Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 27 85 PC MinutesAugust 27, 1985 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 27, 1985, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman; Mr. Richard Cogan, Vice Chairman; Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Ms. Norma Diehl, Mr. Richard Gould and Mr. James Skove. Other officials present: Ms. Amelia Patterson, Planner; Ms. Katherine Imhoff, Chief of Community Development; Ms. Patricia Nilsson; Mr. David Benish, Planner; Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Ms. Patricia Cooke, Ex-Officio. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. after establishing that a quorum was present. The minutes of the August 13, 1985 meeting were approved as corrected by Mr. Cogan. Ashcroft Section V Phase One Final Plat - Proposal to create 25 lots from 43.705 acres with an average lot size of 1.2 acres. Located on the north side of Rt. 250E just north of its inter- section with I-64. Zoned RPN. Tax Map 78, part of parcel 55. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson stated the applicant had requested deferral of this item. Mr. Skove moved that Ashcroft Section V Phase One Final Plat be indefinitely deferred at the request of the applicant. Mr. Cogan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Charlottesville Retail Center Site Plan - Proposal to locate an 8,000 square foot retail sales building on a 0.74 acre site served by 48 parking spaces. Located on the west side of Rt. 29N at its intersection with Berkmar Drive. Zoned HC, Highway Commercial. Tax Map 61U, parcels 01-15 and 01-16. Charlottes- ville Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report She added the following com- ments: --The County Engineer's office has commented that use of the proposed loading site by tractor trailers will cause a disruption of traffic flow on Berkmar Drive. However, because of the low traffic flow on Berkmar and the brevity of the disruption, it was not felt that this should hinder the development of the site. --This proposal is for a larger building than typically developed on commercial sites and consequently there are internal circulation concerns. 207 August 27, 1985 Page 2 --Staff discovered after the staff report was written that the parking spaces as shown do not meet the led required 10-foot setback from the public right-of- way. However, she explained the plan shows a wider travel aisle than is needed so there is some leeway. She stated that moving the parking spaces will cause the loss of one space on the corner and possibly one other after the question of the right-of-way on the service road has been answered (it has not yet been determined if the service road is a public road). --The plan requires 44 parking spaces which are exactly what is shown, thus those which may be lost will have to be made up somewhere else. --If the building were to be downsized and shaped differently, a better parking and circulation pattern could be achieved. --Only one tenant (of a possible 3) is known at this time. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Ron Peoples, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He offered the following comments: --There is sufficient space to meet the setback requirement. --Tractor-trailer trucks exiting the site could pull onto the service road and then go through the Dart -Shopper's World lot. (The Commission and staff were opposed to adding more tractor -trailers to this area.) --He was opposed to downsizing the building because of economic considerations. --In response to the suggestion by Mr. Bowerman that the building might be made a two-story, Mr. Peoples stated it is difficult to find tenants for a second story. --Regarding the possibility of changing the lot lines, he stated he had spoken with the neighboring property owner about this, but he was not interested. The applicant is also discussing the possibility of buying the neighboring property. --The tenant which has been secured (Color Tile) generates very little traffic, but the other two tenants are unknown at this time. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Chairman invited comment from Mr. Echols, representing the Highway Department. Mr. Echols stated full frontage improve- ments will be required which will require an additional 2 feet of right of way. (50 feet of right-of-way is shown, but the requirement is for 26 feet of pavement from the center line to the face of the curb, totaling 52 feet.) He stated also the proposed plantings may cause site distance problems. o August 27, 1985 Page 3 In response to Mr. Cogan's inquiry, Ms. Patterson stated it might be difficult to make up the two lost parking spaces because the site is so intensely developed. Mr. Wilkerson asked how the additional 2-foot setback referred to by Mr. Echols will affect the parking. Ms. Patterson explained they are currently missing the setback by 3 feet and they have 4 feet of leeway in the travel aisle, leaving 1 foot to play with. It was determined there would be no margin for error. It was determined the additional right-of-way needed is on Berkmar Drive, not Rt. 29. It was determined the Commission has the authority to restrict building size to that which can be accommodated by parking. Mr. Payne added that the Commission has not only the authority but the responsibility to ensure that the parking and circula- tion is consistent with the public safety. Mr. Wilkerson stated