HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 05 88 PC MinutesJuly 5, 1988
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
July 5, 1988, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. David Bowerman, Chairman;
Ms. Norma Diehl, Vice Chairman; Mr. Keith Rittenhouse; Mr. Tom Jenkins;
Mr. Harry Wilkerson; Mr. Tim Michel; and Mr. Peter Stark. Other officials
present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. John Pullen,
Planner; and Mr. George St. John, County Attorney.
The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and established that
a quorum was present. The minutes of June 21, 1988 were approved as
submitted.
SP-88-42 John Purcell - Request in accordance with Section 10.2.2(2) of
the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow a
hunting lodge to be located on 89 acres, zoned RA, Rural Areas. Property,
described as Tax Map 124, Parcel 11, is located both north and south of
Rt. 761 adjacent to the Fluvanna County line. Scottsville Magisterial
District.
The applicant had requested deferral to August 9, 1988.
Mr. Michel moved, seconded by Mr. Wilkerson, that SP-88-42 for John Purcell
be deferred to August 9, 1988. The motion passed unanimously.
SP-88-46 Western Albemarle Rescue Squad - Request in accordance with Section
22.2.2(6) of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for a rental apartment to be
located in an existing building. Property, described as Tax Map 56A1,
Parcel 68, is located on the east side of Rt. 810, 200' north of its
intersection with Rt. 240. Zoned C-1, Commercial. White Hall Magisterial
District.
The applicant had requested that the petition be withdrawn without prejudice.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr. Stark, that SP--88-46 for Western
Albemarle Rescue Squad be withdrawn without prejudice. The motion
passed unanimously.
SP-88-43 Northside Baptist Church - Request in accordance with Section
14.2.2 0) of the Zoning Ordinance to amend SP-88-74, Condition No. 1, to
increase enrollment from 60 to 120 children. Property, described as
Tax Map 62A1, Section F, Parcel 18, is located on the east side of Rio
Road, just north of Wakefield Road and adjacent to Northfields Subdivision.
Zoned R-2, Residential. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
The applicant had requested that the petition be withdrawn without prejudice.
Mr. Wilkerson moved, seconded by Mr.
Baptist Church be withdrawn without
unanimously.
Michel, that SP-88-43 for Northside
prejudice. The motion passed
.3t1
July 5, 1988 Page 2
SP-88-48 Wallace Hatcher - Request 1n accordance with Section 22.2.2.10
of the Zoning Ordinance for the issuance of a special use permit to allow
for a drive-in window to serve a proposed photo processing, and retail
facility. Property, described as Tax Map 43, Parcels 101A and 102, is
located on the north side of Rio Road, just west of the intersection of Rio
Road and Rt. 29.. Zoned C-1, Commercial. Charlottesville Magisterial
District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the
petition.
Mr. Wilkerson asked about the usage of the adjacent property with which
the applicant planned to share an entrance. Mr. Pullen explained that
the property was currently undeveloped and the applicant may possibly
buy the adjacent property at some future time.
Mr. Pullen explained the stormwater detention plan.
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
Mr. Mark Keller., representing the applicant, addressed, the Comnission. He
offered little comment, but offered to answer any Commission questions.
The followed a discussion related to the applicant's plans for usage of the
10,000 square foot building. It was determined the applicant planned to
lease approximately 2,000 to 4,000 feet of the space. Mr. Michel expressed
concern that the drive-in window might interfere with other uses. Mr.
Bowerman asked if the request for the drive-in window was linked to the
applicant, the use or the site. It was determined the drive-in window
was for this particular use, i.e. the photo -processing lab. Mr. Pullen
explained that any additional use of the window would require an amendment
to the special permit.
Mr. `_Michel asked if staff had any concerns about a drive-thru window
in a facility that might have several different uses. M_x. Pullen replied
that the applicant had convinced staff that all the uses would be
related.
Mr. Bowerman asked if the applicant planned to rent any other parts of the
building. Mr. Hatcher responded and explained that 3,000 square feet
would be for retail rental. He gave as a possible example, a video store.
He explained further that it is his plan to immediately occupy 4,000 square
feet of the building, with the bulk of that being dedicated to professional
photography and lab processing. He stated the drive-thru portion was
only a small part ofthe business and the primary business would be
commercial photography and processing.
Mr. Bowerman explained that an additional business would not be able to
make use of the drive-thru window; it would be only for the applicant's
use. He felt this was the primary concern of the Commission.
xir. Hatcher explained that the 3,000 feet proposed for rental is on the
opposite side of the building with no joint access, thus the window could
not possibly have a dual use.
30,2
July 5, 1988 Page 3
Mr. Pullen added that it was staff's understanding that the window would
only be used for the photo retail part of the business and could be
interpreted no other way.
Mr. Pullen confirmed that staff had allowed enough parking to accommodate
the 3,000 feet of rental space.
