Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 14 78 PC Minutes7I March 14, 1978 The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday, March 14, 1978, 7:30 p.m., County Courthouse, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman; Col. William R. Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. Kurt Gloeckner; Mrs. Joan Graves; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Layton McCann; Mr. James Huffman; Mrs. Norma Diehl; Mr. Charles Vest; and Mr. Timothy Lindstrom, ex-Officio. Other officials in attendance were Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant Director of Planning; Mrs. Mary Joy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Carlos Montenegro, Planner; Mr. J. Harvey Bailey, County Engineer; Mr. Robert Vaughn, Building Official and Fire Official; Mr. Ira Cortez, Chief Fire Inspector; and Mr. Frederick Payne, Deputy County Attorney. Mr. Easter established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order. In the interest of time, minutes of February 28, 1978, were deferred until March 21, 1978. SP-78-02. Great Eastern Management: Mr. Keeler advised the Commission that the Planning Department is in receipt of a letter requesting withdrawal of this application. Mr. Gloeckner moved that the Commission accept the request for withdrawal without prejudice. The motion, seconded by Mr. Vest, carried unanimously, with no discussion. VEPCO - SP-78-05 - request for a microwave tower: Mr. Keeler stated that the request had been deferred in order that there could be input from the Appalachian Trail Coordinator for the Virginia Division of State Parks; Appalachian National Scenic Trail Coordinator for the National Park Service; Executive Director for the Appalachian Trail Conference; and Appalachian Trail Coordinator for the Potomac Appalachian Trail Club. He stated that he had received some input from these people that had expressed the desire to see the towers consolidated into 1 tower. Mr. Keeler stated that this is probably impossible since the state police have a policy that they will consolidate only with other state agencies, and then prefer not to be required to do this. Furthermore, they cannot allow access to their tower. As far as the Jefferson Cable tower is concerned, it is a receiving tower as opposed to the broadcasting type that VEPCO wishes to locate. Mr. Randy Lemmor stated that he is concerned that the =z acre parcel overlaps their scenic easement and noted that he is under the impression that Vepco is willing to vacate that portion of the property. Mr. John Graves, representing Vepco, stated that if two of the towers are consolidated, one tower will have to be at least 100 feet. He felt that an additional tower of smaller size would be less offensive. Mr. Easter established that the present and the proposed towers are not lighted. Mr. Graves stated that a tower in excess of 100 feet would probably have to be lighted. Mr. Max Evans asked that the size and coloration of the senders and receivers should be considered. He said that he feels the tower will be an intrusion with alternati colors. He asked if there are plans for future expansion and noted that the service road should be part of the site pin and should be properly maintained. He asked that the applicant further explore the possibility of combining the senders and receivers on one larger tower. Mr. Evans felt that one large tower would be less offensive in daylight. Mr. Graves said that if the FAA has no requirements on the matter of color, the tower can be painted any color the County feels is appropriate. Mr. Easter closed the public hearing. He stated that he feels that a certain height and a certain location demand certain color requirements. Mrs. Diehl said that she is not ready to support the request because she does not feel that there has been enough exploration on combining two of the towers. Mr. McCann said that he is concerned about the total number of towers in the area. Mr. Graves said that Vepco wishes to begin construction sometime in April. Mr. Keeler reviewed the conditions of approval recommended by the staff. Mr. Graves said that Vepco is willing to comply with the conditions. Mrs. Diehl said that she wanted the applicant to note that there will be no future enlargement of the tower without Planning Commission approval. Mr. Easter felt that this suggestion would be appropriate to make a condition of approval of the special permit. Col. Washington asked that a sixth condition establish that the tower and equipment shall not be located within the Virginia State Parks Scenic easement. Mr. Gloeckner moved approval of the special permit subject to the following conditions: 1. Staff approval of fencing and landscape screening around tower to discourage tresspass; 2. Tower shall be removed within 90 days of abandonment, if such shall occur; 3. Equipment shed, tower and antennae to be camoflauged with painted pattern or painted solid color appropriate to surroundings, if permitted by FAA; 4. FAA approval of tower; 5. Enlargement shall requirement amendment of this special permit; 6. Tower and equipment shall not be located within Virginia State Parks Scenic easement. Mr. McCann seconded the motion. The vote was 7-1-1 with