Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
SDP199200079 Staff Report Preliminary Site Plan 1992-12-15
STAFF PERSON: YOLANDA HIPSKI PLANNING COMMISSION: DECEMBER 15, 1992 (SDP-92-079) AUTO AMERICA PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN: Proposal: The applicant is proposing to locate a 9,000 square foot building with 50 parking spaces on 0 . 923 acres zoned PD-SC, Planned Development Shopping Center ( see Attachment A) . Reason for Planning Commission Review: Site Plan. Location: Property, described as Tax Map 61M, Section 12, Parcel 1D, is located at the northwest corner of Dominion Drive and Seminole Trail (Rt. 29N) . Zoned PD-SC, Planned Development- Shopping Center and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District. This site is located in a designated growth area and is recommended for Community Service in Neighborhood One ( see Attachment B) . STAFF COMMENT: This site plan has been reviewed by the Site Review Committee with all comments addressed. This plan was also reviewed by the Architectural Review Board ( see Attachment C) . The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has determined adequate sight distance exists onto Dominion Drive ( see Attachment D) . Access has been a major issue during previous reviews. On September 10 , 1980, on appeal, the Board of Supervisors approved a proposal which allows access to Dominion Drive. Section 32 .7 . 2. 2 of the Zoning Ordinance prohibits entrances within five hundred ( 500 ) feet of any multi-laned crossover and therefore access cannot be established to Route 29N consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. As to other issues related to access, see Attachment E. Staff opinion is this preliminary plan is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and recommends approval subject to the following conditions: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1 . The Planning department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions are obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations; c. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion control plan; 1 d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements to include a commercial entrance; e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of ten ( 10 ) foot wide easement along the southwest border of the property and water meter location; f. Architectural Review Board issuance of a final Certificate of Appropriateness; g. Abandonment of all access easements connecting the Shoppper ' s World property and this property. 2 . Administrative approval of final site plan. ATTACHMENTS: A - 11 x 17 Reduction B - Location Map C - Architectural Review Board Letter D - Virginia Department of Transportation letter E - Site Plan appeal 2 ATTACHMENT A -_ rill OFFICIAL I SCHEDULE OF LANDSCAPE MATERIALS & CANOPY COMPUTATIONS GENERAL CONSTRUCTION NOTES Ia l_ _ SITS ARIA . 40,100 S.F. • SSSUISIO TRIM (IS TSSED11 ♦O.0ED S.I. • IOU . 1.001 O.P. 1. PESO@ TO O5N0EDOIOEDT OP Al! ION WITNII I ANT IIOTIlS Milli Y+i.y ' ■IONT-OP-WA!. 1 INS ION TO ANT ■ZISTIN• SOAP, • PNUNIT POP , GIN CAL • ED1•N1 AT USA TEDS Sale ION S■ OET•IN/• PROW TNN rINGINI• e ENT Na.. WIN. CuIFED INS 1tr II IS •°l• 0 •• IONI S■GISEE@1 1. . • 1O■ 1 IAru r.e.e•T.1. . - )(1 OUEfY7 rALU7 Tx 17 •, 7 I/:' I I' 4 !70 f./ N.I E 0 !I t. •ll r•rISG •N• P@AI Sue •N• ION I.i: PIN OA[ TO • SPECIFICATIONS AN• OP r.S.e.T. WISS O,L 5.,:)...c, ACIN ■YNOUY a 1/a• i•• • . INN !I. • Nil N• 0aI.0 S. BED/IS■ •I• SILTATION r II PSOr1SSS IN MI iNS •►sera@ ■EDS10n FLAB AND S/ 1 PNION TO ANr d•SSrICN ITN REHIRE• PVT. 1e• Clads CANADEN0I! , III YA/ W/S IANCIL 0/I - It INC GUSISG MI IOI. 1.. ..) [A!T[IIx aLD NUO a 1/lam T. • • •O• !I • I.NI N N I CI,. JNO/IfOO IONL! LYN _ E ♦• ALL OLOFOS AND SI TO @■ PISTIL!Pigs* ITNOOuf L E1a PIN♦ 0I WOE-SIC ■•71M Yr •L LOWAEL■ FILL OS CPT SS Sit. ENO@■ OET•I 0 = SNITA PINE TO NINAI, 3 • 171l/.•1 La• NNI !r SON FW D POSE II •NS TS SI ACNIIVSI. Z •I C. S. •LL SIAIN•OI I N•rl • E-1 ION. I� S rN TN■ I ISI O ILL[ COINA TA 0. . NIP-S•P OR ST•SILILATIO■ ■AT LINED PITCH PAT SS SIOYIEIS WHEN IS TIN J �V, OP TWIt JAIAN[7[ HOLLY w. Ii 1O• 70 , (SIII J.• MNOPINION OF TNI •LSIN• IIIC TOE 0/ EDOINEO@IED. O■ III EDGI•NIU. a. 1 • \ 1ii 41 I • @ Ir O/PC• TO OTAI1•1S■ A SS• ■AO/ a. • 1` - PLAN @r TIN / I ` ' III I!o I! IT IE I - ES POT ■SCSAAAE IL• IBalO•TI / I I r i I \ \ \ Fs I•, /...a ///I/•/ Ar•. \ \ Iu ♦Ir f! 7. •lL IC UGBS P LWlrn TIN r1E•Irl• /0■ V 2 1; r •* �� r1lGlrl• O/ - \ \ \ INIPONI IC SN!ICU. LATUT UPTON,I 0 j / ) I \ ` \ \ \ S. rls ALL CONCEIVE PIPE S■ 101NPEDCIP CONCSIT■ Ca Ier 1EDOT) ATNEDvu OF TUE \ / \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 9 y I :Fi r •�i Yf FL•r. TN! PLar ST TN h/ I I I \ \ \ \ \ \ \• \ \ \ \ PIPE- III. p •• '-. J lu?j DOES r•t 1■ •NT WIr I \ \ \ \ \ `\ \ \ \ O• •LL S1C•r•TIO■ POE OOOOOONOYwe PIPE 1 IS■ ■Her COr►Lr WITH OEDA d} Z J So ISILIT• ^1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \I� •— IJo r0° INN COEDTNUCT1ON I — /■■LISP■ r1 •F ■T ,0 -• )' \ Es/s, ASIA•I, Cora \ M 10• le f +00 00' _) \ 1 SS CrN PANT ISSO 1• ' N[N � Ir�Y IN 0ST1iBISG FINAL (((( ---r--�- - -� pN�i. � • �f, Pa10° TO INS I - , _1._ _ I a� 9. W WWI EDn@IS• rEDMITI •ED/e■ \ .