10.5.22 Planning Board Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Approved 12.7.22 276 Charity Kirk: So this is more serving the county above us. 277 278 Brian Collie: A little bit of both. There is a need for them to submit the 30 ft. landscaping buffers on the site plan. 279 280 Lamar Proctor: Can you explain the relationship between the total acreage of the parcel, 54.23 acres but 7.05 acres is 281 what they are asking to be rezoned and you are going to develop. Is that the set ratio for Hyco Watershed? 282 283 Briant Roby: It's the 7 of the 54, its 7 acres based on the fact that 15%of that 7 acres is impervious. 284 285 Lamar Proctor: So it's a 15% impervious limit so to get the impervious surface,you have to rezone 7 acres. 286 287 Briant Roby: Exactly. 288 289 Lamar Proctor: But the rest of the property could be rezoned later. That's not at issue, it's just these 7 acres because 290 you're limited to 15%? 291 292 Briant Roby: That's correct. There is a limit in a protected watershed on how many can be impervious. We have been 293 through the exercise of ensuring that this is within those limits. 294 295 Whitney Watson: You had asked for a reduction in the number of parking spaces, I'm curious how you arrived at that. 296 What kind of studies were done to determine if the amount of parking spaces would be adequate for customers. 297 298 Briant Roby: Primarily based on rural character of the site, a traffic impact analysis was required as it is with all 299 conditional zoning requests. The peak traffic per hour didn't come out to justify the need for the full 53 spaces,46 will be 300 adequate based on that. Part of that was also off-setting the use of those islands as landscaping as well. Based on 301 where this is located,we don't anticipate the need for the full 53 spaces. 302 303 Whitney Watson: Does that mean that you also did an assessment about customers per hour? 304 305 Briant Roby: That's correct. 306 307 Whitney Watson: So that's relatively low? If you are allowed 53-54 spaces and you want to reduce it to 46 or 47 is that 308 still going to be enough spaces. How do you justify the reduction or even in fact,the flipside of that is how do you justify 309 placing a retail establishment there that is going to have a relatively low use from customers? 310 311 Briant Roby: Understood. 312 313 Whitney Watson: They made some assessment,some calculation about this to begin with that it was going to be viable 314 based on this size store, this number of spaces,this many people per hour and I was curious how those numbers came 315 out. 316 317 Briant Roby: I would have to double check the report but we do have figures for what the peak hour is,what the total 318 daily trips are and looking at that and assuming length of trip,we can go back into whether or not that is enough spaces 319 for a particular use. 320 321 Statler Gilfillen: You are looking for a variance for fewer parking spaces, under what the code technically requires, if that 322 is approved and 2 years from now it turns out that all the planning that was done, all the estimates,the future there were 323 done were seriously in error and we need to put the additional parking back or it is determined that it should be put back. 324 What safeguards do we have to approve it less for now when in reality, say 2 years from now,they find out they really 325 need those spaces to require them to be put in. I don't know if there is a firm answer to that. 326 327 Briant Roby: There is a small amount of area on site that is not being used for impervious area. The spaces could be 328 added back later. We are very close to the threshold but good design guidelines include leaving a small amount of 329 additional area. 330