Mrs. Diehl dissenting, and Mrs. Graves abstaining, due to her late arrival. Mr. Easter said that he realizes that towers are a difficult matter to deal with, especially from a point of aesthetics. However, he asked that the staff research this particular topic and report back to the Commission with any findings. Col. Washington said that he feels that the staff should review the state laws governing towers. Fashion Square Mall: Mrs. Scala presented the staff report and noted the areas on which the developer and the staff are in agreement. She passed out to the Commission letters from Rolf Benzinger, Alan Scouten, and Wallace Reid, as well as a letter from the Piedmont Environmental Council. She noted that the Fire Official, Director of Inspections, Assistant Resident Engineer for the Highway Department and Resident Engineer for the Highway Department as well as the County Engineer were present to assist the Commission in any technical questions. Mrs. Scala presented the questions posed by the Commission at the previous meeting and answered them. wow Mr. Gloeckner felt that the questions just presented, along with the answers, cleared up the question of using part of Branchlands. Mr. Bailey responded to questions from Mrs. Diehl addressing the water and sewer plans for Branchlands noting that Rivanna Water and Sewer will want some freedom in laying the lines when the PUD is developed. Mrs. Graves questioned the retention ponds, and wondered if they could be located on the mall property. Mrs. Scala presented the developers three alternatives for this, noting that there could be a three acre retention pond, retention of water on the roof, oversizing of the storm drains. At this point the Commission addressed technical points of the site plan, specifically the effect on Meadow Creek, State Water Control Board input, and the rate of runoff. It was pointed out by the staff that the liability of the retention ponds will be placed on the developer. Mr. Rolf Benzinger reiterated his concerns that he had addressed at the previous meeting, stating that his primary concerns are those involving the traffic impact on the area. He felt that all road improvements should be made prior to occupancy of the mall. Mr. Wallace Reed also addressed his concern for the traffic situation and the probable pollution. He asked the Commission to require road improvements to Hydraulic Road,, Old Georgetown Road, Rugby Road, and the 250 Bypass. 31-14 Mr. Dan Roosevelt presented the Highway Department's recommendations, and reviewed briefly the results of the traffic impact if the Commission follows the recommendations of the developer's traffic analyst. Messrs. Wendell Wood and Homer Kennamer supported the mall and asked that the County move forward in its approval of the mall in order to create jobs for the area and increase the tax base. Mr. Alan Scouten stated that the public cost the mall will generate far outweighs the potential tax revenue to the municipality. He also expressed his concern for the traffic impact. Mr. Lane Kneedler opposed the mall for reasons expressed by the previous speakers. At this point, Mr. Easter closed the discussion of the public and asked the Commission to consider the issue. Dr. Moore questioned if the county has any moral or legal responsbility to respond to the questions raised by the City of Charlottesville through the mayor. Mr. Payne said that he feels the questions raised in the letter from Mrs. O'Brien have been amply dealt with in one fashion or another through the information presented by the staff and the Highway Department. There was a motion made by Dr. Moore to have the Highway Department approve all recommended highway improvements including staff recommendations. Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 8-1, with Mr. McCann casting the dissenting vote. ( See attached sheets for these recommendations ). Mr. Gloeckner then moved approval of the site plan subject to the following conditions: 1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of all recommended highway improvements including staff recommendations ( see attached letter from the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation dated February 8, 1978, and page 3 of the staff report dated February 28, 1978 ); 2. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of sewer and water plans; 3. Fire Official and Building Inspections approvals; 4. County Engineer's approval of drainage such that the rate of runoff after development does not exceed the present rate, pavement specifications, retaining walls and guard rails if needed; 5. All conditions of SP-446 ( or SP-78-06, if approved ) Branchlands Planned Community must be met; 6. Approval of this plan includes the future addition to Department Store "C". All other items labelled future are not a part of this approval; 7. Staff approval of landscape plan. Landscaping to be maintained in healthy condition and replaced if any should die; 8. Staff approval of circulation plan as recommended in staff report dated February 8, 1978; 9. Staff approval of on -site traffic plan; 10. Grading plan to be approved by Soil Erosion Control Committee; 11. Staff approval of loading spaces; 12. No outside storage of trash except in designated areas; 13. Outdoor lighting shall be directed away from adjacent properties and traffic; 14. Staff approval of handicapped parking and ramps; 15. No merchandise shall be displayed or stored outside the buildings or on the side- walks. This would not apply to garden areas which are included in the building area; AJLM DISTRIC7 ��• ��.