Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 27 77 PC Minutes)5/ September 27, 1977 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, September 27, 1977, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members in attendance were Mr. David Carr, Chairman; Mr. Peter Easter, Vice -Chairman; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Roy Barksdale; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Leslie Jones; Mr. Paul Peatross; Col. William Washington; and Mrs. Opal David, ex-Officio. Other officials present were Mr. Robert W. Tucker, Jr., Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald S. Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mr. Carlos Montenegro, Planner; and Mr. Frederick W. Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Carr called the meeting to order after establishing that a quorum was present. Minutes of May 31, 1977, and August 23, 1977, were deferred until the next meeting. Shadwell Heights RPN/A-1 rezoning request: Mr. Montenegro presented the reasons for deferral - in order that the applicant could meet with the Health Department on the property, in order that the Highway Department representative could be present, and in order to receive a written ruling from the Zoning Administrator on the appropriateness of the request in view of the separate parcels. Mrs. Graves stated that she had not seen that memo prior to the meeting, and asked if the Homeowners' Association would be the same as that for the larger parcel. Mr. Montenegro replied that this would be the case since it is part and parcel of the entire application. Mr. Montenegro then read the letter from the Health Department, reporting their findings on the adequacy of the lots for septic systems. He presented the mailgram from Mr. Pyles, and then read the recommended conditions of approval suggested by the staff. Mr. Peatross asked to hear from the Highway Department regarding the poor visibility and the traffic problems discussed at the earlier meeting. Mr. Coburn reported that the traffic study was accomplished about one year ago, and at that time approximately 322 vehicles per day used the intersection. In the past few years, only one accident has occurred there. He said that no problems really exist at the present time, though it is a blind intersection. Mr. Peatross asked if the Highway Department recommends a traffic light at this time. Mr. Coburn stated that no light is necessary now, nor does probable development require a light. 15 Z Mr. Coburn also reported that the Highway Department would do further study if such is made a condition of approval of the request. He stated that it would be necessary to consult with the traffic engineer to determine if warning lights at the intersection are necessary. Mr. Jack Taggart stated that the sight distance is below what is required, and therefore certainly feels that it is a safety hazard. Mr. Coburn said that 400 cars per day using the intersection does not mean they are all there at one time, and thus the safety depends on how the traffic is spread throughout the day. Mr. Taggart questioned the problems during the 7-9:00 a.m. hours and the 4-6:00 p.m. hours. Mr. Coburn stated that it is a busy time, however the remaining part of the day traffic would be at a fairly constant :rate. He informed Mr. Taggart that what currently exists is all that is necessary :now and for future development. Mr. Charles Almy felt that the glare from the sun would impair visibility in late afternoon. Mr. Robert Anderson stated that the intersection as it is now is dangerous, and the sunlight in the morning makes it even more dangerous. Mr. Jim Pyles felt that the attraction of the lake might increase the traffic. Mr. Montenegro replied that this should not be the case since the homeowners will determine whether the lake is used by the public or just the property owners 114) of the development. Mrs. Edna Anderson said that there have been a number of accidents at the intersection of Shadwell Estates and she would be happy to have warning lights at the intersection for safety reasons. At this point the conversation moved the the desirability of septic systems on the individual lots within the development. He stated that Dr. Matthews, retained by the applicant, stated that there are only two lots that require some care in the location of the septic fields - one because of slope, and one because of the proximity to Shadwell Estates. Dr. Matthews had reported to the staff that he sees no reason to amend the plan because of the individual. septic systems proposed. Mr. Roseberry stated that he himself' did the soil studies back in July, using a backhoe on approximately 60 holes. He said that of those, only three locations were not suitable for building. Mr. Parks pointed out these locations to the staff, public, and Commission. Mr. Roseberry further stated that the Health Department will not issue a permit until it is definitely known where the house will be situated. That is the only way it can be determined if there is the necessary drainage. Mr. Jones questioned the size houses are planned for the development. Mr. Roseberry stated that the Health Department always works with the idea of three bedrooms with a washing machine. /53 Mr. Roseberry further stated that as preliminary work, only a soil study is done. Mrs. Graves said that she is uncomfortable