he could not support the application because of the proposed tractor -trailer circulation pattern. Mr. Gould stated that the margin for error is so small in so many areas that the proposal needs to go "back to the drawing board." Mr. Cogan stated he felt the applicant was trying to do too much with too little. He stated he could not support the application with so many unanswered questions. Ms. Diehl stated it seemed the answer is to either down - size the building or acquire additional land. Because it was determined that the time lapse resulting from an applicant's request for deferral is not included in the 60- day action requirement, the applicant requested that the Commission defer the matter rather than take action on it. It was determined the Commission is in favor of seeing a plan which shows a safe and convenient access and circulation pattern and adequate parking accommodations. Mr. Cogan moved that the Charlottesville Retail Center Site Plan be deferred indefinitely at the request of the applicant. Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. G.E. Activity Center Site Plan - Proposal to use an existing house with basement as recreation center and meeting area �we for General Electric employees and guests. Zoned RA, Rural 709 August 27, 1985 Page 4 Areas. Property, located on the north side of Rt. 606 across from the GE plant, west of the intersection with Rt. 763. Tax Map 20, parcel 19D. Rivanna Magisterial District. Ms. Patterson gave the staff report. The Chairman invited applicant comment. Mr. Jim Neblett, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission and stated it was the applicant's intent to fully comply with all the conditions of staff. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Wilkerson moved that the G.E. Activity Center 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. County Engineer approval of grading and drainage plans and computations; b. Health Department approval of surface treatment of driveway area over septic field; c. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance. 2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following conditions have been met: a. Fire official final approval; b. Bonding or planting new landscaping; 3. Compliance with SP-85-03 General Electric. Mr. Skove seconded the motion which was unanimously approved. Development Activity Report 1984 - Presentation of annual report consisting of a comprehensive overview of industrial, commercial and residential development approved and implemented in 1984. The report also includes detailed analysis of total acreage by zoning category of developed and undeveloped land by Comprehensive Plan areas. No action required. Ms. Imhoff introduued Ms. Patricia Nilsson, newly appointed Planning Technician for Community Development, who presented the report. She explained that in past years the Department has reported on residential activity in the county. However, in 1984 the report was expanded to include industrial and commercial development. She stated that since 1984 is a benchmark year much data was collected on the Comprehensive Information System (CIS). She explained that the Comprehensive Information System is a data base for all county tax parcels, thus all the urban area information and most of the growth r Tin August 27, 1985 Page 5 area information is on the CIS. The scope of the report included Residential Development, Commercial and Industrial Development, and Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Amendments. She went over several tables (using the overhead projector) which were included in the report. She pointed out that the report has shown that commercial and industrial development is occuring in the designated growth areas and the level of residential growth is close to Comprehensive Plan projections. Mr. Bowerman asked what are the implications of this study vs. the planning that has been done, in terms of the overall land use plans. Ms. Imhoff stated the fact that the figures are in line with the projections is an indication the Comprehensive Plan is working and growth is slowly being directed into the areas where it is desired. She stated that although the rural growth rate is 20% above the called for 30%, that will continue to be the trend for a number of years. She added it is hoped the Development Activity Report can be used as a way to monitor if the Comp Plan is working as well as serve as a useful planning tool for traffic projections, etc. She also confirmed that there is usually three or four years of "lag" time. Ms. Imhoff pointed out that other factors, such as mortgage rates, often influence the rate of development more than Comp Plan directives or planning methods. Mr. Cogan expressed concern about the recent excess of rental units in the area. He asked if the research done for the report had uncovered a disproportionate number of renters vs. owners. Ms. Nilsson stated it would be difficult to get that information. Ms. Imhoff added that she felt it was encouraging that there are finally enough rental units to accommodate both the university students and the local residents. Ms. Imhoff informed the Commission there are funds available for possibly one or two Commissioners to attend an Institute for Planning Commissioners to be held in October in Natural Bridge. It was determined Mr. Wilkerson may be able to attend the meeting. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:45 p.m. DS .211 9