Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 25 85 PC MinutesJune 25, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 25, 1985 in Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr.Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel; Ms. Norma Diehl; Mr. Richard Gould and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present were: Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; 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 after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the June 11, 1985 meeting were approved as written. Hollymead Section 3 - Parcel G Final Plat - Located on the west side of Powell Creek Drive adjacent to the lake in Hollymead Planned Unit Development (PUD). Proposal to create 8 lots with an average size of .19 acres on a 1.48 acre site. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development. Tax Map 46B2, parcel 03-F, Rivanna Magisterial District. and Hollymead Section 3 - Parcel F Final Plat - Located on the south side of Powell Creek Drive just east of its intersection with Hollymead Road, the main entrance to Hollymead from Rt. 29 North. 6.03 acre site. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development, Tax Map 46B2, parcel 03-E, Rivanna Magisterial District. It was determined the applicant had requested indefinite deferral of these two items. Mr. Cogan moved that Hollymead Section 3, Parcel G, Final Plat and Hollymead Section 3, Parcel F, Final Plat be indefinitely deferred. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Student Services Office/Warehouse Site Plan - Proposal to locate 1,320 square foot office and 1,080 square foot warehouse space for Student Services; and a total of 66,900 square feet of rental mini -warehouses in two phases with an apartment for resident manager, on 14.98 acres and served by 36 parking spaces. Located on the east side of Avon Street Extended (Rt. 742), north of I-64 and south of Moore's Creek. Tax Map 77E1, parcel 1 and Tax Map 77E2, parcel 2. Scottsville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. June 25, 1985 Page 2 Ms. Diehl pointed out that a condition of approval on the special use permit had limited the size of the building to 68,000 square feet, yet this current proposal is for approximately 70,000 square feet. Ms. Patterson confirmed this, but stated that the special use permit had been for the warehouse. Ms. Diehl also pointed out that another condition of the special use permit had been Commission approval of screening. Ms. Patterson presented the landscape plan that the applicant has proposed, but stated that the staff has not had time to review the plan carefully. She stated that the plan is showing white pines and Norway spruces. She added that staff will not accept anything less than 4-6 foot white pines though the applicant has proposed 3-4 foot trees. The Norway spruces proposed are 4-5 feet. Ms. Patterson confirmed that the tract borders the city of Charlottesville, but Moore's Creek runs between the two. She confirmed that notification of adjacent owners would include city property also. The Chairman invited applicant comment. The applicant was present but offered no additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Diehl asked Mr. Pack if the County Engineer feels his concerns can be sufficiently addressed. Mr. Pack pointed out that his initial statements had been based on the first plan, which has been revised. He stated that many of the original concerns have been answered in the revised plan and the plan is close to receiving approval. Mr. Bowerman stated he felt the County Engineer's suggested way of dealing with the connector road seemed to be a logical one that would not put a great burden on the applicant. Ms. Diehl stated she was concerned about the original limitation put on the building size and asked Mr. Payne to comment. Mr. Payne stated this was no a problem, and Ms. Patterson's explanation of the situation was correct. He explained that more than one use is allowable on the parcel and the other uses are permitted by right. The 68,000 square feet limitation was meant to apply to the warehouse use which required a special permit. /09 June 25, 1985 Page 3 Ms. Patterson pointed out that the preliminary plan was almost exactly what is currently being reviewed as a site plan. che confirmed that if the development is done in phases, the staff can require additional landscaping later. She explained that the approval is for both phases and the 18-month time limit applies only to the first phase. Once construction has begun, they may begin the second phase whenever they are ready, but all applicable conditions for the second phase must also be met. In response to Ms. Diehl's inquiry, Mr. Echols, representing the Highway Department, stated that for this site plan only, a 30 foot commercial entrance and a right turn lane will be required. He added that ultimately, when the entire area is developed, a 40 foot entrance and a right and left turn lane will be required. Ms. Diehl moved that the Student Services Office/Warehouse 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. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of 30' commercial entrance with right turn lane and full frontage improvements. b. Dedication of additional right-of-way for future left turn lane, if necessary. Note on plan: "At such time that left turn lane into the site is constructed, the owner will grant a grading ease- ment for work to be done." c. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of raod and drainage plans. d. County Engineer approval of public road and drainage plans. e. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and computations. f. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and computations. g. Issuance of an erosion control permit. h. Fire official approval. i. Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority approval of sewer plans. j. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans. k. Each future occupant of an industrial character shall submit to the County Engineer a certified Engineer's report to comply with Section 4.14 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Fire Official final approval; b. Planning staff approval of landscape plan. June 25, 1985 Page 4 Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Hub Furniture Parking Lot Addition Site Plan - Proposal to convert 6,000 square feet of interior warehouse space to display area, and locate an additional 29 parking spaces to serve it, located on the west side of Rt. 29N, approximately 3/4 mile north of Rt. 631 (Rio Road). Tax Map 45, parcel 112D, Charlottesville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. Ms. Patterson clarified that the Highway Department is proposing a turn lane and taper extending into the adjacent property, but staff is proposing that it remain as is except that the sight distance be improved. Regarding staff's comment that "14 parking spaces must be added to meet parking requirements for existing showroom space" Ms. Patterson explained that the site was not developed as originally proposed and this is a "catch-up." Ms. Patterson explained that she disagreed with the Highway Department's recommendation because she felt that the travelway width was inadequate for 2-way travel. The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Echols of the Highway Department. He explained that the Highway Department's recommendations are for an entrance to be constructed which would act as an entrance and an exit at the property line. In doing so, a turn lane would have to be built to serve that entrance/exit. He stated that these comments had not considered the internal traffic flow on the site. He added that that might be a reason for the southern entrance remaining open to act as an entrance only to allow customers to angle into the parking spaces. He agreed there would be some type of circulation problems. He confirmed that a turn and taper lane would actually be part of a third lane and would not be on Hub property. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. McKee, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He offered the following comments: --Currently 17 parking spaces are serving 12,000 square feet of showroom space. --This proposal is for an additional of showroom space, to be converted --He questioned why if the showroom only 50%, 29 extra parking spaces He asked that that be amended. 6,000 square feet from warehouse space. space is being increased are being required. C .ell June 25, 1985 Page 5 --He questioned the legality of requiring off -site improvements on property not owned by the applicant, as suggested by the Highway Department's recommendations. --He stated a truck and car probably could not pass on the travelway as it now exists, nor as it is proposed. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Payne if the Commission can require off -site improvements as questioned by Mr. McKee. Mr. Payne responded affirmatively, assuming that the work can be done within the Highway Department's right-of-way. He added that it would be difficult, however, to require the applicant to do something that would require work on adjacent property. Ms. Amelia confirmed that the grading that staff is recommending in lieu of the turn lane and taper would be on adjacent property and it is contemplated that a grading easement would be required. Mr. Echols stated that he felt the grading necessary to obtain sight distance could be done within the right-of-way since it will primarily involve trimming of vegetation. However, a turn lane would require a grading easement on the adjacent property. He added that the Highway Department could not require these improvements. Mr. Cogan stated that the existing traffic pattern seems to work and it seems that no greater safety factor would be achieved with all the changes recommended by the Highway Department. Mr. Gould agreed and stated he did not feel the Highway Department's long range plans were appropriate at this time. He indicated he was in agreement with staff, i.e. to leave the existing traffic flow as is. Mr. Skove indicated he understood staff's thinking, but the Highway Department's recommendations would be one step closer to fixing Rt. 29. Ms. Diehl asked for clarification regarding the County Engineer's stormwater detention