HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 25 1991 PC MinutesJune 25, 1991
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public
hearing on Tuesday, June 25, 1991, Meeting Room 7, County
Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Keith Rittenhouse, Chairman; Mr. Harry
Wilkerson, Vice Chairman; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Ms. Ellen
Andersen; Mr. Walter Johnson; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other
officials present were: Mr. Bill Fritz, Senior Planner; Ms.
Yolanda Lipinski, Planner; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy
County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Grimm.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and
established that a quorum was present. The minutes of June
11, 1991 were approved as submitted.
- - Petition for a special use
permit to construct a bridge in the floodway of Yellow
Mountain creek [30.3.5.2.1] on a 93.6 acre parcel zoned RA,
Rural Areas. The property, described as Tax Map 71, Parcel
5, is located on the west side of Rt. 689 approximately 0.5
mile south of its intersection with Rt. 250 in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District. This property is not located
in the designated growth area.
Because of an error in the notification process, staff was
requesting deferral to July 9, 1991.
Ms. Andersen moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that SP-90-
117 be deferred to July 9, 1991. The motion passed
unanimously.
SDP-91-045 - Berkmar, Lot 6 P,reliminary, Site Plan (Revised)
- Construction of a 6,621 square foot building for
retail/warehouse use on 37 parking spaces on a 22,729 square
foot parcel. Zoned Highway Commercial and is partially
located in the EC Overlay District. Tax Map 61U, Section
01, Parcels 5 and 6; and Tax Map 61, Parcel 120F, is on the
northeast side of Berkmar Drive approximately 475 feet west
of Route 29. Charlotteesville Magisterial District. This
site is located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood
1). (On March 12, 1991, the Planning Commission denied the
original request due to access to Lot 5.)
Ms. Lipinski presented the staff report.
In response to Ms. Huckle's question, Ms. Lipinski confirmed
that the parking area would have to be filled. She also
confirmed that the detention basin had been built by the
County and is already in use.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Kirk Hughes. He
offered to answer questions.
June 25, 1991 Page 2
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Caleb Stowe addressed the Commission, He was in favor
of the development of the property. However, he felt the
review of this application should be viewed as dealing with
both lots 5 and 6 together. He noted that the properties
had been bought as a "single package." He spoke on behalf
of the owner of the property behind the subject property.
He expressed concern about the condition of the "backside"
of lot 5. He felt erosion problems were critical and
conditions of approval should address these problems. He
presented photographs of lot 5.
Mr. Hughes addressed some of Mr. Stowe's comments. He felt
the erosion referred to was occurring in the County's
easement. He also pointed out that the lots have not been
combined and are still, by subdivision, two separate lots.
Regarding the dirt pile shown in the photographs, Ms.
Lipinski explained that the County Engineer, "felt the pile
of dirt was too small for the requirements to kick in and
therefore he did not have a problem with that." She added
that Mr. Stowe had expressed concern about the appearance of
the two sheds on the property and also the height of the
grass. She indicated the County had no authority to require
removal of the sheds or maintenance of the grass on lot 5.
Mr. Hughes noted that one of the sheds would be relocated
and the other removed.
Ms. Huckle was under the impression that the applicant had
stated in a previous hearing that one of the existing
buildings would be removed in the near future because it had
exceeded its lifespan. (Ms. Lipinski clarified that the
building referred to was on lot 5.) Mr. Hughes responded:
"I don't recall saying that." Ms. Lipinski added: "With
this proposal it was not proposed to be removed.
Mr. Hughes noted that the dirt that is on the property will
be used in the fill area. He explained that the dirt pile
was the result of the County's excavation work during the
construction of the detention basin. He explained that the
critical slopes involved in the waiver request are also a
result of the County's construction.
Mr. Rittenhouse summarized: "What I'm hearing is that staff
has found no Ordinance provisions that require... sprucing up
the back,'
It was noted that no screening requirements are required
between similarly zoned properties (e.g. between C--1 and
HC)_
June 25. 1991 Page 3
Ms. Lipinski noted: "ire can be sure there is some interior
landscaping over here to provide some screening from this
property."
Mr. Hughes pointed out that a "lot of root matter" is not
desirable because it can cause problems with the detention
basin.
Ms. Huckle asked what would happen if one parcel were sold
in relation to the easements. Mr. Hughes explained he felt
that was the reason the existing easements had been put in
place. He did not think the easements would effect the sale
of the property.
Mr. Bowling commented: "If its a change in use or whatever
is proposed for a site plan for the other parcel --at that
point in time you'll have your chance at that. The two
parcels are there now, are existing and self-sufficient, and
the landowner has the right to maximize the use of his
property pursuant to your ordinances and requirements."
Mr. Johnson asked if it was possible to include lot 5 in the
landscaping plan since easements across lot 5 are necessary
in order for lot 6 to meet the requirements of the
Ordinance. Mr. Bowling replied: "From what staff is
saying, that is above and beyond the scope of your
landscaping requirements in the Ordinance."
In response to Ms. Huckle's request, Ms. Lipinski explained
the traffic pattern on the property.
Mr. Hughes explained that the owner has agreed, in writing,
to provide a temporary access easement until lot 5 is
developed and if the sites were developed jointly they would
be put together and there would be no further need for the
easement. If developed separately, the easement will become
a permanent easement.
Mr. Stowe noted that the County has an easement on the back
side of the property.
There being no further applicant or public comment the
matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Wilkerson felt that the applicant had addressed the
staff's concerns and moved that the Berkmar, Lot 6
Preliminary Site Plan (Revised) be approved subject to the
following conditions:
Ann
June 25. 1991
1. The Planning Staff shall
final site plan for signature
the following conditions have
Page 4
not accept submittal of the
until tentative approvals for
been obtained.
a. Department of Engineering approval of grading
and drainage plans and calculations to include
improvements on Parcel 5;
b. Department of Engineering approval of road and
drainage plans and calculations;
c. Department of Engineering approval of
stormwater detention plans and calculations if "on -
site" detention is used or a contribution of $3,598.24
to the County's Berkmar Detention Basin prior to the
issuance of a building permit;
d. Department of Engineering issuance of an
erosion control permit;
e. Service Authority approval of water meter
location;
f. Staff approval of landscape plan to include
plantings for 10% canopy and street shrubs planted five
feet on center;
g. Department of Engineering approval of new
improvements on Lot 5 to include parking and access
aisles to be prime and double sealed; installation of
wheel stops along the eastern edge of pavement; and
installation of the reflectorized post to delineate the
proposed edge of pavement along the eastern edge of
pavement;
h. Provision of planters, bollards or islands
across the front of Lot 5 to ensure sight distance.
2. Administrative approval of final site plan.
Discussion: (before a second to the motion)
Mr. Johnson suggested the addition of two conditions:
---He felt there should be some reference to the
preliminary site plan being approved, i.e. Attachment A
dated December 21, 1990 through revisions dated June 3,
1991.
--Compliance with recommendations of VDOT's letter of
May 23, 1991.
Mr. Fritz noted that VDOT "largely turns over their review
to the Department of Engineering on something of this
nature."
i®r
June 25, 1991
Page 5
Regarding the reference to a specific site plan, Mr. Fritz
stated he could not recall any time that had been done. He
stated: "It's pretty clear from the record what you're
approving." He explained that references to specific dated
documents is done with special permits and rezonings, not
with preliminary site plans.
Mr. Johnson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at
7:40 p.m: , - % _
IOA