with the two separate parcels in this application, however she has no objection to two separate RPN's. Mr. Payne espressed the opinion that he sees no problem here, and sees no particular inequity with the two separate parcels. Mrs. Graves said that in her opinion the integrity of the ordinance should be protected. Mr. Taggart said that he feels the non-contiguous parcel of this application sets a dangerous precedent. Mr. Carr closed the public hearing. Dr. Moore agreed with Mrs. Gravesregarding the two separate parcels, one across a state road from the other. Mr. Parks said that on behalf of the applicant, he is willing to withdraw the 10-acre section. He said that it can stand alone at a later date in another RPN application . He said that it adds nothing to the density of the larger parcel, though. Mr. Jones said that he does not feel that the lake should be considered to be part of the open space of the RPN. Mr. Montenegro said that there is still 250 open space in the proposal even without the lake. Mr. Peatross moved approval of the request for ZMA-77-17 subject to the following conditions: 1. Written Health Department approval; 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance facilities; 3. Albemarle County Engineering Department approval of all internal roads and private drives; 4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of internal roads; 5. No dwelling units nor septic fields to be built on slopes in excess of 25%; 6. No dwelling units nor septic fields to be built within 50 feet of the lake water's edge at a mean level to be determined by the Virginia Department of Health; 7. The applicant will have a certified engineer test the existing dam and certify that it is safe to the satisfaction of the County Engineer; 8. A maintenance agreement for the maintenance of all common area, recreational facilities, private drives, and the dam is to be approved by the County Attorney's office and recorded; 9. Subdivision approval will be subject to County Engineer's approval of central water systems; 10. A grading permit will be required prior to subdivision approval; 11. All lots are to be adjacent to common open space; 12. An approved secondary drainfield location must be provided for each lot; 13. That the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation review the inter- section of Routes 250 East and Shadwell Road in order to determine wheter signs or warning lights are necessary; if it is determined that controls are 114) warranted, they shall be installed at the developer's expense. Mr. Barksdale seconded this motion. Mr. Montenegro stated that the applicant must withdraw one more unit to make this conform to A-1 zoning. Mr. Carr asked if Mr. Peatross would amend his motion to reflect this staff comment. Mr. Peatross said that he would rather withdraw his motion, since he cannot support the development unless the density conforms to A-1 zoning. Mr. Parks said that he is agreeable to that. Mrs. Graves suggested limiting the density of the development. Mr. Keeler recommended deletion of one of the units on one of the questionable lots ( one of those where it is doubtful that a septic field can be located ). Mr. Barksdale said that he is agreeable to the application. Mr. Tucker suggested that the density could be handled with a 14th condition stating that the approval is subject to the density meeting RPN/A-1 density requirements. Mr. Peatross said that he would amend his motion to include a 14th condition: 14. This rezoning is approved for RPN/A-1 designation and density. Mr. Peatross further amended to motion to state that he would accept the request for withdrawal of approximately 13 acres - County Tax Map 79, Parcel 23, part thereof - located on the north side of Route 729 from consideration in ZMA-77-17. Furthermore the conditions of approval are to apply to County Tax Map 79, Parcel 23, part thereof ( located on the south side of Route 729 ) and County Tax Map 79C, Parcel 1. Mr. Barksdale seconded the amended motion. Mr. Jones stated that he could not support the motion becuase of the traffic situation. The motion carried by a vote of 8-1, with Mr. Jones dissenting. Signs in the CVN and CO Districts: The Commission deferred until the end of the meeting this item since no representative from the Sign Committee was present. 19 155 Bromwell"s of Charlottesville Site Plan: Mr. Montenegro reviewed the staff report for the Commission noting that the matter had been deferred in order for the staff to check the Highway Department plans in this area and to coordinate a meeting between property owners concerning improvement of the entrance. He noted that there are no further comments from the Highway Department. Mr. Mike Boggs pointed to the plan and showed the Commission the distance of improvements back on Rio Road. Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Health Department approval; 2. Maintenance agreement approved by County Attorney and recorded. Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Be it resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, does hereby state its intent to amend Article 19, Residential Planned Neighborhood section of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance by defining life -care centers and including same as a use by right under the RPN zone. Mr. Easter disqualified himself from the discussion and vote by leaving the room. Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, reading the wording proposed by the staff. He pointed out that in the opinion of the staff that if this is provided in the RPN district it is not necessary to provide it in the A-1 zone, since it would be a duplication. Dr. Moore stated that in his opinion the definition is unusually broad. Mr. Payne stated that there are two amendments before the Commission. He pointed out that Section 15-46.1 defines "institution" which is already permitted in the Zoning Ordinance. Dr. Moore questioned if this limits the use to only members of the proposed community. Mr. Payne replied that it would; he noted that this is a set of uses put together in one community. Mr. Carr said that the concern had been with the commercial activity in this use. There was a brief discussion in which Mr. Tucker pointed out that at the time of adoption of the RPN, only examples of commercial uses for it had been given. This is an attempt to define the commercial activity permitted. Furthermore, this definition is to cover more than this particular application. Mr. Carr said that one thing to keep in mind is not to broaden the situation. /5(o Mrs. David asked if this amendment passes if these uses can be in any RPN. If that is the case, how is it possible to limit it to only the residents of the area. Mr. Carr stated that the County does not have to permit a use in every RPN. Mr. Forbes Reback, representing the Montvue Citizens, offer an alternative definition. He stated that it combines the original wording and gets rid of the word "institution" which was never defined. He read the definition of "institution" from the Code of Virginia. He then read his proposed definition to the Commission and public. He pointed out that the wording he is proposing is not limited to this one particular applicant and it does not destroy the integrity of the ordinance. Mr. Reback stated that he feels "cultural" covers "religious." He pointed out that in his proposal everything is already defined in the ordinance. He opposed the staff recommendation because of the future entanglements. He noted that he feels the use - life -care centers - really belongs in a PUD, but realizes this is not politically possible. Mr. Don Holden said that the definition presented by Mr. Reback would set up what the proponents want to do near Piney Mountain. Though narrow, it is an adequate definition. Mr. Fred Russel stated that he is looking to go forward with his project, and with the staff proposal each applicant can be limited. Mrs. David felt that the proposal submitted by Mr. Reback could be acted upon that evening and the applicant can proceed. When asked by the Commission about his feelings on the proposed wording of Mr. Reback, Mr. Tucker stated that he really does not have any problems with it, however he has not had time to review it in depth. He stated that he wished he could have seen the wording prior to the meeting. Mrs. Graves said that in her opinion the staff's recommendation is more commercial in nature. She suggested any application for a life -care center be on at least 100 acres. Mr. Carr said that he is uncertain what to do about this, though he certainly does not want to broaden the RPN ordinance at all. Mr. Reback suggested adding "housing and laundry services" to his proposal and this would be acceptable to what the applicant is proposing near Piney Mountain. Mr. Gloeckner moved that the wording as outlined by Mr. Reback with the addition of "housekeeping and laundry services" be :recommended to the Board of Supervisors as Section 19-3-1(L) (WORDING IS BELOW) for the definition of Life -care centers, a use by right: Life -care centers or geriatric health care facilities which may include varied types of dwelling units for the residents; housekeeping and laundry services; nursing and hospital facilities reasonably necessary to serve the residents; retail stores and shops, professional offices, restaurants, cafeterias and other food services, all of which are designed and intended to serve the residents of the RPN district subject to Section 19-4-3 of this ordinance; and common areas where residents may engage in recreatinal, educational, and cultural activities. «% Mr. Peatross seconded the motion. Discussion: Mrs. Graves stated that she can support the motion, though she hopes the Commission can discuss at a later date the RPN. The motion carried unanimously. Mr. Carr asked that when this is forwarded to the Board that the staff explain that this express language is adopted to move this particular application near Piney Mountain along. ZMA-77-19. Rivanna Estates Limited Partnership has petitioned the Board of Supervisors to rezone 91.7 acres from B-1 Business ( about 5 acres ) and A-1 Agricultural ( remainder ) to RPN/R-3. Property is situated on the east side of Route 29 North near Piney Mountain. County Tax Map 33, Parcels 1 and 1D, parts thereof. Rivanna Magisterial District. ( Mr. Easter remained out of the room for the discussion of this item.) Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, and read the letter from the Albemarle County Service authority. Mr. Fred.Russell,on behalf of the applicant, addressed the age limits of those to be part of the community. Mr. Max Evans, landscape architect, discussed the width of the drive. He stated that the intent is to keep the project on a residential scale. Mr. Keeler reminded the Commission that the staff report is based on the concept that this provides housing for the elderly. Mr. Carr stated that he has no problems with the 15' road if there are solid grass shoulders. Upon the request of Mr. Russell to lower the age somewhat, Mr. Peatross stated that he feels that the age limit should be 62, since that is what the application originally called for and that is the age for early retirement. Mr. Gloeckner agreed, especially since this is to be a health care center for the elderly. Mr. Peatross felt that the road width should be addressed at site plan level. Mr. Gloeckner noted that he wished the applicant to know that he favors an access road of at least 20 feet with interior loop to be 18 feet. Mr. Barksdale moved approval of ZMA-77-19 subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval is for a designation of RPN/R-1 on 80.6 acres with a maximum of 350 units, including 50 intermediate and 30 intensive care units ( this is a correction of the application which is for RPN/R-3 on 91.7 acres; 11.1 acres shown on the plan is "reserve area" and cannot be so designated under the RPN designation); 2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of deceleration lane and entrance; /58 3. County Engineer approval of internal roads and parking, drainage and grading plans, and impoundment dams; 4. Water and sewer service is to be obtained from the Albemarle County Service Authority. Sewer lines shall remain the property of the developer. The Camelot package sewage treatment plant shall be enlarged by the developer to facilitate the additional wastewater discharge; 5. Compliance with the Comments of the Fire Marshal including location of hydrants and dry standpipes; provision of adequate fire flow and fire lanes; 6. If the applicant seeks variance from the required parking, this shall be accomplished prior to submittal of final plans ( as the plan is proposed, 780 parking spaces - 1 space/employee; 1 space/2 beds; 2 spaces/dwelling unit - are required to comply with Section 11-7 of the Zoning Ordinance ); 7. County Engineer approval of site work for any grading or construction on slopes of 250 or greater; 8. Two (2) revised copies of the plan are to be submitted reflecting conditions outlined in this report prior to approvals of final plans; 9. Approval of all appropriate state, local, federal agencies prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy; 10. Occupancy shall be limited to persons agend 62 years and older. For the purposes of the condition, if one spouse is aged 62 years or older, the other spouse shall be considered 62 years of age. Mr. Jones seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Mr. Easter re-entered the meeting. Jarman Gap Estates Final Plat: Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the property is located along and at the corner of Routes 691 and 684. The Board of Supervisors approved a rezoning request for this property to RPN/RS-1 subject to 11 conditions in July, 1977. This proposal is to divide six lots, average size 40,000 square feet. All lots are to be served by public water and private septic systems. 2.484 acres of common area are being platted with this division. The staff recommended approval subject to a series of conditions. There were no comments from the public. first Col. Washington established that this was the / part of 20+ units. Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended by the staff: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance; 2. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water line plans; 3. Grading permit; 4. All conditions of ZMA-77-12 must be met. before the plat may be signed; 5. Note a 75' setback from the two state routes. Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. /59 U-Stor-It Site Plan Amendment: Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report stating that the property is located on east side of Berkmar Drive just south of Charlottesville Hardward. Zoned B-1, the property is proposed for development similar in plan as the one previously approved. This plan locates the existing structures where they were built. It also calls for adding an accessory dwelling accommodation in the third building. The Fire Marshal has approved the access and circulation for this site. There has been concern from the Zoning Department regarding some serious erosion at the rear of the property, therefore the staff recommends approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Engineering Department approval of site work specifications; 2. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans; 3. All parking spaces are to be painted; 4. Dumpster is to be located in a location similar to the plan dated 10/27/76. Mr. Peatross asked what was done when it was determined that the site had not been developed according to the approved plan. Mr. Montenegro stated that a stop work order was issued, the fence was taken down and relocated, and the grade in front was readjusted. There was no further comment from the Commission. Mr. Peatross moved approval of the amendment subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Barksdale seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. Partridge Veterinary Hospital Site Plan: Mr. Montenegro reported that the B-1 property is located on the south side of Route 250 East. The proposal is to locate a veterinary hospital on an existing single-family house site ( SP-77-50 was approved in September, 1977, for a veterinary hospital on this property ). The plan calls for 10 parking spaces, a joint entrance with adjacent properties, and a full deceleration lane to be installed. The site is restricted by a steep slope in the rear and the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation right-of-way in the front. The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance facilities, including curb and gutter for the deceleration lane; 2. Change note to read Rivanna Magisterial District; 3. Written Health Department approval of existing septic system for this use; 4. Approval of subdivision such that this facility occupies a lot of record at least 40,000 square feet in size; 5. Easements should be noted to adjacent B-1 properties along property lines, 50' measured from the right-of-way line; 6. County Attorney's office approval of maintenance agreement for entrance; 7. Staff approval of landscape plan. Mrs. Graves suggested a condition addressing soundproofing. /&C Mr. Easter moved for approval subject to the seven conditions recommended by the staff plus the following eight condition: 8. Soundproofing to the reasonable satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator in order that noises are inaudible to the adjoining motel. Mr. Gloeckner seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Ivy Farms Phase II: Mr. Gloeckner noted that for the record, he has no conflict of interest. Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report. It was noticed at this point that neither the applicant nor his representative was present. Mr. Gloeckner moved for deferral until the applicant could be present. Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. David Brown Final Plat: Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that the property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Routes 29 North and 6981. The proposal is to divide a 2.4+ acre lot into four lots, two of approximately 21,000 square feet and two of approximately 35,000 square feet each. All four lots will be served by both public water and sewer. The subdivision includes access ease- ments in order that all the parcels may have access to both Rio Road and Route 29 North. The applicant has also agreed to dedicate right-of-way on Route 631 in excess of the required 25 feet. This added dedication was requested in order that the intersection may be planned and built properly as the opposite side of the intersection already is. The plat notes that two entrances will serve all four lots. One entrance is on Route 29 North and one on Route 631. The staff's main concern has been regarding the proposed location of entrances. The property has an existing entrance at the corner of Routes 29 and 631 and another along Route 29 about midway down the property line. The staff's opinion is that if entrances are to be allowed for this subdivision, that the ones provided are in good locations. It was recommended to the applicant that the entrance along Rio Road would be better located farther westward, however, the applicant felt that parcel B should have some direct access to Route 631. Furthermore, the applicant is aware that when the Route 29/Route 631 intersection is upgraded that westbound traffic on Rio will be unable to make a left turn into the Rio Road entrance to the site because a concrete dividing island is planned at this location. The staff recommended approval subject to a series of conditions. ( Mr. Gloeckner noted for the record that he had no conflict of interests in this matter. ) Mr. Tucker stated that the main concern at the corner is to get as much land as possible for future road improvements, including an overpass. What needs to be done can be accomplished with this dedication. Mr. Gloeckner asked if the dedications will hamper this subdivision. Mr. Easter asked if the Commission can determine if this is an adequate subdivision without knowing the other uses. Mr. Tucker said that the uses will have to meet the site plan ordinance. Mr. Montenegro pointed out that the subdivision is a self-imposed hardship. Mr. Carr said that the capaciy of the land will be surpassed due to this subdivision. He felt that there is a responsibility not to load that corner. Mr. Jones felt that the Commission should know what is going on the other parcels. He felt that clustering the businesses would be a good idea. Mr. Cliff Braly stated that the location of the entrances had been determined by the Highway Department. Dr. Moore felt that this subdivision would make that corner too intense in uses. Mr. Payne stated that the request for subdivision can be turned down if it does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; or it can be turned down if it constitutes a danger to public health, safety, and welfare. Mr. Barksdale asked if the entrances create a safety hazard. Mr. Coburn of the Highway Department stated that no safety hazard is created. Mr. Barksdale moved approval of the plat subject to the conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Easter suggested that the applicant come back with a request for subdivision with information about the other proposed uses. Mr. Brown said that at this time he has no definite plans for the