Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP199200079 Minutes Preliminary Site Plan 1992-12-15 SDP-92-079 - Auto America Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct a 9 , 000 square foot auto parts sales and service building with 50 parking spaces on a 0 . 923 acre site to be accessed from Dominion Drive. Property, described as Tax Map 61M, Section 12 , Parcel 1D, is located in the northwest quadrant of the Seminole Trail (Route 29N) and Dominion Drive intersection. Zoned PDSC, Planned Development Shopping Center and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District in the Charlottesville Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Neighborhood 1) and is recommended for Community Service. Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. In response to Mr. Johnson' s question as to the proposed use, Ms. Hipski explained that the proposed use is "minor auto repair similar to Jiffy Lube. " Mr. Cilimberg and Mr. Bowling explained that the Commission was not being asked to approve the use because it is "by-right. " Mr. Johnson noted that if this were to be a retail use 70 parking spaces would be required whereas only 50 are proposed with this use. Mr. Cilimberg explained that if another use, requiring more parking, were to locate at the site, the Zoning Department would require that additional parking be provided before the use could be approved. He explained that the 50 parking spaces provided with this proposal meet the requirements for this particular use. He stated that the site does not have to be designed for the "ultimate user. " There was a discussion about the location of the entrance in relation to the crossover on Rt. 29 . It was explained that a direct entrance onto Rt. 29 would not be allowed because it would be less than 500 feet from the crossover; however, the 500 foot limitation applies only to entrances directly onto roads that have crossovers and therefore does not apply to the entrance from the side road (Dominion Drive) . It was 12-15-92 20 noted that the crossover in question is to be eliminated at some future time (work on 29 to begin in 1993) . Ms. Hipski confirmed that the site plan accommodates future widening of Rt. 29 . Mr. Grimm asked why the entrance to the site could not be through the shopping center rather than from Dominion Drive. Ms. Hipski explained that this parcel is separate from the shopping center and the existing shopping center layout could not easily accommodate an additional entrance. She stated that the two properties had never been considered under one design plan. She explained further that though there are easements connecting the two properties, there is no evidence that it was intended that this parcel be accessed through the shopping center. Mr. Cilimberg noted that if the Commission "had any interest in the possibility of a future connection" through the shopping center, then suggested condition 1 (g) [Abandonment of all access easements connecting the Shopper' s World property and this property. ] should be omitted. He explained that any change which would provide that kind of connection would be a major site plan amendment and would have to be reviewed. The applicant was represented by Randy Sitack. He explained the use as "an auto parts store that does minor repairs, tire replacement and balancing. " Regarding condition 1 (g) , he stated: "We refuse to abandon the existing easement. " He expressed concerns that the closing of the crossover may cause a loss of business, at which time an access through the shopping center will probably be pursued. Regarding the "Berkeley" sign which currently exists on the property, he stated that because of liability and maintenance issues, the sign will have to be removed. (He noted that no easement exists for the placement of the sign on the property. ) Mr. Blue asked why the access through the shopping center was not proposed at this time since it is anticipated in the future. Mr. Sitack commented on topographic problems with the site, but stated that provisions are being made to allow for the second access at some future time. He stated that county staff had advised that it would be best not to pursue two entrances at this time. In response to Mr. Jenkins ' question, Mr. Sitack stated that Auto America is not concerned about the possibility that the creation of the access through the shopping center would result in the site being used as a "short cut. " Mr. Cilimberg again noted that even though the applicant has made it clear that the second access will be proposed in the future, it will still require Commission review and shopping center circulation will be an issue. 12-15-92 21 In answer to Mr. Nitchmann' s question regarding overnight storage of vehicles, Mr. Sitack explained that overnight parking is not allowed though there may be an occasion where a car will be left on the site late in the evening to be worked on the following morning. Mr. Sitack estimated approximately 20 to 30 cars on the site at a "busy time. " He confirmed that all services would be performed within the building. He stated that service bays will face Dominion Drive and the applicant is currently working with the Architectural Review Board on screening hedges and the types of doors which will be on the service bays. The Chairman invited public comment. Mr. George Stovall, a Berkeley resident, addressed the Commission. He was opposed to two entrances and recommended that the entrance be through the shopping center. He expressed concern about additional traffic on Dominion Drive. Ms. Joan Graves, a Berkeley resident, addressed the Commission. She felt the entrance on Dominion Drive was "inappropriate for the public and for the business itself. " She expressed concern about additional traffic on Dominion Drive. She noted that though the lot is zoned PD-SC, it is not large enough to stand alone as a shopping center. She felt that "because of it ' s situation and because of its zoning, this property should be considered as part of the shopping center. " She expressed concern about the removal of the Berkeley/Four Seasons sign. She recalled that the sign had been placed there legally, but she agreed that there were no easements related to the sign' s location on the property. For future proposals for the property, she asked that site plan hearing signs be posted on the property where they can be safely read. She also asked that "the nearest residents in Berkeley" receive notification for future proposals for the property. Regarding the notion that the site will be used as a shortcut after a second entrance is constructed, she asked if the entrance on Dominion Drive was being designed to accommodate the increased traffic that would use the shortcut. [Mr. Cilimberg addressed this concern stating: "They will not issue a commercial entrance permit without an adequate commercial entrance. " He explained further that any additional requirements for the Dominion Drive entrance would not be known until a proposal for the second entrance was actually reviewed. ] There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. 12-15-92 22 Mr. Grimm summarized that the main issue was that of the entrances to the site. Ms . Andersen asked if the entrance on Dominion Drive could be closed if an entrance through the shopping center is approved. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "I think you'd have to judge that based on the facts before you (at that time) . " Mr. Jenkins asked if the applicant could request access from Rt. 29 once the crossover has been closed. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the applicant could make that request. He noted that a certain distance between the intersection at the shopping center and entrances onto Rt. 29 would have to be maintained. In response to Mr. Nitchmann' s question as to whether the Commission could require that the applicant pursue an access across the shopping center and abandon the access on to a public road (Dominion Drive) , Mr. Bowling stated that he did not think the Commission had that right "unless you can show that there is some sort of overwhelming public health and safety problem in using that public road. " Mr. Blue felt that staff would have called attention to any issue of public health and safety. (Mr. Cilimberg noted that staff had double checked with VDOT regarding the site distance. ) Mr. Johnson noted that all departments were recommending approval of the plan and no public health, safety and welfare issues have been identified. Though he expressed personal reservations about the economic feasibility of the business given the location of the site, he moved that the Auto America Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations; c. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion control plan; d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements to include a commercial entrance; e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of ten (10) foot wide easement along the southwest border of the property and water meter locations; 12-15-92 23 f. Architectural Review Board issuance of a final Certificate of Appropriateness. 2 . Administrative approval of final site plan. Ms. Andersen seconded the motion. Mr. Grimm stated he could support the motion because staff and VDOT had determined there to be no public health and safety issues. Ms. Huckle indicated she agreed with Mr. Johnson' s reservations, and stated that she felt the site would be better served with an access through the shopping center. However, she stated she would support the motion. The motion for approval passed unanimously.