HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200600112 Legacy Document 2006-12-05SDP 2006 -00112
Dominion Office Park Phase 1
(Parking and Building Expansion)
Major Amendment
Presented by Gerald Gatobu
— Date 12/05/2006
SDP 2006 -00112
Dominion Office Park- Phase 1 (Parking and Building Expansion)
Date 12/06/2006
❑TMP: Tax Map 78 Parcel 15C2.
❑Location: South Pantops Road [Route # 1140] approximately 225 feet east of the
intersection of South Pantops Road [Route # 1140] and Spotnap Road.
❑Owner: Ballif Investments LLC
❑Magisterial District: Rivanna
❑Proposal: Request for major site plan amendment approval for the addition of 963 gross
square feet of office space and the constriction of a 12 space parking lot to accommodate the
additional office space at the Dominion Development Office Park which requires a Waiver of
section 4.2.3.2 which restricts earth - disturbing activity on critical slopes.
❑By -right use /Zoning: Highway Commercial
❑Comp. Plan Designation: Community Service in Urban Area 3.
❑Factors Favorable: Positive County Engineering review.
❑Factors Unfavorable: Does not meet the criteria in section 4.2.5(b)
Vicinity Map A
SDP 2006-112
bfr Dominion,'Gffoe Park -Phase 1
Parking and Bonding Expdfrsion
a4 cti //
P�
City of
Charlottesville
r�� 1 [� GCr :CLr6 � V.3 LBr 9[•7�'
Crt:eways d'cH w 1-7,
•���� O 9ulldlrgs �dly 3c nda7
\\ srearns
Vicinity Map B
AMR SUP 20015-1 2
�>mii7ion Off FE, Pal
P 6 1 ki n g'S-nid- B—Lii Id 'ri Ox —pan s
4W.
IL
78-15C2
r
ity of
ottesville
7
\ 14-1
EC 114
Existing Conditions:
M .4 ;� .� i L.1�41 �} �'.5. - -_ x ..ti � }�_ J n',r'4 - �t4b'yh'�'���... ��� _ ?A' 't•' v_'. � ,�, ,... -, _kY F4,", .
}y . i ~ii 1.i4•F f P"}rl.0 V i� ' ' +T .� ! .}� i.
y r- f
y X15t,19 t i+eIre to be Rdixat '
ITO
OCA wt)
�� "mow �Y -., ";.,.�i 4 ' � _. �' `• �.� � '� -• - _�
�% ��• ''R �� arr. ' ate} -� �Y5_M� � -.�y {. -, .. _ .. - _.._._� ,.w-._ _.. _,�_ r.a�.YJYa.�a..a�
tia K
Proposed Development:
Proposed Proposed
g Building
Area `4 Addition
. .........
. .... ..... . . . . . . ......... ......... ... . . . . ... .
Critical Slopes Rp
L�
�w
a4
C30 Goa
L
L
men 'M
i
Critical Slopes x
M Development in Critical x
Slopes x
Proposed development
Proposed and Existing Overlay
. �... ',
Lce';'
N ov,
. ...... .
M1 i
A"
XhIvrIq
x' - •r' } fo '
LfinOt" ': J emo v
f�s
II ��iU /
R' � -- �. 7C!5ik "I'� q:'v_ �.• �. ,� *:[`�r•:p�� ! lrJ •'
1
k
`• r '� +• � �.�� � � �� � .�. �.�.� ��_h:r =-r•.• — �:..._�. _.._ .:� 1.svc. �^r.�a -�. �: x:�;,: •rr,� '- --�.... ��� _�.� :,'�c.,— _ a .,�r
.4
,
Existing Conditions (A)
xr 772r_,
_ .err �,_ - ' .r•
WE
Existing condition (B)
Facing Existing Filterra and Dumpster
Existing Condition (C)
Facing Filterra from behind Dumpster
�yT 3
y. ! tv,
-•Ii
i�
Trees to be removed (denoted x's)
z�
off.
A •�fw•
3
+h _.
lK �. -,: KI,
.t [
low
t
s: • , fr—
Additional tree to be removed
Section 4.2.5(b):
A Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not rwar e
purposes of this chapter or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare,
or that alternatives proposed by the developer would satisfy the purposes of
section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; or (Added 11- 15 -89)
There are no proposed alternatives presented by the developer that would satisfy the
purpose of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree. However, a retaining wall will
be put in place behind the parking spaces to minimize grading and disturbance of
critical slopes
8 Due to its unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the
property or other unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the
developer, the requirements of section 4.2 would effectively prohibit or
unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in significant
degradation of the site or adjacent properties. Such modification or waiver shall
not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly
development of the area, or to adjacent properties, or be contrary to sound
engineering practices; or (Added 11- 15 -89)
The property is already in use. There is an office building constructed on the property.
therefore, the requirements of section 4.2 do not effectively prohibit or unreasonably
restrict the use of the property.
C Granting such modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater
import than would be served by strict application of section 4.2. (Added 11 -15-
89)
There are no immediately identifiable reasons that would be considered of greater
import.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis of the Open Space and Critical Resources
Plan and on the review of the engineering criteria presented above,
staff opinion is that this request does not meet the criteria for
approval.
Should the Planning Commission choose to approve this request,
staff recommends the following condition:
1. The site plan amendment shall not be signed until an Erosion and
Sediment Control plan has been approved.
Questions?