� I'" \�� 11.1 * WATER i SEWER GENERAL PLAN NOTES rt f / I a, ,,\ \ L•./i.I \ ,) •I r- ♦I\ I. WEDc Ga To IEDPNCno■ @T ICE Q e z - NNI � * NW NW / 1 / \ -.b " -\• \ / \ •. ... ,.._,.. + • \ ITN I 7N■ GOYTN•GTO■ WILL II 10LN PSIa�,� I larlr r `: V : \ \ ,o zp > ,\ \ \ \ (Lel ■onrrnG rr■ r@es■ narle■ Irr orneuED •r TwE GTUT or rEDe. z% ♦t 1 \ \ \ \• ` \ \ S. TN/ ION Or EXISTING YTILITIIS •a ALOUS rrI LINE Or TE■ I t-\� �� :: W \ \ \ \ \ •`o. /./ ■ •I1� WOac •l■ NOT 118CEDNUILI NNorr ON TN■ PLANS •rP WNED/ y, > "�I \ ::::: \ \ ! Ier•••••;r,�� ( 1 ;I N SNOWS •II ONCE I TIS ON NIG I - .1• ( .' 1 a! \ �\ MiI.SIN//r4•fl l• • p j�•}v��.�• (1):: i \ \ �.:1 OWN nnunr■ Leer/ •u IrED •ED GrEDer@uP AS a1 L. / •. \ \ \\ \ \\ :\ a. •LLISu •ED COISTNYCTIO■ WITHPATS■ Ar@ EL/ o1FIf N� \ ;51: \ \ \ \ I \ OErXE Ier VOCIPICUT10NS •GGv TraY W1 \ \ _...1.,, ONE J r0 a r \ \ iv:.• r \ U.h d1 Irr O■ J•EDAIT !O. ISSN, •SW W\ E ` �\ ;.=:: \ \ f r/L u/NJ \\ �\ \ li P\ ♦. THE CONTIACTOS 181.11111111 NOTIFTIN• • MISS NTILIT!• p F At (V t Q --+:r1- \ \ \\\ '.. a \ \ 11-NED-Nu-TED11. m z)- _ \ N'. O \ f.000`F fr•,s\ uII' \ \ \ S• IONP •NS Or E.P.C. •nP G.O. W/7\ ' \ �/\ , O. All WATI■ •w• GEESE LINES w1r■ • TYIaN f007 r1lISYr Q J J \ 4.4,:. -� • s:.�.\ \\ \ \"\ ^ \ \ I \ Ora■ TED CINTSU IN• OP INN PIPE. • ; :'; \ \RECEIVED c ,-jam ,�- -, Nes /I\\.III,: . \ . .QV �\\ m _�\ \ \ \\F L Is•fo \L'II'? \ o1 \ NOV2 3 1992 vcor-ri.•.�' s 1' — ti \ \ SITE TOTALS & LAND USE DATA j •1^ !\ \ '1> \\ \\ \\ \ 1_ : , �\ \\ @ITI •n• : P.PSS •eu ♦@.RED P S.F. r- �— O .1♦M1 \\ \ ice\ N. N.N \ \ o @ • PEE G r IE EE r I 11 \ \ f0 \ • I \ II 10@S fS,SS• • I 115.4111 Planning Dept. _ '\\ Cc.; - . . . . . \\— .IN .P.G. l \ [onNG : MC // ; ♦ \ 1\ \\ \III \ \ . . b \' il 4 \ \\ MAXIMUM OF : 0 U • p i \\�r /\ 1 \\ I , \\ — e 1:' \I \ E. i ISnS. LT11. @ r • I F 1 1 \ b . , _ TxN N1T■IS rot Loe•rED MItwl■ Era 1 _ O ` , \\ \ is \\..—u+ \ \ ... \ erraSS • N - 113 THERE/1 NO FA1d£M� L Q 0 V 1,11,. •I ••I•••• \ (,ls, 0/-!A\ MOOS 11 CONNECFTO WITH/NF •♦ \ \ Ii. N. !•r•a I-C••I•r/•/O.I/a \ \ \ SIT( @LICY MANE BERKELEY 514N. `` 7.I 110 !O P1r10 I. POOP AS. Ls/,I J.•rN�� N. A///frI• II.,..f/I Z 0 J JION r0 REMAIN ...` ` \ .sr/.e• Iri..1 OI/S••I w /•• 1!r/O !Wet A,/11//Cor1 T/• ■EN[YLOT _ • .S FI..N II..t _ \r•/ rII 1!1 lI l \ /IJ/Is.I,I.•I,C•••\JM- J t ` ‘p I•I.r A•N Is1• I•r \ raj" J.• MM II.. •aa •L t I Ir/,I M/ \ U a N 7 D.1.. W rob.v,/.,41E 1I ICSAI I 1 \ i o \ ! I IJ\. J_..:_. ^ -�'---rti 1_f�t fl cUBPr@Ncnor . INS. O U.I C Z L,l•I +: , \`� J'I• ,� �� -�(/.JlW-tl.DI.IJI•/f >t l'1.��` ./• •LLNY E•a0■ lia (7 . a'` �� b EDED •Ia.EDT SOAP ~ ' _ V _ Fa„OMB Elite • D r r . IX - 1 t'� � p r •■ MI En ion -•I• :., -�- ---r.I u. • t-III-EDN-ESSP Z > \ '^S�- +` �= __�� l '\E.,,I. It•RCF r•, )" t3`-- - •!o vrr• of tJJ.I LJSS IN Twa Er TauGS COED1 •ISTIICT < Q OOP 0 - -- :III aI!!I-III J ••( -� y' Esi,I 7E RCI `L7 \T•Jo o1 - __\r ' —- I �,�__ '--/!O oLlor-t1/ -I a s O •L 1 10•It' N /J• •f' Esi et Pe••r � - W Easel DI-JII/Ir F•i,I Irr t\ \ I,,.IEf.III \ _ - 0•:II•JJI c F r rN-r I•r voor ,•+ \ \• \ \\ r.h N•/•,•,.I \__-_=_- I- "... i J Z \tee • M L —j ,���— ., /� PARKING SCHEDULE a- . . ... a > Q Ii -Yee.' --- ///••.1.., / / � / S.E SPACED 1E■ ■•CN 7,H0 O.I. az W W / ARE• 4 Q 0 H J fII Exist / �' U.S • 0 . 40•E PAIRING OOOONS ENGN17ED _ ! F C t1 / aS S°� Aai/ A7N' a0 FARMING SPACED P101ISO1 - f 0 t L 1 L NI.1. aJ ! o•.l./.. orl.. /a........I. fl Pao r J M — 1. Ch.rl.�rII/. U. S. R O !J T E 2 9 A. r.r Pao r I,... 1 .J K ' ` III Pr.i•.I N. WOES-00t-119 NW-SO/ C-SO/ LISNTS YOU IS 1LLYr1NATI PAUSIS• S■ 00 W w al IT IEDl. AT Till TINI OP Ja•II M•• /O/ I/ SNP 1@NT •r••PROW •OJOIBING NEEI@ENTI•L 10 ` = al Isis, f/•• •/ /•rI.•,I DISTRICTS •Ntl ANAT LISITINS SPI APPLICATION FO■ • OYILDINO •AT I. Tw•T d ~ .144 V IS NOT FLOW •t TIN EXISTING Isis, C,.N•.•r Es I•I !-W L ONTO PYELIC INS NEDIDENTI•Llr OR EYS•L NOT EXCEED OE■-NALP It/S) FOOT CANSLN• TM ■0 Ion. •LL 00EDCO• OF rOIS! I ■1CNPT TNOED NOT DIRECT OP TS■ O IL SING WILL ■ETHER ■a CO NITEYCTEO • •OIrG • ■YILGIIO TIPS WITN OCCUPANT 0/ USN. SUCK AN rEnICL/G I. rPOT NOT CNS•Ta SOUND O■ 1 ■01N11 I■ 110ENP OP NP/CIPIEN II S/CTION /.1/. • • ill PLOW OST•INIS ON WILL ■■ OPII _ UOT SI EAII ON NT OIAG■ 0/ Y PI00 YCTS IN PLAN SCALE : / M N 20 I EXCU• OF NIL IS001 AUNT TIN!. « v. PILL ON ■O rNMICYLA■ '0 WOSN •BP iNa • • coa/err /Sierra/ • I ' WILL • ■MIL Si r0 ISYT OYTSN 1L11S a AW•ITING TO N■ ■EF•ISEO. M • ..• ALBEMARLE COUNTY ATTACHMENT B ( sa megl t. t 6� 6 WI ti 'P' 'o K II OPEN . ,e B'% ✓I O SPACE 44 Y © -es ® oc� 12 ,. 