaining.
OLD BUSINESS
Community Facilities Plan Because he would not be in
attendance at the May 5th meeting, Mr. Nitchmann wanted to
make the Commission aware of his support for the revised
version of the Plan.
Topics for Discussion at Joint Meeting with Board - Mr.
Johnson suggested the following topics: Non -Conforming
Signs; BZA Procedures; Rationale for Rezoning of Piney Mt.;
Cost -Effect Analysis to be Conducted on Current Operations
of the County Government and on Proposed Comprehensive Plan
Amendments.
Mr. Nitchmann suggested that the issue brought up earlier in
the meeting related to access between subdivisions be added
to the list.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that the time for the joint
meeting would be limited so topics should be prioritized.
It was decided the following were the top three priorities:
(1) Sign Ordinance; (2) CIP Procedure and the Commission's
role; and (3) Cost Analysis.
It was also suggested that a schedule be established for
regular meetings with the Board.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
9:20 p.m.
DB