remainder of the property. He stated that he feels that the requested subdivision meets the requirements of the ordinance. Col. Washington suggested splitting off this one parcel, and leaving the other intact. Mr. Tucker said that this would be possible, since entrances with easements would be no problem. Mr. Peatross said that he would second the motion, since he can't find a legal basis to disagree with the subdivision. Mr. Easter said that this could be the future busiest corner of the County, and he felt that the other uses should be known by the county. Mr. Mike Boggs, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant is willing to have three lots as opposed to four. Mr. Barksdale withdrew his motion, and Mr. Peatross his second. Mr. Barksdale then moved approval of the subdivision subject to the following conditions: /G ;z 1. Owner's signature notarized; 2. Note on the plat that property is to be served by both public water and sewer; 3. Deeds are to be approved by the County Attorney's office prior to final approval; 4. The proposed dedication is to be effectuated on the same plat; 5. Lots C and D are joined into one parcel. Mr. Peatross seconded this motion. Prior to the vote, Mr. Gloeckner established that the land cannot be further subdivided without Planning Commission approval. The motion to approve the subdivision subject to the aforementioned conditions carried by a vote of 5-4, with Messrs. Carr, Moore, and Jones and Mrs. Graves dissenting. Hardee's Restaurant Site Plan: Mr. Montenegro presented the staff .report, stating that this is to be located on one of the lots in the subdivision just approved by the Commission. The proposal is to locate a 2,700 square feet combination drive-in/sit-down restaurant on a 32,388 sq. foot site. The property is to be served by entrances from Route 29 North and 631. Easements have been provided for access to and from the Route 29 North entrance. Deceleration lanes as well as a full turn :Lane are being provided across the frontage of the site. The restaurant will have a drive-in facility which will enter from the Rio Road entrace. The staff noted that it has met with the developers and with the Highway Department several times to resolve the location of the proposed entrances, the result being that the Highway Department was able to rpovide the developer with plans for the upgrading of Rio Road into a five lane facility. The staff has viewed a general sketch of how the parcels could be developed, and the layout is generally acceptable. The staff recommended approval subject to the following conditions: I. County Engineering Dept. approval of pavement specifications for driveways and sidewalks; 2. Albemarle County Service Authority and County Engineering Department approval of water and sewer plans; 3. Fire Marshal approval of locations of fire hydrant; 4. Staff approval of landscape plan noting_ that all items are to be replaced if they should die; 5. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrances. It was noted that lighting magnitude and directions are addressed on the plat; it was pointed out that there is sufficient: parking to meet the ordinance. Mr. Montenegro told Mr. Gloeckner that fire protection will come from either the Stowe property to the Phillips property. Mr. Easter asked that the facade be as unoffensive as possible. He was told by the representative from Hardee's that it would be brick and very attractive. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the site plan subject to the five conditions recommended by the staff. Mr. Easter seconded the motion. The vote was 6-2-1, with Messrs. Moore and Jones dissenting, and Mrs. Graves abstaining. Pizza Inn/Mr. Donut Site Plan: Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, noting that the property is zoned B-1, and is located on the northwest corner of Route 29 North and Dominion ,Drive. The proposal is two restaurant facilities on a 40,230 square foot parcel. One restaurant is Pizza -Inn which has approximately 2,7000 square feet of floor area. The other is Mr. Donut with approximately 1,500 square feet of floor area. The site is served by an entrance from Dominion Drive and an entrance from Shopper's World. This property has access easements across Shopper's World's travel aisles. The site is to be served by public water and sewer and includes installation of a fire hydrant at the western corner of the entrance to Cominion Drive. The staff recommended approval of the plan subject to the following conditions: 1. $50.00 fee to be paid; 2. County Engineering Department approval of storm sewer plans; 3. County Engineering Department approval of water line plans; 4. Staff approval of landscape plan; 5. Add a mountable curb, 3" in height and painted yellow, and directional sign at corner of Pizza Inn building; 6. Access easements along travel aisles must be platted and recorded; 7. The trees along Dominion Drive must have all limbs 7' in height and lower cut in order to aid the sight distance at entrance. Mr. Montenegro then read into the record the letter from Gregory Johnson, representing Four Seasons, objecting to the development. Mr. Ashworth stated that due to the grading at the rear, only one entrance into Shopper's World is possible. Mr. Guy Moffat, representing the Berkeley Community Association, presented a petition of opposition to the site plan, on the