2 OPEN SPACE LaS�� SEE 11445416 IS-102A 61U- VILLAGE OFFICES e., DB 747 pq 176-207 #404.,B 0EcolE m }!!tPH2 D.B 820Pq 351-356 ( l0000 zoo o OJ%IV • s. hill O ®� jIILAGE Et aWrisliEn .„ KaiR ©® I,J.,µ6 OIo 1 v , " 01,... 19 &'IdiI. ' I is 10 ificsoulittb -a o v® Agn,nmis lama s�F lrA v� a 9 Lvoo®vv impoll°11 illaffiff 0V /100 'Noro IC AA�a 2 ftoAy�o1v © SDP-92-079 II* v,.. _®O - Auto America A W , 410 MI it i ft";P ♦ 010•�� 61M- BERKELEY COMMUNITY SEC I, D.B 337, Pgs 336,337 All. .��0 � , � BERKELEY COMMUNITY SEC 2, DB. It 23 22 © BERKELEY COMMUNITY SEC.3,DB 360,Pgs 144A,1448 61M OB 7 , D B 797 Pg 249 BERKELEY COMMUNITY SEC.4 D.8 373 Pg 79 61U - 0 BERKMAR D.B.398Pq.501 0BERKMAR CENTER D B 589 Pg 229 REV II/I/SI SECTION 6I-M-U ,r c :cP �cc �^ ^� CHARLOTTESVLLE DISTRICT nt.�, IOF 4 4,;:li ATTACHMENT C ��RGIN�P COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Zoning 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, Virginia 22901-4596 (804) 296-5875 November 24 , 1992 Embree Construction 8050 Airport Road Georgetown, Texas 78628 Re: Auto America Site Plan ARB-P(SDP) -92-10 Tax Map 61M, Parcel 12-1D Dear Mr. Baran: The above noted item was reviewed by the Albemarle County Architectural Review Board at its meeting on November 23 , 1992 . The Board made the following suggestions: (1) Use a uniform brick color for the building. (2) Submit a photometric plan with the lights directed on site. (3) Sign issues to be addressed separately. (4) Work on treatment of doors to the entrance bays. (5) Replace the proposed pediment with a more elaborate cornice treatment; submit a sketch for the Board's review. (6) Provide an evergreen hedge along Dominion Drive. (7) Landscape requirements adjacent to the two Virginia Department of Transportation Right-of-Ways on Route 29 North and Dominion Drive to be determined after receipt of Virginia Power's plans for relocating the power lines. The Certificate of Appropriateness can be administratively approved by staff once the above conditions have been satisfied. Sincerely, 1/Lbi(j)-7\"--- Marcia Joseph Design Planner MJ/st cc: B. Audrey Huffman & Associates C. Timothy Lindstrom L.EC- 7-92 r•1C't-a 1 = i= r ' ' I LLE F'E I LIENC:1- F' . E_11 . .%47 M ' ATTACHMENT Di COMMONWEALTH ©f WWRQ lNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P 0.BOX 2013 RAY D. PETHTEL CHARLOTTESVILLE,22902 D. S. ROOSEVELT RESIDENT BONUS COMMISSIONER December 7, 1992 Auto America Route 29 N. Albemarle County Ms. Yolanda Hipski Albemarle County Planning County Office Building 401 Mclntire Road Charlottesville, VA. 22902 Dear Ms. Hipski: This is in reference to your transmittal regarding the above subject, dated December 4, 1992. Our office has reviewed the location of the proposed commercial entrance and has determined that adequate commercial sight distance exists. Trimming of vegetation along this area must be properly maintained. We would like to note that this entrance could be shifted several feet east to align with the commercial entrance across the street. Drainage and frontage improvements shall be reviewed by site plan at the VDOT Culpeper Office. Should you have any questions, please contact this office. Sincerely, dit/ A. . Tucker Assistant Resident Engineer AGT/ldw cc: Robert Hofrichter TRANSPORTATION FOR THE 21ST CENTURY 'OUNTY OF ALBEMARLE LAW OFFICES I ' WOOD, WOOD AND WOOD (` AU G 1 19$0 WI ' 230 COURT SQUARE \t i 1 P. O.BOX 471 " - - --• DAVID J. WOOD (1897-1966) DAVID J. W000. JR. CHARLOTTESVILLE,VIRGINLA, R OAK;.) JF J(j,Pydoob`�a�oa JOSEPH M.WOOD, II TELEPHONE 236-6116 22902 August 21, 1980 ATTACHMENT•E Page 1 Board of Supervisors County of Albemarle Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Dear Sirs and Madam: Re : Site plan Dominion Drive and Route 29 North On August 19 , 1980 , the Albemarle County Planning Com- mission reviewed the site plan for the development of the corner of Dominion Drive and Route 29 North for the location of a restaurant. The Albemarle County Planning staff recommended the approval of the site plan with certain acceptable conditions. The Planning Commission, after hearing the presentation, denied approval of the site plan on a vote of three to two. This letter is to respectfully appeal the decision of the Planning Commission and ask for a rehearing of the same by you. The Planning Commission denied approval of the site plan because of its access to Dominion Drive, indicating that it felt that the access to Dominion Drive caused a safety hazard and that this property should be served only by an access through the Shoppers World parking lot, a right which had been reserved by the owners when Shoppers World was purchased. Our reasons for requesting the rehearing are as follows: 1. In 1956 , when the Berkeley Subdivision was developed, the front 40 acres were designated on the plat for future com- mercial development, and all purchasers in Berkeley have always been aware that this property could someday be commercial, with access to Dominion Drive. This property has always been zoned commercial, and the residents of Berkeley could not have expected anything but commercial development, with access to Dominion Drive. 