Mr. Wilkerson asked if the Virginia Department of Transportation had been
aware of the possible video rental usage at the time they had reviewed
the proposal. Mr. Pullen responded negatively and stated that it was
VDOT's understanding that the window would be for the photo operation only.
Mr. Keller pointed out that there are currently no prospective tenants for
the rental portion of the building and Mr. Hatcher had simply given a
video rental as an example of a possible tenant.
Mr. Bowerman stated he had no objections to the window, but he was in
favor of the Commission reviewing the site plan.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Jenkins expressed an interest in how chemicals used in the process
would be disposed of, i.e. will they go into public sewer? Mr. Hatcher
explained that the chemicals are specially treated before disposal. Mr.
Keeler explained that the applicant would have to get approval from the
Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority in order to discharge chemicals into
the public sewer. He advised the applicant to contact Jean Potter.
Ms. Diehl asked staff if condition No. l was sufficient to address any
concerns which might arise related to the leasable space. Mr. Pullen
explained that the applicant had .consulted with the Zoning Department
and they were aware of the possible multi uses of the site and had
accordingly determined the required number of parking spaces. Mr. Keeler
added that the parking is based on retail usage and there is no standard
for a video rental usage. He suggested that if the Commission wished,
the staff could approve the site plan administratively and limit the
use to "retail only, excluding video rental, restaurants, and that sort
of thing." He did not think this would cause a problem. He also
suggested that a note could be placed on the plan stating that future
use of the building would be limited by available parking.
It was decided the Commission would review the site plan.
Ms. Diehl moved that SP-88-48 for Wallace Hatcher be recommended to the
Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following condition:
1. A site plan submitted for approval shall be in general accordance with
the site plan by Site Specific, In., titled "Photoworks of Virginia,"
dated May 23, 1988 (revisions on June 26, 1988).
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
The matter was to be heard by the Board on August 17, 1988.
.-�4,4
July 5, 1988
Page 4
Centre at Branchlands Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to create a 58,420
square foot building to be located on 6.8 acres. The site will have access
from Branchlands Blvd. and Hillsdale Drive, and will be served by 325
parking spaces. The proposed use is retail. Property, located on the
east side of Rt. 29N, approximately 'k mile from its intersection with
Greenbrier Drive. Tax `ia.p 61Z, Parcel 1. Zoned PL`D, Planned Unit
Development. Charlottesville -Magisterial District.
Mr. Pullen gave the staff report. Staff recommended approval.
Referring to condition l(d)--Issuance of an erosion control permit --Mr.
Bowerman noted that there is currently a permit for the grading that
has already taken place, so this condition relates to any additional
grading.
)Ir. Keeler explained the road plans for Branchlands Blvd. and Hillsdale Drive.
He stated: "With this site plan, either construction or bonding for the
construction of Hillsdale Drive throughout the development and the improve-
ments to Greenbrier back down to 29, completion of Branchlands Blvd. and
signalization at Rt. 29 will occur."
Mr. Michel asked Mr. Keeler: "Do you anticipate allowing an occupancy
permit on this building if Hillsdale were not completed and taken into
the system?" Mr. Keeler responded: "Yes, as long as it provided safe
and convenient access to the development."
The Chairman invited applicant comment.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Roudabush. He pointed out that "all
of the public .improvements of the construction of the new entrance from
Rt. 29, the construction of Branchlands Blvd. and Hillsdale Drive, the new
water and sewer lines, the box culvert, all the storm drainage system, etc.,
are being constructed and are almost complete based on prior approved plans."
He stated that none of those are a part of this application. He stated
that a new Erosion Control Plan would cover construction of the shopping
center buildings and parking lots. He stated the applicant had no objections
to any of the suggested conditions of approval. Mr. Roudabush presented
a rendering of the building.
Mr. Bowerman asked 'Mr. Roudabush how much more the site would be raised.
Mr. Roudabush stated he did not think there would be a great deal of
change. He stated the elevation would be raised somewhat in the parking
area towards Rt. 29, but there would be no grade change at the entrance.
There was a brief discussion about the elevation and grade changes of
the site.
The Chairman invited public comment.
Mr. Bob Brew, contract purchaser of the property directly south of the
applicant's site, addressed the Commission. He explained that his,
survey had revealed that the current grading on the applicant's site
has encroached significantly onto his property. He stressed that he
was not opposed to the applicant's proposal and did not wish to "hinder"
either the applicant or the owner of the property, but he simply wished
to call the Commission's attention to the situation. He felt the
""present grading is not according to the site plan and/or erosion plan
.3 1#
July 5, 1988
Page 5
that I have reviewed."
Mr. Bowerman asked Mr. Keeler to comment on the issue raised by Mr. Brew.
Mr. Keeler pointed out the property in question. He explained that Mr.
Brew was purchasing the property from Tom Forloines and the applicant
is the contract purchaser of parcels E and F, which is under review.
