HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 27 78 PC Minutes541
June 27, 1978
The Albemarle County Planning Commission conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
June 27, 1978, 7:30 p.m., Board Room, County Office Building, Charlottesville,
Virginia. Those in attendance were Mr. Peter Easter, Chairman; Col. William
R. Washington, Vice -Chairman; Dr. James W. Moore; Mr. Charles Vest; Mrs. Norma Diehl;
Mr. James Huffman; and Mrs. Joan Graves. Absent were Mr. Kurt M. Gloeckner, Mr. Layton
McCann; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, 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, Senior Planner; and Mr. Donald A. Gaston, Senior
Planner.
Mr. Easter established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to
order.
Mr. Easter then thanked Mr. Montenegro for his work for the County. He
introduced the new Senior Planner, Mr. Donald A. Gaston, to the Commission.
At this point Mr. Easter announced the changes in the agenda, noting that
the Warren Branham plat had been withdrawn. The Barbara Payne preliminary plat and
the David Spradlin Garage Site Plan would be deferred by the Commission at the
request of the applicants.
ZMA-78-09. Christian Retreats, Inc. has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to rezone 236.52 acres from A-1 Agriculture to RPN/A-1. Property is located
on the north side of Route 637, approximately 14 mile east of the intersection
of Route 637 and 692. County Tax Maps 70 and 71, Parcels 22A and 39,
Samuel Miller Magisterial District.
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, stating that he wished to amend the
staff report to state that the existing pond across the road will be adequate for
fire protection, according to the Fire Official. He explained the preliminary site
plan to Commission and public.
Mr. John Manzano, representing Christian Retreats, said that they are currently
located on "Oakleigh ". They have outgrown their current facilities and have purchased
this property. He then passed out a letter of explanation on the concept of
Christian Retreats.
One gentlemen asked what will be rented on the property and what will be sold.
He also questioned the future plans for Route 691.
Mr. Manzano explained via the plan the area that will be rented.
Mr. Roosevelt responded to the questions regarding road plans for Route 691 by
stating that it is not in the 6-year plan for secondary improvements.
Mrs. Huckle questioned if this is a tax-exempt operation. Mr. Manzano said that
those units to be sold will not be tax exempt.
Mr. Manzano also stated that there will be no access to Route 637.
5 5o
Mrs. Morazo questioned if there will be worship services in one of the buildings
and if so, how many people does he project attending. Mr. Manzano replied
that he anticipates growth of the congregation to 400 persons.
Mr. Bill Randolph said that housing probably will not be open to the general
public, and questioned if this is legal.
Mr. Payne advised the Commission that this is one area that should be of no
concern to them, and should look at this only as a land use proposal.
Mr. Randolph then stated that he is concerned about the traffic on Route 691 and
how this proposal will change the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Ferrell asked if there will be any deed restrictions addressing the appearance
of houses.
Mr. Manzano responded by stating that the beauty of Wavertree Farm will be
maintained and all house construction will be approved by the Homeowner's Association.
Mrs. Gyurky said that she is acquainted with the work of Christian Retreats
at Oakleigh and finds it to be good. However her concern with the proposal was the
effect on the water situation of the area.
Mr. Easter responded to that comment by saying that the water situation has
long been of concern to the Commission, however there is no authority for the County
to deny a project on the basis that it might have an adverse effect on the water
situation of those already living there.
Mr. David Dainburn questioned the road improvements if this proposal is approvea.
Mr. Easter noted that the Highway Department has made recommendations to the
County regarding road improvements. It is the County's option to make or not make
these requirements.
Mr. Floyd Archer said that he might be living there in the future and he feels
that most of the fellowship members will be living there.
Mr. Forbes Reback, on behalf of the owners of Port -a -Ferry Farm, said that
he is concerned about proper screening from the adjoining farms.
Mr. Stan Tatum stated that the integrity of the area will be maintained
and the intent is certainly to preserve the existing qualities.
Mrs. Morazy asked the future of Oakleigh. Mr. Manzano said that Christian
Retreats is maintaining ownership.
Mr. Easter closed the public hearing.
Mr. Montenegro said that the staff would like to propose an additional
condition of approval to read "Construction traffic to enter only from Route 692."
Col. Washington questioned the farming use if all the farm buildings are to be
converted.
Mr. Manzano said that only one existing farm building is being converted.
The farm manager intends to have 26 cattle for grazing, and will expand the herd later
on. Christian Retreats has purchased all the farm equipment and will grow hay for feed.