basis of the access to Dominion Drive. He stated that he does not object to Pizza Inn itself, however suggested that several of the alternatives be considered. Mr. James Cosby, representing Berkely, reminded the Commission that the primary purpose of Dominion Drive is a residential street to Berkely Subdivision. He stated that the throughway onto Route 29 is going to be cut off and will thus make Dominion Drive very dangerous. He suggested a crossover at the existing traffic light is less dangerous than what is proposed with the plan. He also felt that the entrance sign to Berkeley should remain. Mr. Montenegro stated that the staff is opposed to an entrance onto Route 29 that close to Dominion Drive. Furthermore, he stated that the staff is attempting to limit as much as possible the curb cuts onto Route 29 for safety reasons. Mr. Alan Scouten stated that there is at least one accident per week at the Dominion Drive/Route 29 access. He said that he feels the plan as proposed is not good planning policy. Mr. Wood, a resident of Berkeley, feared that the traffic flow diagrams may not be adhered to and cannot be enforced. Mr. Demetsky felt that access to the site from Dominion Drive is one of the least desirable alternatives. Mr. Ashworth said that the property is not going to be subdivided and will be used for only the two uses being discussed. He felt that the peak hours for the Pizza Inn would be around 7:00 p.m. He explained the one-way travel pattern, and noted that the Highway Department is not willing to approve an entrance onto Route 29. Mr. Coburn of the Highway Department said that an entrance onto Route 29 could not be denied, though the Highway Department certainly does oppose an entrance of that sort. He stated that the County can deny entrance to Route 29, and the Highway Department can support that action. By the rules of the Highway Department the parcel could have entrances onto both state routes. Mr. Gloeckner asked if the officials in the Highway Department in Culpeper and Richmond support the Dominion Drive entrance to the property. Mr. Coburn stated that that is correct. Mr. Gloeckner questioned the possibility of a traffic light at Dominion Drive, which would make Dominion and Route 29 safer. He suggested that the Planning Commission make this recommendation. Mrs. Graves said that she is not sure that the traffic light would be that helpful. Besides, in her point of view, the Commission should discuss the two interior entrances. Mr. Montenegro said that one of the alternatives would require an amendment to the special permit for Shopper's World. Mr. Ashworth said that due to the money situation, there are no other alternatives. Col. Washington asked if a traffic light to be businesses could be required of the developer. Mr. Keeler replied that it could be if enough traffic is generated by the business. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. $50.00 fee to be paid; 2. County Engineering Department approval of storm sewer plans; 3. County Engineering Department approval of water line plans; 4. Staff approval of landscape plan; 5. Add a mountable curb, 3" in height and painted yellow, and directional sign at corner of Pizza Inn building; 6. Access easements along travel aisles must be platted and recorded; 7. The trees along Dominion Drive must have all limbs 7' in height and lower cut in order to aid the sight distance at entrance; 8. A traffic light to be installed by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation; 9. Provide for 2 car (40') stacking lane 12' wide with a taper length determined by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. Mr. Barksdale seconded this motion. 9 /415 Discussion: Mr. Easter felt that this motion was the only way to cover the problem of safety. Mrs. Graves stated that in her opinion interior roads are the best solution, and therefore could not support the motion. Dr. Moore stated that he could not support the motion. Mr. Easter called for the question. The motion carried by a vote of 5-4, with Messrs. Moore, Washington, and Jones, and Mrs. Graves dissenting. Mr. Carr stated that he is not happy with the solution, but feels it is wrong to enter the property from Route 29 North. Solid Waste Report: Mr. Keeler presented the staff report. Mr. Barksdale moved that the Commission forward the report to the Board of Supervisors noting that it substantively complies with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations of providing convenience and efficiency to the populace of the County in terms of solid waste disposal facilities, however: 1. While the Planning Commission agrees with the generalized service areas as presented in the report, no endorsement of specific collection sites is made at this time; 2. The Planning Commission has not reviewed the report in terms of proposed costs, equipment, staffing, or institutional arrangements and has not comments in respect to these considerations. Mr. Jones seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. Signs in the CVN and CO Districts: Mr. Barksdale moved deferral of this matter until a representative of the Sign Committee could be present. He suggested that this be put on the October 4, 1977, agenda. Mr. Easter seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion. With no further business, the Commission adjourned at 12:30 a.m. W. Tucker, Jr. - S