2 . In 1977 , a site plan was presented to the Planning Commission and to you with access to 29 North or Dominion Drive, ATTACHMENT E 1page 2 • Board of Supervisors Page 2 August 21, 1980 and both were denied. Since that time, approximately 30 commercial developers have contacted us concerning the development of this property for their uses but, upon learning that only access through the shopping center is available, all have indicated such access is unacceptable. 3. There is a 16 foot difference in elevation between the corner of 29 North and Dominion Drive and the diagonal corner of the subject property. This is equivalent to a two-story building, and a ramp to the said diagonal corner would be at an approximate 17% grade and totally unacceptable to a commercial venture. If an entrance to the parking lot could be obtained through a re- vision of the parking lot site plan to the other two corners, it would still be so inaccessible as to be unacceptable to a com- mercial developer. Therefore, although legally this property enjoys an access right of way through the parking lot, physically it is an unacceptable solution to the access problem. 4. Since 1977 , two commercial lots have been developed on the south side of Dominion Drive, one of which serves the Pizza Inn. Dominion Drive has been widened to a three-lane road, the traffic situation has been much improved and Pizza Inn has resulted in very little inconvenience to the residents of the Berkeley Subdivision, and I would submit no additional traffic hazard. 5. At the hearing on August 19th, Mr. Roosevelt, the Highway Engineer, noted that the site plan offered an additional turn lane on 29 North and an additional lane on Dominion Drive, both of which were very desirable and both of which would probably never have been achieved through public funds if not accepted in conjunction with this site plan. Mr. Roosevelt noted that any access to any public road had certain detrimental effects to the road, but the advantages of the new lanes on 29 North and Dominion. Drive far, far outweighed the disadvantages of a new access on Dominion Drive which would certainly serve only a limited a,nount of traffic. ATTACHMENT E Page 3' Board of Supervisors Page 3 • August 21, 1980 6. It is wise planning to make every effort to restrict additional access to Route 29 North, but every corner lot on 29 North in this vicinity, to-wit: Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Drive, Westfield Road, Berkmar Drive, Rio Road, and Dominion Drive have access to the side street entering 29 North, and to deny this one lot access would certainly appear to be discriminatory. For the reasons above stated, we respectfully ask that you hold a hearing on the site plan and approve the same. Your1ry ,ruly, a/ • &z _ f David J. ood, Jr. a d L Jo ph M. Wood, II DJW, Jr/jfs CC: Mr. William Tucker Mr. James Cosby Mr. Daniel S. Roosevelt Mr. Thomas N. Sinclair CJO September 10, 1980 (Regular Day ing) WHEREAS a citizen has agreed to purchase these signs through the ATTACHMENT E office of the County Executive and to conform to standards set by the State Department of Highways and Transportation; page 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, that the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation be and the same is hereby requested to install and maintain the above mentioned street signs. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote: AYES Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. NAYS. None ABSENT Mr. henley and Miss Nash. Agenda Item No. 3G) Other Highway Matters. Mr. Dan Roosevelt said he had received a request for a status report on the acceptance of the earth dam in Hollymead. He said approximately one year ago, subsequent to a request from Virginia Land Company to rezone land north of the dam to R-3, requests were made of Dr. Charles Hurt to supply data on soil and materials used in the dam (completed by Mr. E. L. Gooch and received July, 1978) and a hydrologic analysis, which has not yet been received. This hydrologic analysis was requested on November 30, 1979. Mr. Fisher said he thought Mr. Jim Hill of Virginia Land Company should be requested to be present at the day meeting, and this item be placed on the agenda for discussion to determine whether the rezoning (ZMA-79-33 Albemarle Land Corporation) will be pursued or witndrawn. Mr. Fisher added that the acceptance of the road over the dam is extremely important, and must be dealt with at e rezoning stage of approvals. Mr. St. John asked Mr. Roosevelt the Highway Department's