� M. .. . LYNC'I/RI/RG DISTRICT T..(y •�4 •w. PKHIM)NO. RICHMOND O/STRICT 1' •`� •� �.��A rOHK SOWN. SUfk0LX lN.gRlCT ~.1.: �:�.. --,• . y. y. 'IE/, &REUf PiC MrA1JAU. FR£OJ.R/L'XSiURG DISTRICT�l� ICT low TS ESFSTAUN ON,.TAL'NTONDI.C777icr COMMONWEALTH of VIRQINIA HArrFLL, III. CHESAPEAKE. AT LARGi URBAN ESS HOOPER,JR.CREWE.ATLARG£RURAL DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION P. 0. Box 910 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 February 8, 1978 County of Albemarle 414 East 11arLet Street Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Attention: ITrs, T.L-a Joy Scala. Senior Planner Dear 11rs. Scala: W. B. G. OR ITTON DEPUTE' COMMISSIONER a CHIEF ENGINEER LEO E. BUSSER Ill DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION J. M. WRAY. JR. DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS J.I. ROVER, JR, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING P. B. COLDIRON DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING H.R PERKINSON, JR. - DIRECTOR OF PROGRAM MANAGEMENT. IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO Fashion Square Site Plan Albemarle County For clarity in my comments concerning the above site plan, my comments for each entrance and/or location beginning with the entrance on Route 29 called Entrance No. 1 then going clockwise. 0 listed below are southern most Entrance No. 1' should be constructed to accept two (2) lanes of traffic entering from SBL 29 to the site. The third lane being built as shown with a taper and large radius for access from 13L 29 to the site allowing the radius to be part of the deceleration lane. We would recoI:=end that a stop sign be placed for traffic coming from the southbound lane at the point of conflict on site with northbound traffic. This will allow the northbound traffic the free flow it needs to properly enter the site. Me exit pattern for this intersection is.adeauate;. however, traffic wanting to turn right onto Route 29 northbound should be required to stop before entering Route 29. This can be achieved by not constructing an acceleration lane from this point. Entrance No. 2 should be shifted south far enough to allow a proper length deceleration lane to Entrance Tvo. 3. The spacing shown in the Site Plan reviewed under our letter of jw7,:Lal,� 10, 197° - ea<e' to 'have- t __. .,V.^er spacing. In addition, a proper length deceleration lane of one (1) lane width going to two (2) lanes on site would be appropriate. The decis-on point should move into the site approximately 120 feet from the right of wa..Y line (approximately 40 feet further than is shown). Only one (1) lane exiting the site directed north- bound is necessary. Again, this traffic should stop before entering route 29. This can be achieved by not constructinL; an acceleration lane as shown. 01 TRANSPORTATION - AMERICA'S LIFELINES minty of Albemarle -2- February 81 1978 Entrance Ido. 3 to have a proper length of deceleration lane with the right turn lane merging- as it approaches the decision point internally. Double left turn lanes in the median of 200-foot with 200-foot taper should be constructed entering the site. Exiting the site, two (2) lanes from the ring road going to three (3) allowing for double lefts to Route 29 southbound and one (1) right turn lane to Route 29 northbound built utilizing an acceleration lane of 200-foot tapering to an adjacent entrance should be constructed. Location No. 4 (Intersection of Route 29 and Rio Road) - Double left turn lanes from southbound Route 29 to eastbound Rio Road should be constructed to allow proper utilization of the signal. Double left turn lanes from.northbound Route 29 to westbound Rio Road should also be constructed. This would involve constructing two (2) lanes for westbound Rio Road to accept the double left turn lanes. Along eastbound Rio Road, the third lane should be completed from the Route 29 intersection to Entrance No. 5. At Entrance No. 5 a right turn lane, Rio eastbound to the site along with two (2) entering lanes allowing traffic from Rio Road westbound to enter the site should be constructed, these three (3) lanes merging to two at an appropriate distance inside the site. The traffic scheme leaving the site should allow for two (2) lanes left or through and one (1) lane of traffic to turn right; however, this lane should stop to *enter Rio Road traffic. This would be achieved by not building a third lane or acceleration lane from this point east. Entrance No. 6 - The eastern most entrance on Rio Road should be const_ucted aztil;zing a turn lane.f:rom eastbound Rio Road into the site between the entrance to the site and the entrance to the Telephone building. Traffic leaving the site at this entrance•would come to a stop to enter traffic by not utilizing an acceleration lane. The four (4) lanes of Rio Road with proper median must be built a point east of this entrance a sufficient distance tp