55 i
Mrs. Diehl said that she supports the concept of an RPN for development
of the farm as opposed to a conventional subdivision.
Mrs. Graves determined that the setbacks are as shown on the plan within the
designated circles on the preliminary plan.
Mr. Vest concurred with Mrs. Diehl and moved approval of the RPN
subject to the following conditions:
1. Fire Official approval of fire prevention facilities for the two apartment buildings
and the community center, including the possible installation of a water retention
basin and adequate access to it;
2. Virginia Department of Health approval, including two septic sites for lots 4, 16,
and 23, and approval of the septic facilities for the apartment buildings;
3. Approval of central water facilities for the apartment buildings as required by
the Code of Albemarle;
4. A grading permit will be required prior to final subdivision or site plan approvals;
5. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrances
along Route 692 prior to final approvals;
6. County Engineering Department approval of private roads specifications ( note that
the roadways between the main entrance and the community center shall be built to
the highest private road standards );
7. County Attorney's Office approval of Homeowners' Association documents including
provisions for the upkeep of common areas, the maintenance of the private roads,
and necessary access easements;
8. Staff approval of tot lot equipment prior to final site plan approval of the apart-
ment buildings or the community center;
9. The single-family dwelling units shall be located within the circled areas noted
on the approved plan;
10. The entrance gate on Route 637 shall be locked closed other than at times when it
is not in use for farming purposes;
11. Those areas to be disturbed shall be limited to: construction of roads, area
for housing sites, required improvementsicommunity center and farming activity;
12. Construction traffic to enter only from Route 692.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion.
Discussion: Col. Washington said that he personally could not support the motion
since he himself has in the past had some unpleasant experiences due to tresspassing uses.
He said that he is aware of the fact that items belonging to him have been taken,
and he does not sanction the expansion of what he considers to be a nuisance.
Mr. Easter said that in his opinion this is a planning matter, though he
did suggest that Col. Washington make his feelings known to the Board of Supervisors.
The motion carried by a vote of 6-1, with Col. Washington dissenting.
SP-78-31. Bishop Walter F. Sullivan has petitioned the Board of Supervisors
to amend SP-446 and SP-78-06 ( special use permits for Branchlands PUD )
to relocate the collector road and to amend the conditions regarding the
transportation system. The 109 acres involved is located on Route 29 North,
opposite the Berkeley Subdivision. County Tax Map 61Z, Parcels 03-1, 1A, 3,
and 4. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
AND
S5Z
Squire Hill Phase II Site Plan - proposal to develop the second phase
of a 254 dwelling unit apartment development and a road connection to
the Branchlands Planned Community, located on the south side of Rio Road
near Albemarle Square. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
AND
Charlottesville Fashion Square Site Plan Amendment - proposal to amend
the approved siteplan to exclude direct access from the Branchlands Planned
Community and to exclude a state road along the eastern and southern
perimeter of the site; located on the southeast corner of Routes 29 North
and 631. Charlottesville Magisterial District.
Mr. Montenegro advised the Commission that they should consider these
at one time, though take separate actions. He then presented the staff reports
on each of the above three requests and pointed to the plans for more detailed
explanation.
Mr. M. E. Gibson, on behalf of Bishop Sullivan, stated that Branchlands is
not willing to totally eliminate on -street parking but might limit the on -street
parking to only in the evenings.
Mr. Roosevelt of the Highway Department stated that it has been his experience
that the sort of situation discussed by Mr. Gibson does not work. He stated that he
would go back and put this through the computer if the Commission wishes further
consideration on this point. Thirty-six feet with parking appears to be inadequate
with the traffic that will be on these streets, though.
Mr. Gibson then stated that he takes issue with the figures the Highway
Department used to arrive at their conclusion.
Dr. Moore questioned why have a connection with Squire Hill.
Mr. Gibson said that it is done as an accommodation to Mr. Farber to attempt
to work out something regarding the road problem.
Dr. Moore established with Mr. Payne that he has no conflict of interests
in this matter, after having done some consulting work.
Mr. Deckinger told Dr. Moore that the movement just described discourages
speeding through the area and pointed out that it is a local collector. It provides
access to the mall and serves the other two adjoining properties. Mr. Deckinger
also stated that one pond as originally considered is insufficient and thus the
need for the second pond.
Mr. Weinstein, on behalf of Squire Hill, was concerned about the traffic light
recommendation and feels that if the Highway Department wants the light it should be
provided by the state.