position on maintaining the road if accepted. Mr. Roosevelt said before the road can be accepted into the system, there must be an alterna- tive access to the property which is also state maintained. Mr. Roosevelt said if the dam were to wash out, the State's responsibility would be to replace the road bed and road surface to its original condition, but that the replacement of the dam itself would be someone elses responsibility. Mr. St. John said that if a subdivision plat is put to record, the fee to that roadway over the dam vests in the County, and unless there is a specific statement on the plat that replacement costs to rebuild the dam are covered under homeowner agreements, then it becomes the responsibility of the County to replace that aam. Motion was offered by Dr. Iachetta that this item be placed on the agenda of the uctober 8, 1980, and that Virginia Land Company be properly notified to be present for the aiscussion. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann and carried by the following recorded vote. t+ZES Messrs. Fisher, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. vAYS None. ABSENT. Mr. Henley and Miss Nash. Mr. Fisher asked about an erosion problem on Route 682. Mr. Roosevelt said he spoke with Mr. Tomlin who indicated he was going to place some stone in the ditch line of the road at the edge of his property in an attempt to stop the erosion. Mr. Roosevelt said he told Mr. Tomlin that the next time it rained following the placement of the stone, he would visit the site to determine where ditching needed to be done. Mr. Lindstrom said he spoke with Mr. Jim Bergold in Canterbury Hills who requested maintenance on the road edges along Westminister Road, Woodhurst Road and Woodhurst Court. 4r. Bergold said the edge of the road is crumbling and causing drainage problems and that either gravel or resurfacing is required. Dr. Iachetta asked the status of the culvert replacement for Commonwealth Drive. Mr. Roosevelt said the pipe is on order, the easements from property owners, both up and iownstream, have been obtained, the utility companies have reviewed the plans, and now the wipe must be placed. Mr. Roosevelt said if the pipe arrives before mid-November, it will )e laid this year, if it does not arrive before that date, it will be done in the early Spring. Mr. Fisher thanked Mr. Roosevelt for completing the Ivy Landfill Road. He complimented iim on a very nice job which is sensitive to the area and properties it crosses. Mr. Lindstrom said that in June a permit was approved for the Fairfield Bridge Company 'or work on the Mechum River Bridge. Mr. Lindstrom said he went out to view the work 'ollowing rains last week and wished to note that he considered this site the best example ,f soil erosion control he has ever seen. Agenda Item No. 5. Appeal: David and Joseph Wood Site Plan. (Plan showing the site ievelopment of Parcel B-2, 0.924 acres near Berkeley Community on U.S. Route 29 and Dominion )rive, Charlottesville Magisterial District, drawn by B. Aubrey Huffman & Assoc., Ltd., sated July 14, 1980, and revised August 12 and August 18, 1980.) Mr. Robert Tucker, )irector of Planning read the planning staff report and Planning Commission action as 'ollows: 259 • ' • ATTACHMENT r 1 -'age 5 September 10,1980 (Regu. )ay Meeting) Location: At the corner of Dominion Drive and Route 29 North (southbound lane). Property described as Tax Map 61M, Parcel 1D in Charlottesville District. Acreage: 40,237 square feet. Zoning: B-1, Business History: August 16, 1977 - The applicant withdrew the proposed Pizza Inn Site Plan. September 27, 1977 - The Planning Commission approved the Pizza Inn/ Mr. Donut Site Plan. October 12, 1977 - On appeal, the Board of Supervisors reviewed the Pizza Inn/Mr. Donut Site Plan and requested that this item be recon- • sidered by the Planning Commission. October 25, 1977 - The Planning Commission deferred the Pizza Inn/Mr. Donut Site Plan in order that a representative of the Virginia Depart- ment of Highways and Transportation could be present. November 1, 1977 - The Planning Commission deferred the Pizza Inn/Mr. Donut Site Plan again in order that a Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation study of the Dominion Drive and Route 29 North intersection be completed in order to determine if a traffic signal would be needed. November 15, 1977 - The Planning Commission resolved to forward the Pizza Inn/Mr. Donut Site Plan to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration. The resolution came about as a result of a stalemate in the voting after various motions failed. December 21, 1977 - The Albemarle County Board of Supervisors approved the Pizza Inn/Mr. Donut Site Plan with access and egress limited to Shopper's World. Proposal: A request to locate a restaurant with 4,140 square feet of gross building area. Topography of Area: Slopes