Minutes 01/23/1979 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~ t, .~) TUESDAY JANUARY 23, 1979 .- reviewed the Planning Commission's report on this matter (dated January 5, 1979), in which the Commission recommended that the requested rezoning be effected and that a Special-Use Permit be issued, subject to the conditions (a) that the permit expire at the end of eighteen months unless substantial development occurs within that time; (b) that such screen planting be provided as may be agreed upon between the developer and the persons residing on the west side of Scuffle Hill; (c) that the developer comply with off-street parking requirements as established for the C-3 Commercial zone; (d) - that the outdoor lighting normally required in parking areas along access roads under Special-Use Permits be shielded, if necessary, to obviate disturbing Scuffle Hill residents; (e) should gas pumps, as shown on project site plan, cause a traffic problem on Church Street, under normal usage, that such gas pumps will be removed; and (f) that, in addition to the foregoing requirements, the developer be required to comply with the standard set of regulations made a part of the Planning Commission's report. Appearing on behalf of Leatherwood Land Company and its petition were Mr. Frank T. Gravely, Partner, Mr. Earle W. Greene, Realtor (and developer for the proposed project), and Mr. Ebb H. Williams, III, Attorney at Law and counsel for petitioner, with Mr. Williams presenting maps and sketches of the property and the proposed development thereof, indicating that petitioner and developer have viewed the property with abutting residential property owners who have expressed some concern over the proposed dev~lopment and, too, that petitioner and developer will comply with requirements made a part of the Planning Commission's report and recommendation. Mr. John L. Gregory, III, Attorney at Law, representing the area's concerned citizens and property owners, enumerated the following points of concern held by his clients, should petitioner's requests be granted: (1) traffic congestion and hazards, particularly as to points of ingress and egress (from Church Street); (2) generation of motor vehicular traffic, above and beyond the capacity that section of East Church Street is capable of handling, stating that a traffic count conducted by the City's Traffic & Planning Director on December 28th-29th (1978), when area industries and schools were closed for the Christmas holidays, is not valid;