Mr. Gibson said that it is important that the roads in Branchlands remain
residential in character and he wanted to make sure that one access can be used for
the commercial area if the through road is done. He said that Branchlands needs
the option of developing entrance A or entrance B.
Mr. Max Evans reiterated Mr. Gibson's comments and explained them in
regard to the plan.
553
Mr. Jim Murray said that Branchlands wants to maintain its pleasant
residential character and 44' roadways will not do this.
Mr. Roosevelt said that the projected traffic will necessitate roads
wider than 36 feet.
Mr. Easter questioned where Mr. Roosevelt feelsthe traffic will originate.
Mr. Roosevelt stated that he could not address the crossovers on Route 29
until he knows the type of development in Branchlands.
Mr. Huffman said that if the traffic is as Mr. Roosevelt has suggested
no where will the roads be built to the necessary specifications for handling it.
Mr. Bill Edwards said that it is about time that the County used some common
sense when reviewing this plan. The roads being discussed in Branchlands will not,
in his opinion, be used as short cuts.
Mr. Deckinger said that he wants to impress on the Planning Commission that
the mall cannot be developed unless all three proposals are approved, and he feels
this compromise is the best option for all.
Mr. Evans said that Branchlands cannot afford the road development that will
ruin the residential collector through the PUD.
Mr. Wendell Wood stated that as a taxpayer in this county he urges the Commission
to approve the site plan and that the $1+ million of taxes cannot be ignored.
Mr. Ludgate of WCHV cited the editorial run by his radio station, and noted
that there was not one bit of dissent to the mall. He recommended the county move
forward in its approval.
Mr. Rich Collins said that major changes are being made in the plan and that the
holdups are due to the size of the project. He noted that it is only understandable
that changes bring up debate in other approved plans.
Mr. Leonard Farber said that he is proposing this mall as a profit motive
and has been trying to work within the regulations of the County. This amendment to
the proposed plan is the only way he can move forward and the other plan has a road
that goes nowhere that he is unwilling to build.
Mr. Dick Moyer of Crozet, noting that more than just the tax base is important,
said that only in 5-10 years will the county know if the mall is a benefit.
Mr. Bernard Haggerty said that this is the shopping area of central Virginia
and an additional shopping area is needed. He urged the Commission to approve the
amended plan.
Mr. Al Garrett, President of United Virginia Bank, said that the Comprehensive
Plan calls for a road parallel to Route 29 North and this proposal meets that
requirement. This allows for traffic use of a road that will support the mall and
the community. He felt that this is another way of making the Comprehensive Plan
work.
Mr. Paul Wood said that he was present as a businessman and felt that this
is good controlled growth with the economic assets.
E;S `}'
Mr. Frazier also supported the request.
Mr. Easter closed the public hearing and the discussions of the site
plans.
Mrs. Graves questioned the retention basin along Route 29 North, wondering
if it is safe with regard to Route 29.
Mr. Roosevelt said that he has faith in the County Engineer who will be
reviewing this retention basin.
Mrs. Graves then questioned if the Commission can require signalization of a
a private road.
Mr. Roosevelt said that anyone entering the state road from a private road
must yield the right-of-way. He suggested that perhaps the sheriff's office would
want to police this.
Mrs. Graves said that if this is the case, there is no control over the
intersection of the circumferential road and the private road.
Mr. Roosevelt said that the maintenance agreement should cover that�and that
agreement is being reviewed by the County Attorney.
that
Dr. Moore asked if the proposal before the Commission ^evening made the developer
pay his fair share for the improvements that would be necessary to 29 and other
area roads due to the increased traffic.
Mr. Roosevelt said that this had not been a concern of the Board of
Supervisors; rather their concern is that this development be served by the proper
roadways.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the retention pond and asked if it changes the drainage
of the mall property.
pond
Mr. Montenegro said that this retention^ probably addresses what naturally
drains into that area.
Mrs. Diehl then asked for the defintion of a residential collector.
Mr. Montenegro replied that in general it is a travelway that delivers residential
traffic from a special area and that the concept does not necessarily speak to
through traffic. The only exception to that would be the residential traffic
traveling to and from a commercial area. As a rule a residential collector handles
slow traffic.
Dr. Moore said that he has some probelms with Branchlands' proposal.
This concept is partially the parallel road concept with all the hazards that slow
traffic. He said that he is frankly confused on what is to be voted on.
At this point there was a long discussion on the Branchlands amendment
with regard to entrances from Route 29. The developer did state that he is willing
to be limited to three entrances, or a maximum of two entrances to
Route 29 as approved by the Highway Department.