gently from the northwest corner to the pro- posed stormwater detention pond. Condition of Roads Serving Proposal: Route 29 North (southbound lane) accommodates 15,000 vehicle trips per day and is considered tolerable. Dominion Drive accommodates 4,139 vehicle trips per day and is con- sidered tolerable. Comprehensive Plan Recommendation: Commercial in Neighborhood #1 of the Urban Area. Type Utilities: Public facilities are available. Plans will not be necessary since the water and sewer lines are existing. Staff Comment: The Highway Department recommends an additional 12 foot lane be established on the northeast side of Dominion Drive allowing a bypass lane similar in design to that constructed with the Pizza Inn Site Plan. This will allow four lanes of traffic from the inter- section with Route 29 to the entrances and will allow left turn lanes into the restaurant site from Dominion Drive. A grading easement should be shown in the area from the existing right of way line on Route 29 to the curb line at the parking area for the future regrading necessary at this intersection in conformance with the Route 29 North Corridor Study. Adequate sight distance can be obtained through the removal of the vegetation along Dominion Drive on State right of way. The applicant has conformed with the State Highway's recommendations. Staff feels that if the applicant has access to Shopper's World Shopping Center that the site plan should incorporate the access; this will have to be worked out with staff. This site plan will meet the requirements of Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance and Staff recommends approval subject to: RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. No building permit will be issued until the following conditions are met: a. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance; b. Grading Permit; c. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of the commercial entrance; d. Fire Official approval of the marking of fire lane and fire flow of 1000 gpm and hydrant location; e. County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement of stormwater detention facilities; f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of extending the water line for relocation of fire hydrant if needed. 260 • Se.tember 10 1980 (Recular fleeting) Mr. Tucker said that on August 19, 1980, the Planning Commission denied the site plan I ATTACHMENT E on the basis that the site should only have access to Shopper's World Shopping Center. Paq' 6 Mr. Fisher next noted receipt of the following letter of appeal dated August 21, 1980: "Board of Supervisors, County of Albemarle Charlottesville, Virginia 22901 Re. Site plan Dominion Drive and Route 29 North Dear Sirs and Madam: On August 19, 1980, the Albemarle County Planning Commission reviewed the site plan for the development of the corner of Dominion Drive and Route 29 North for the location of a restaurant. The Albemarle County Planning staff recommended the approval of the site plan with certain acceptable conditions. The Planning Commission, after hearing the presentation, denied approval of the site plan on a vote of three to two. This letter is to respectfully appeal the decision of the Planning Commis- ! sion and ask for a rehearing of the same by you. The Planning Commission denied approval of the site plan because of its access to Dominion Drive, indicating that it felt that the access to Dominion Drive caused a safety hazard and that this property should be served only by an access through the Shoppers World parking lot, a right which has been reserved by the owners when Shoppers World was purchased. Our reasons for requesting the rehearing are as follows: 1. In 1956, when the Berkeley Subdivision was developed, the front 40 acres were designated on the plat for future commercial development, and all purchasers in Berkeley have always been aware that this property could someday be commercial, with access to Dominion Drive. This property has always been zoned commercial, and the residents of Berkeley could not have expected anything but commercial development, with access to Dominion Drive. 2. In 1977, a site plan was presented to the Planning Commission and to you with access to 29 North or Dominion Drive, and both were denied. Since that time, approximately 30 commercial developers have contacted us con- cerning the development of this property for their uses but, upon learning that only access through the shopping center is available, all have indicated such access is unacceptable. 