requirements in relation to increased impervious surface (parking lot). She pointed out that the applicant is showing gravel parking lots. Mr. Pack explained that the original plan had shown asphalt which would have been impervious. The applicant is now proposing a gravel parking surface which would not increase the impervious area so it would not have to comply with stormwater detention. He confirmed that the County Engineer would allow gravel parking surfaces if they do .,i2 June 25, 1985 Page 6 not cause erosion problems. Ms. Diehl asked if it is the Commission's determination as to what kind of surface is appropriate. Mr. Payne stated he thought that the Ordinance makes this a determination of the County Engineer, unless the Commission directs otherwise. Mr. Pack confirmed that the stormwater detention requirements would be based only on the increased impervious area and would not include what already exists. Mr. Pack added that the County Engineer feels that this parking area would not be heavily used. Ms. Diehl stated that if a commercial establishment of this size were being approved anywhere else, an asphalt parking area would be expected. Mr. Gould agreed. Ms. Diehl stated that gravel has been allowed in some industrial site plans, but not in commercial plans. Mr. Cogan stated that, considering this particular use, he would not expect the back parking lots to be used heavily. Ms. Diehl stated she did not feel that should make any difference, and added that she could not support a gravel surface. Mr. Gould stated that, in terms of equitableness within the business community, he felt the lot should be paved. In response to Mr. Bowerman's question, Mr. McKee stated that stormwater detention measures would have to be underground. He added that the applicant is exploring the possibility of using a new porous pavement. (Mr. Pack stated he was had no experience with this new surface.) It was determined there will be no commercial entrance at the back of the building. Mr. Pack explained that stormwater detention would only be required on the new impervious area because the existing area is exempt. Mr. Michel stated he was concerned about the precedent that would be set in allowing gravel for a commercial use. Ms. Patterson stated it would be useful to have this issue clarified. Mr. Michel indicated he could see no reason to make an exception in this case. 11'A June 25, 1985 Page 7 Ms. Patterson stated she thought it has been the County Engineer's feeling that gravel is acceptable as long as it causes no erosion problems. Mr. Cogan agreed that a precedent should not be set, even though in this case he did not feel the gravel would create a problem. Mr. Bowerman stated that if it could be shown that a gravel surface would greatly decrease the amount of water that would run off into the ponds on the Carrsbrook property, he would be able to view this in a different light. Ms. Cooke asked that the Commission be very mindful of the runoff problems in the Carrsbrook area. Ms. Diehl pointed out that the amount of run-off would increase dramatically even with a gravel surface once the ground cover is removed. Mr. Cogan asked if there were any way to reduce the required number of parking spaces. Ms. Patterson responded that a variance would be required. Mr. Bowerman stated he would not favor such an approach. Mr. McKee asked if it would be possible to treat the additional 6,000 square feet as a seperate project which would require only 12 additional spaces. Mr. Payne stated that when the 6,000 square feet is added, the entire building comes back under review. He added that there is a special provision for furniture stores which takes into account the large amount of floor space needed to display stock, and the requirement is substantially lower. Ms. Patterson confirmed that the additional parking spaces required had been based on this special provision. Regarding the Highway Department's recommendations for improvements, it was the consensus of the Commission that the circulation pattern should remain as is, thus agreeing with staff's recommendation. It was determined that a condition should be added as follows: • County Engineer approval of paved parking areas. Ms. Diehl moved that the Hub Furniture Parking Lot Addition 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. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of drainage plans and sight distance for exit; IAA June 25, 1985 Page 8 b. Issuance of an erosion control permit; C. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and computations; d. County Engineer approval of drainage plans and computations; e. County Engineer approval of paved parking areas; f. County Attorney approval of agreement for the use of exit on the property to the north; g. If additional water or septic usage, Health Department approval of adequacy or septicfield. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Planning staff approval of pavement markings and/or signs to direct one-way travel; b. Staff approval of landscaping; C. Fire official final approval. Mr. Gould seconded the motion. It was determined condition (l.a) contemplates staff's recommendation for the entrance, egress and grading. The above -stated motion for approval was approved (4:3) with Mr. Wilkerson, Mr. Bowerman, Ms. Diehl and Mr. Gould voting in favor and Mr. Cogan, Mr. Michel and Mr. Skove voting against. (Note: Mr. Bowerman excused himself due to a conflict of interests.) office Building and Restaurant for S & C Security Site Plan - Proposal to locate an office building and restaurant totaling 4,100 square feet served by 33 parking spaces on a .93 acre site. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial District. Tax Map 78, parcel 15F. Ms. Joseph gave the staff report. In response to Mr. Cogan's concern about the number of conditions of approval, Ms. Joseph stated that they are all still necessary since nothing has been absolutely resolved. It was determined that this proposal was actually located in the Rivanna Magisterial District rather than the Charlottesville District. It was ascertained that staff's condition (l.i.) should be amended to read: "Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval fcrcommercial entrance to include turn lanes on South Pantops Drive." Ms. Joseph explained that instead of extending this site plan to show this roadway and then show South Pantops and the parcel that seperates them, it was thought it would be easier for the applicant to just show the entrance on the road plans for South Pantops. .c!' June 25, 1985 Page 9 cm Mr. Cogan invited applicant comment. Mr. Shipp, representing Kevin Smith, addressed the Commission. He stated that the applicant intends to comply with all requirements. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Pack, representing the County Engineer's Office. Mr. Pack stated a revised plan has been received and some concerns have been met, but others have not. He stated, however, that he was confident that all conditions can be met. He stated that if the applicant is not able to obtain a grading easement from the adjacent property owner, the grades could be changed slightly or the lot could be moved slightly to make the easement unnecessary. Mr. Pack, in response to Mr. Cogan's question, stated that this plan is no more difficult to work with, in terms of grades and steepness, than other plans. Mr. Cogan asked for an explanation of how the matter of the private road leading to Rt. 250 is being dealt with. Mr. Payne explained that when the subdivision was originally made it was to be served by a road that led to Rt. 250. South Pantops Drive did not exist at the time, nor did Riverbend Drive. He stated the organic documents to that subdivision gave an easement to these lots, among others, allowing access to Rt. 250 and it was their only access. There was also a provision that when and if an alternative road was provided, the developer reserved the right to cut off that easement. Sometime around 1982 (a recorded document exists) the developer (Dr. Hurt) did in fact exercise the right to relocate that easement, did so, and specifically eliminated any right of this and several other lots to have any access to Rt. 250 over the private road. This, and several other lots are specifically limited to access over South Pantops and Riverbend Drive. Mr. Payne stated that this is no longer an issue. Mr. Payne confirmed that the developer could conceivably change his mind and grant easements if he so desired, but this would probably require an amendment to the subdivision plat. Mr. Michel stated he was concerned that this was not a good location onto Rt. 250. / /(a June 25, 1985 Page 10 Mr. Wilkerson moved that the Office Building and Restaurant for S & C Security Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit will be issued when the following conditions have been met: a. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and computations; b. County Engineer approval of stormwater detention plans and computations; C. County Engineer approval of private road and drainage plans and computations; d. Issuance of an erosion control permit; e. County Engineer approval of retaining wall design; f. Indication from adjoining owners that a grading easement has been obtained, if necessary; g. Service Authority final approval of water and sewer plans; h. Fire Official approval of handicap parking, hydrant location and dumpster location; i. Planning staff approval of landscape plan to include screening of detention pond; j. County Attorney approval of maintenance agreement for private road; k. Planning staff approval of technical items; 1. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of commercial entrance to include turn lanes on South Pantops Drive. 2. A certificate of occupancy will be issued when the following condition has been met; a. Fire Official final approval of hydrant location and fire flow. Mr. Michel seconded the motion. Ms. Diehl stated she could not support a site plan with so many items incomplete. Mr. Cogan agreed. The above stated motion for approval was approved (4:2) with Mr. Wilkerson, Mr. Gould, Mr. Michel and Mr. Skove voting in favor and Mr. Cogan and Ms. Diehl voting against. (Mr. Bowerman returned to the meeting.) There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. James R. Donnelly, eEary DS i/7