S
There was a consensus among the Commission members that a 36' roadway with
a 50' right-of-way with no on -street parking any time was agreeable.
Mr. Huffman then moved approval of SP-78-31 subject to the following conditions:
( Conditions A, B. C and E remain as under SP-78-06 ).
Recommended conditions occur under D. Transportation System
D. Transportation System
1. There shall not be more than two (2) entrances to Route 29 North. Such
entrances shall be subject to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
approval, including the possible requirement of new crossovers. The internal
road layout shall conform to Aprpoved Plan #3 Amended;
2. The existing Branchlands entrance and crossovershall be closed and Entrance A
and crossover ( Approved Plan 3 Amended ) shall be constructed prior to the
issuance of any building permit for any phase of development which would have
access to and increase traffic at the existing entrance; provided that the
Planning Commission, upon recommendation of the Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation may waive this requirement for a particular phase of
development upon a finding that the existing entrance would be adequate to
accommodate in a safe manner such traffic as may be occasioned by such development,
subject to optional construction of residential entrances specified in Paragraph
D5 ( below );
3. Rights -of -way shall be reserved and dedicated as shown on Aprpoved Plan 3 Amended
for future potential connections to Squire Hill Apartments and Westfield Section II;
4. All streets are to be built to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
specifications for inclusion into the State Highway System, however, the roads
shall not exceed 36 feet in pavement width with fifty (50) foot rights -of -way;
provided that parking arrangement shall be as agreed upon by the Virginia Department
of Highways and Transportation and the applicant;
5. When roads "X" and "Y" are constructed, then residential access from entrances "A"
and "B" ( Approved Plan 3 Amended ) shall be an option of the applicant;
6. The entire residential development shall have internal vehicular accessibility
from one segment of the Planned Community to another, and the residential areas
shall have vehicular access facilities to the commercial development along the
Route 29 North frontage;
7. If connecting road "Y" is not constructed, then the easternmost collector road
shall be connected;
8. The Planning Commission has determined that road connection"Y" is in substantial
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion.
Discussion: Dr. Moore said that no provision for the collector road to be built
has been made, though the Commission is willing to approve it.
Mr. Payne responded that this is shown on the approved plan and when the plan
is effectuated , the collector road will have to be constructed.
Dr. Moore said that he does not agree with piecemeal development of roads, and
this particular part needs to be constructed as soon as possible.
There was no further discussion, and Mrs. Graves and Dr. Moore voted against
the motion, which carried by a vote of 5-2.
55L-,
The Commission then began discussion of. Squire Hill Phase II Site
Plan Amendment. Mr. Roosevelt advised the Commission that the cost of the
traffic light would be between $8,000 and $20,000.
Mrs. Diehl questioned when the light would be needed and Mr. Roosevelt
stated that the Highway Department did not recommend that condition. To get a
light there, a study of the existing traffic would be needed, or else a projection
of the potential traffic from the development would have to be established.
He said that he would tie the need for a light at that point to the development of the
entrance, and then suggested if the studies reveal it is necessary that it should
be installed at the time of installation of the entrance.
Mrs. Graves suggested that the could be addressed by not having the approval
speak to residential development. She then asked about making the private road a
public road.
Mr. Deckinger stated that they favor the private road standards due to the many
thousands of dollars for cost of developing a public road. Furthermore the cost of const-
ruction and maintenance of the private road is less.
Mr. Vest moved approval of Squire Hill Phase II Site Plan Amendment subject
to the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance facilities
including the installation ( if needed ) of a traffic signal at such time, if
ever, as the traffic to be generated by any phase of development may necessitate;
2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of roadway and right-
of-way specifications;
3. All the proposed roadways shall be approved by the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation and submitted for state maintenance;
4. Bike trails shall be provided east/west collector road;
5. This approval does not speak to residential development.
Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no
discussion.
Mr. Montenegro then reviewed the conditions of approval recommended by the
staff for Fashion Square.
Mrs. Diehl questioned the feasibility of moving the median so there can be
unlimited traffic, in other words so that there can be an exit/entrance at Rio Road.
Mr. Montenegro stated that functionally what will happen is that it will
operate as originally considered.
Mr. Deckinger stated that he is prepared to open that up and make it an
exit/entrance.
Mr. Roosevelt did not think this would be a good idea since traffic to
Route 29 would back up while waiting for those turning into the shopping center.