3. There is a 16 foot difference in elevation between the corner of 29 North and Dominion Drive and the diagonal corner of the subject property. This is equivalent to a two-story building, and a ramp to the said diagonal corner would be at an approximate 17% grade and totally unacceptable to a commercial venture. If an entrance to the parking lot could be obtained through a revision of the parking lot site plan to the other two corners, it would still be so inaccessible as to be unacceptable to a commercial developer. Therefore, although legally this property enjoys an access right of way through the parking lot, physically it is an unacceptable solution to the access problem. 4. Since 1977, two commercial lots have been developed on the south side of Dominion Drive, one of which serves the Pizza Inn. Dominion Drive has been widened to a three-lane road, the traffic situation has been much improved and Pizza Inn has resulted in very little inconvenience to the residents of the Berkeley Subdivision, and I would submit no additional traffic hazard. 5. At the hearing on August 19th, Mr. Roosevelt, the Highway Engineer, noted that the site plan offered an additional turn lane on 29 North and an additional lane on Dominion Drive, both of which were very desirable and both of which would probably never have been achieved through public funds if not accepted in conjunction with this site plan. Mr. Roosevelt noted that any access to any public road had certain detrimental effects to the road, but the advantages of the new lanes on 29 North and Dominion Drive far, far outweighed the disadvantages of a new access on Dominion Drive which would certainly serve only a limited amount of traffic. 6. It is wise planning to make every effort to restrict additional access to Route 29 North, but every corner lot on 29 North in this vicinity, to- wit Hydraulic Road, Greenbrier Drive, Westfield Road, Berkmar Drive, Rio Road, and Dominion Drive have access to the side street entering 29 North, and to deny this one lot access would certainly appear to be discriminatory. For the reasons above stated, we respectfully ask that you hold a hearing on the site plan and approve the same. Yours very truly, (signed) David J. Wood, Jr. and Joseph M. Wood, II" ' September 10, 1980 (Regular Day Meeting) ATTAC H M E N T F Qa 9 @ 7� First to speak was N. . Jan Roosevelt of the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation, who said he approved of this proposed plat because of the extra lanes which would be made available to the Highway Department at the intersection of Dominion Drive and Route 29 North. Mr. Roosevelt said the right turn lane from U.S. 29 North into Shoppers World would be extended and go all the way to Dominion Drive, also an additional lane in front of Pizza Inn on Dominion Drive would be useful as a right turn lane onto U.S. 29 allowing the other lane as a stacking lane for cars turning left onto U.S. 29 North. Mr. Fisher said at the time the U.S. 29 North transportation study was done, he remembered Mr. Roosevelt's opinion on side road access to be different than what he is presenting today. Mr. Roosevelt said that was correct, but that since that study was done, a number of things have changed in the area, namely the opening of Fashion Square Shopping Center, the new street light system which was installed due to the new shopping center, and the opening of Pizza Inn. He said all these things caused his opinion to change and he now feels that any additions to the road system that approval of this plat will cause, well justifies its approval. Dr. Iachetta asked if it would not be safer to now have entrance to this parcel on U.S. 29 rather than on Dominion, because access on Dominion creates a crossing action by turning vehicles -- such action is not the case for vehicles turning into the property I; from U.S. 29. Mr. Roosevelt said he felt access from U.S. 29 would not be better, because with the new traffic light system, traffic will be moving at the full allowable speed (45 m.p.h.) and that without a turning lane to this property, it would cause a slowing action on U.S. 29 or dangerous sudden stops. Mr. David J. Wood said they have had many inquiries about development of this pro- perty but none of those commercial ventures were interested when they discovered that the only access into the property was through Shoppers World. Mr. Wood said that due to the topography, a 17% grade ramp would be required as access from Shoppers World to this property, this is unacceptable. (Mr. Henley arrived at 10:23 A.M.) Mr. Wood said he is unaware of any lot along U.S. 29 between the City and Rio Road which does not have access onto a side road. Next to speak was Mr. James Cosby, representing the Berkeley Community Association. Mr. Cosby reviewed the history of this property. Mr. Cosby then presented photographs showing traffic problems which presently exist on Dominion Drive. He noted the difficulty with which vehicles now cross U.S. 29 to enter Dominion Drive, and said that an entrance to the proposed parcel on Dominion Drive will create an obstacle which will cause cars to Iback up on Dominion Drive toward U.S. 29 and therefore make it even more difficult