He explained that Dr. Hurt is the seller of parcels E and F and is
doing the present grading for purposes of road construction. He
stated that the Erosion Plan covers both E and F. Mr. Keeler explained
it was his understanding that the surveyor involved in the closing
between Forloines and Brew determined that there appeared to be grading
on the property and he prepared a plat which indicates there has been
trespass on the property in terms of grading. Mr. Keeler stated he
had not been able to discuss the matter with Mr. St. John because
it had just come to his attention "this afternoon." Mr. Keeler stated
he had discussed the issue with the County Engineer's Office and
it is staff's opinion that "the County can enforce restoration of the
property only to the extent necessary to satisfy the Soil Erosion
Ordinance." Mr. Keeler felt this was primarily a civil matter between
the two property owners:
Mr. St. John stated the County has no legal power to become involved in a
question of trespass. He stated that, as of this minute, Dr. Hurt is the
owner of the land, even though there are contract purchasers and if he
has done something that puts him in breach of contract, that is a civil
matter.
Mr. Bowerman pointed out that the property which has been encroached upon
is owned by Mr. Forloines who has a contract purchaser (Mr. Brew) for the
property.
Mr. St. John stated the County cannot be involved in a trespass dispute.
He added that the County could only ensure that. .erosion measures were
complied with.
Mr. Bowerman indicated he was concerned because Dr. Hurt's Erosion
Control Plan was reviewed and accepted by the County. He asked: (1) Was
the plan correct and was the Erosion Control Plan on it correct? and (2) Was
the grading that took place correct according to the plan which was submitted?
Mr. Roudabush pointed out that the present applicant has nothing to do with
the grading that has taken place because he is buying a "developed,
graded site." He also noted that the area in question was remote from
this site.
Mr. Brew again stressed that his main purpose was to alert the Commission that
the Erosion Control Plan was not being followed. He indicated he had no
interest in pursuing a civil action.
Mr. Bowerman thanked Mr. Brew for bringing this matter to the Commission's
attention.
i1 e
July 5, 1988
Page 6
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Michel stated that most concerns had been addressed and he moved that
the Centre at Branchlands Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject
to the following conditions:
1. The final site development plan will not be signed until the following
conditions have been met:
a. County Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and
calculations;
b. County Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and
calculations;
c. County Engineering approval of .retaining wall design;
d. Issuance of an erosion control permit;
e. Planning staff approval of landscape plan;
f. County Engineer approval of unified drainage plan;
g. Installation of sidewalks along both sides of the entrance
travelway;
h. Rivanna Water & Sewer Authority acceptance of revised sanitary
sewer easement, to include recordation of plat on which the
revised easement shall be shown.
i. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way
and drainage improvements for Rt. 29 and issuance of a commercial
entrance permit.
2. A certificate of occupancy will not be issued until the following condition
is met:
a. .Final Fire Official approval.
3, Staff requests administrative approval of the final site plan. (-.Note:
This condition was deleted and a new condition 3 was added later in the
meeting.).
Mr. Wilkerson seconded the motion.
Mr. Stark expressed the feeling that the Commission should review the final
site plan because of several details which still have to be worked out.
Mr. Bowerman agreed.
Mr. Michel amended his motion and deleted condition '_1o. 3. M.r. Wilkerson
agreed to the amended motion.
The motion passed unanimously as amended by Mr. ?Iichel. (Note: Condition
No. 3 was later amended and re -instated and the motion for approval was
voted on a second time.)
Mr. reeler asked for clarification as to what items the Commission would
specifically be looking for at the time of the final site plan. It
was finally determined that the Commission had no objections to staff
administratively approving all the conditions EXCEPT 1(a), l(b), l(c) and
1(e) .
It was determined that condition No. 3 would be re -instated as follows:
"Staff granted administrative approval of all items except l(a), l(b),
l(c) and 1(e)."
July 5, 1988
Page 7
Mr. Michel amended his original motion to included amended condition No. 3
as stated. Mr. Wilkerson agreed to the amended motion.
The motion for approval once again passed unanimously.
Miscellaneous
Grading at Branc_hlands project: The Commission asked staff to contact the
County Engineer and request that he determine: (1) Was site plan which
was submitted by applicant correct? and (2) Was Erosion Control Plan
followed in the grading process?
Forest Glen: Mr. Keeler explained.that the applicant was requesting a
30 day extension of the subdivision plan. Mr. Keeler recommended that
the Commission grant a 60,day extension.
Mr. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Forest Glen Subdivision
Plan be granted a 60-day extension. The motion passed unanimously.
Planned Development Industrial Park_: Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr.
Stark, that the Commission adopt a Resolution of Intent to amend the
Zoning Ordinance as it relates to Planned Development Industrial Park
zoning uses. The motion passed unanimously.
There being no further business, Mr.. Stark moved, seconded by Mr. Michel,
that the Commission adjourn to Executive Session to discuss litigation
matters. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting adjourned to
Executive Session at 8:45 p.m.
The Executive Session adjourned at 9:16 p.m.
7� S�
&John::�5cr4ne, Secretary
DS
.Sit