Mrs. Diehl thoughtthe arrangement, nevertheless, would alleviate some
problems on Route 29. Mr. Easter disagreed.
55 7
Mr. Hoffheim, representing Penny's Department Store, agreed that this
should be opened, stating that there is certainly the width available and a three -lane
roadway as originally planned could be built. He felt it would help the ingress/egress.
Mr. Montenegro felt that there would be a low percentage of traffic there for
such a change, and that it would cause additional friction.
Mrs. Diehl said that mainly she had proposed this as an interim measure.
Mr. Huffman moved approval of the Site Plan Amendment for Fashion Square
subject to the following conditions:
1. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of all recommended
highway improvements including staff recommendations as outlined in the letter
from the Highway Department 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 control measures 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-78-31 Branchlands Planned Community, if approved, shall be
met, otherwise all conditions of SP-78-06 shall be met;
6. Items labelled "future area" 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 28,
1978, to incorporate plan "C" for entrance No. 1 as presented to the Board on
�W+✓ March 30, 1978; and the circumferential road;
9. Staff approval of on -site traffic plan;
10. Grading and drainage 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 sidewalks.
This would not apply to garden areas which are included in the building area;
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 ponds, if any, in the approximate areas
designated on the amended plan dated June 27, 1978 CM;
19. Approval is subject to the State Water Control Board quality requirements, if any.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion.
Discussion: Dr. Moore stated that he could not support the motion since the problems
on Route 29 will be no better, and perhaps even worse. Route 29 is at capacity now
and the roads that are proposed here are not adequate, in his opinion, to support the
traffic from this development.
Mrs. Diehl said that she wishes to comment that perhaps the County has distorted
the purpose of the residential collector road that night with the Commission's action.
The motion carried by a vote of 5-2, with Dr. Moore and Mrs. Graves dissenting.
5523
Country Aire Apartments Site Plan:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report reading the staff's recommended
conditions of approval.
Mr. David Blankenbaker represented the applicant.
Mr. Tom Lincoln, also on behalf of the applicant, stated that the natural
buffer will not be disturbed.
Miss Sarah Payne questioned the recreational facilities since the front part of
the property is zoned B-1. Mr. Montenegro replied that the burden of buffering is
on the B-1 property. Furthermore, Mr. Montenegro stated that the buffer is within
this particular property.
Mr. Lincoln agreed that this is correct. since there is 200-300 feet of trees.
Mr. Keeler also noted that the land is in the watershed and particular care
is taken with the grading plans.
Col. Washington questioned that the entrance does to the traffic and the new
de-cel lanes. Mr. Montenegro replied that the Virginia Department of Highways
supports the plans for the entrance and that the fire hydrant will be relocated.
Col. Washington moved approval of the site plans subject to the following
conditions:
1. Applicant shall obtain approval form the Runoff Control Officer;
2. Staff approval of landscape plan;
3. Staff approval of recreational facilities;
4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance
permit;
5. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
6. Fire Official approval of fire flow specifications of proposed fire hydrants;
7. Staff approval of location of speed bumps;
8. Grading permit;
9. County Engineering Department approval of storm drainage system.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Eloise Yancey Final Plat:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, reading the recommended conditions of
approval. He noted that Parcel B is the property being proposed for apartment development
that was just considered.
Mrs. Graves questioned what the Health Department looks at. Mr. Montenegro
responded that they do a soil study.
Mr. Huffman moved approval of the plat subject to the following conditions:
557
1. Written Health Department approval;
2. County Attorney's Office approval of access easement and maintenance agreement
between Parcels A and B;
3. Technical requirements of the Albemarle County Land Subdivision Ordinance must be met;
4. Parcel A shall only have access by way of Parcel C;
5. Correct 200' setback;
6. Correct Magisterial District.
Miss Holowinski, representing the applicant, stated that these conditions
are agreeable.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Floor Fashions of Virginia Site Plan:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report noting that the Highway Department
supports the road plans, which show full frontage development.
Mr. Tom Lincoln stated on behalf of the applicant, 'that the bank in the rear
is to be stabilized but that the slope will not be changed.
Thre was no public comment.
Mrs. Graves suggested amending condition #5 to address an access easement and
maintenance agreement between the subject property and the commercial properties.
Mrs. Graves then moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water line plans;
2. Grading permit;
3. All pin oak trees on landscape plan shall be 6-8' in height;
4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrance
permit;
5. County Attorney's Office approval and recordation of access easement and maintenance
agreement between subject property and commercial properties.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Woodbrook Shopping Village Site Plan Amendment:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, noting that the applicant has made an
effort to meet the requirements of the Site Plan Ordinance on a piece of property that
has already developed.