prohibit persons westbound on Rio Road making an illegal turn. At such point these lanes should taper back to the two (2) existing. Insofar as a local collector road from the eastern most entrance on Rio Road down the eastern property line into Branchlands is concerned, the Department would support a State Road; however, the road should be built to State standards for an appropriate traffic count. Access from the parking area to the road must be controlled. We feel this is a detail which can be worked out in the future. In addition to the entrance comments, the third lane along the Route 29 frontage will be required. It is the Department's feeling that all of the above improvements would be at the developer's cost, as well as the upgrading of the signal at Shopper's World; the installation of the signal at the Bill Edwards' Crossover; the upgrading of the signal at Rio Road and Route 29; the installation of the signal at the Albemarle Square entrance on Rio Road; and curb and gutter and necessary storm drainage. If you should have any further questions, please advise. 0 WT CJr:lol CC - iir. :t. D. Harrison Iir. J. C. DuYresne Very truly yours, D. S. Roosevelt, Resident Enr,-r. By: W. B. Coburn, Jr. Assistant Resident En,,,aneer 5 :r FASHION SQUARE SHOPPING MAL_ SITE PLAN - Page 3 � erior Circulation NOW Staff has prepared an overlay showing the following recommended changes in circulation: 1. The circumferential road and the inner road should be delineated by means of raised curb or islands for traffic safety and ease of circulation. 2. The entrance opposite Shoppers World should be modified to give entering traffic the right-of-way, and to prohibit entering traffic from turning left onto the circumferential road. Exiting traffic coming from both directions on the circumfer- ferential road should be given the right-of-way. Exiting lanes should be pulled away from entering lanes. This arrangement would insure that entering traffic would not back up onto Route 29, exiting traffic would not block the circumferential road, and entering traffic would be encouraged to park in the rear of the site. 3. The entrance opposite Albemarle Square should be modified by adding two islands and adjusting lanes to direct traffic and reduce turning movements. 4. The gas pumps should be separated from the circumferential road, and turned to provide stacking. 5. Staff recommends that a 50' right-of-way be dedicated, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, from Branchlaiids property line to Rio Road, and that a two-lane Category IV state road be constructed for use as a local residential collector. This would require that the east parking area be separated from this road by a raised median with limited curb cuts. Three curb cuts are recommended, one behind Centel, one behind Store "B" and a third to line up with a proposed state road shown on the Squire Hills Apartments site plan. A bike trail is recommended along a portion of this right-of-way, from Rio Road to Branchlands property line in the area of the stream, as shown in the approved Bike Plan. 6. Bike racks, pedestrian crosswalks and areas for public bus stop should be provided. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation rr See attached letter dated February 8, 1978. Entrance No. 2 (opposite Berkmar Drive) has been eliminated by the applicant. Staff concurs with the recommendation of the Highway Department. In addition, at entrance No. 1 the left turn lane on Route 29 South should meet current standards. The decel lane for entrance No. 1 shall be extended to the main entrance for Albemarle Bank and Trust. The third lane to be constructed just north of entrance No. 3 should connect to the existing third lane in'front of National Bank. At entrance No. 5 a single left turn lane is needed on Rio Road westbound. Additional dedication of land may be heeded along Rice Road. Construction entrance shall be at entrance No. 5, subject to the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval prior to use. The strip of land on Rio Road owned by the Virginia Department of Highways and Trans- portation must be conveyed or leased to the shopping center prior to building permit approval. on 31'8 LN M 16. Approval of site plan does not include signs; 17. Approval is subject to the requirements of the State Air Pollution Control Board; 18. Staff approval of location of retention pond, if any, in the approximate area of point "Z" on the Planning Staff Proposal; 19. Approval is subject to the State Water Control Board quality requirements, if any. Mr. Gloeckner also stated that the local collector is to be constructed from point "X" to point "Y" on the Planning Staff proposal. Furthermore, the bike trail shown on the Planning Staff proposal is to be deleted from Rio Road to the proposed connection to Squire Hill Apartments. Mr. Huffman seconded the motion. Mr. McCann said that he could not support the motion because of what he considers to be excessive highway improvements, though he said that he agrees with the overall plan. The motion carried by a vote of 8-1, with Mr. McCann dissenting. There was no further business, and the meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.m. 1 j f Robert W. Tucker, Jr. - Secre C