Dr. Moore questioned if access to the commercial properties to the south
would be advisable. Mr. Montenegro replied that he would have to study that matter
further.
Mr. Javor explained what he is attempting to do with the parking area.
Mrs. Graves suggested that another condition addressing the access to property
to the south be included.
(0c)
Mr. Huffman moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. None of the existing trees along the eastern border of the property shall be
removed;
2. All perpendicular parking spaces without curbing shall have bumper blocks;
3. Technical requirements of Article 17 Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance shall
be met as noted in letter dated June 9, 1978, to Mr. W. S. Roudabush;
4. County Attorney's Office approval of access easement and maintenance agreement
for properties to the south if required by the staff.
Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Barbara Payne Preliminary Plat:
At the request of the applicant, Col. Washington moved that this be deferred.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no discussion.
Shadwell Mountain Final Plat:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report noting the recommended conditions
of approval. He stated that this proposal is identical to the proposal presented and
approved on March 28, 1978; the property is now under new ownership.
There were no comments from the applicant or the public. ,
Mr. Vest moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. Recordation of maintenance agrement as approved by the County Attorney's Office;
2. The applicant is to certify or provide evidence that the property has legal
access to a public right-of-way;
3. County Engineering Department approval of drainage easements;
4. County Engineering Department approval of private road specifications.
Col. Washington seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no
discussion.
Caleb Stowe Associates Lots A and D Site Plan:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report.
Mr. Lambert, on behalf of the applicant said that the Highway Department has
approved the entrance, and therefore he objects to the "no left turn signs". He pointed
out that this was not required across the street and feels the future design of the road
should take care of it.
There was no public comment.
9
5(,;,1
Mrs. Graves questioned the reservation line as opposed to the dedication.
At this point, Mr. Montenegro read into the record the comments from the Highway
Department.
Dr. Moore pointed out that in the past the Commission has required a dedication
so that at the time of road improvements, no land acquisition is necessary.
Dr. Moore then moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. County Attorney's office approval and recordation of cooperative parking access
easement, and maintenance agreements to include Tax Map 61, Parcel 123D;
2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial entrances
and improvements on Route 631;
3. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer facilities;
4. Change the reservation to dedication.
Mrs. Graves seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further
discussion.
Kinderworld Site Plan:
Mr. Montenegro presented the staff report, reading the Highway Department
comments into the record.
Mr. Keeler pointed out that condition #3 as proposed by the staff could
be bonded.
Mr. Sinclair objected to all conditions of approval of the special permit
having to be met prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; he objected
also to Greenbrier Drive's being brought into the State Secondary Highway System prior
to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Furthermore, he stated that he
the sidewalk requirement was not necessary since it would lead nowhere.
Mr. Easter said that several other projects that have been approved, that
have not yet been developed, have been required to build sidewalks.
Mrs. Graves questioned why the entrance is not two-way.
Mr. Sinclair responded that it will be two-way at a later date when the bad
curve is taken out of the road.
Mr. Easter suggested staff approval of the fence and plantings after a
long discussion of what was appropriate for the use.
Mr. Keeler asked that the Commission direct the staff, since at this point
the applicant and staff are of different opinions.
Col. Washington moved approval subject to the following conditions:
1. All conditions of approval of SP-78-28 shall be met prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy;
2. Road improvements shall conform with the recommendations stated by Mr. W. B. Coburn
of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation in his memo to Ms. Mary Joy
Scala dated June 7, 1978;
3. Greenbrier Drive shall be brought into the State Secondary Highway System prior to
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy;
4. Sidewalks shall be built to meet County Engineering Department and Virginia
Department of Highways and Transportation approval along both the Greenbrier
Drive and Whitewood Road frontage at the applicant's expense;
5. Staff approval of landscape plan including screening of the play area
from adjacent properties;
6. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commercial
entrance permit;
7. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
8. Play area shall have either a wooden pallisade fence of treated lumber a minimum
of 6 feet in height or a chain link fence, and shall have State Department of
Welfare approval if required.
Mrs. Diehl said that she could not support the motion.
Mr. Huffman seconded the motion, which carried by a vote of 6-1, with
Mrs. Diehl dissenting.
The Commission adjourned at 2:10 a.m. with no further business.
)b rt W. Tucker, Jr. - Sec Lary,
19