to cross the major highway and more hazardous to enter Dominion Drive. He said he agreed lwith Dr. Iachetta's concern about the crossing pattern an entrance on Dominion Drive would create. He concluded by requesting the Board to uphold the decision of the Planning it Commission and deny this site plan. Mrs. Joan Graves reviewed the history of the area stating that many other businesses have located on similar lots with limited access and developed successfully.She felt the safety aspects alone should cause the Board to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Mr. Cosby presented three letters in support of his earlier statement to deny this site plan. The letters, all dated September 9, 1980, are from the Four Seasons Patio House Association, signed by Mr. Collin E. Ostrander; the Four Seasons Condominium Associa- tion, Inc., signed by Ginger Slavic, Secretary; and the Four Seasons Townhouse Association, Inc., signed by Gregory A. Johnson. (NOTE: These letters are on permanent file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board of Supervisors.) Mr. Wood said he had one last point to make, that being that the peak traffic hours on Dominion Drive and U.S. 29 are from 7:30 to 9:00 A.M. and from 4:00 to 5:30 P.M.; the main hours of operation of the restaurant proposed for this parcel would be approximately 6:30 to 9:00 P.M. He stressed that these times are not conflicting and therefore would create no additional traffic problems. Mr. Fisher declared the public hearing closed. Mr. Fisher said he feels this parcel should have some viable access, but now that the Highway Department has changed its opinion, he's not sure which view to support. Mr. Lindstrom asked Mr. Roosevelt which access the Highway Department would prefer to have; access through Shoppers World or onto Dominion Drive. Mr. Roosevelt said because of the road improvements the site plan pre- sents, the Highway Department prefers the Dominion Drive access at this time, especially since these improvements could not be accomplished using State Highway funds. Mr. Lindstrom asked if an access onto Dominion Drive would cause a conflict with vehicles turning from Dominion onto U.S. 29. Mr. Roosevelt said he did not feel such a conflict would occur. Mr. Henley said the main reason he originally voted not to allow access onto Dominion was that he felt customers from Shoppers World would use this as egress from that shopping center. Dr. Iachetta said he must consider the safety and welfare of the residents of the Four Seasons and Berkeley communities and feels an obli- gation to preserve the residential character of the street. Mr. McCann said he was on the Planning Commission at the time this site plan was denied. Mr. McCann said since the Board of Supervisors was on record in favor of the U.S. 29 North Corridor Study, he felt it was important to obtain any highway improvements offered to reach the goals the Corridor study recommends. Mr. Lindstrom said that although he originally voted to deny access onto Dominion Drive for the Pizza Inn parcel, he feels the benefits to U.S. 29 derived from this proposed site plan are an opportunity to improve that highway that the Board of Supervisors should not pass up. Mr. Lindstrom said if access is allowed to Dominion Drive, then access to Shoppers World should be eliminated completely in order to prevent potential abuse of this parcel as a shortcut to Dominion Drive. itMr. Fisher said if an additional turn lane is created on U.S. 29 to go into Dominion Drive, this will cause those people turning from U.S. 29 North, left into Dominion Drive to cross three lanes rather than two, and that this could be a serious problem. Dr. Iachetta asked if the Highway Department had ever considered closing the crossover on U.S. 29 opposite Dominion Drive. Mr. Roosevelt said that in the U.S. 29 Corridor Study it is stated that the Dominion Drive crossover is too close to that at Shoppers World for instal- lation of a traffic signal, and that if it becomes too hazardous to cross at this point, September 10, 1980 (Regular Meeting) Motion was then offered by Mr. Henley to approve this site plan with the conditions 1—ATTACHMENT E as recommended by the staff and additionally that the road improvements stated by the applicant be completed prior to occupancy and that the entrance through Shoppers World be Page 8 eliminated. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCann who stated that he wished to make clear to the applicant that road improvements included curb and gutter as stated by Mr. Roosevelt. Mr. Wood said he would agree to those conditions but wished that the condition requiring the closing of the Shoppers World easement state only vehicular traffic be denied access. He said he would like to build a stairway for pedestrian access to Shoppers World. Dr. Iachetta said he would be vehemently opposed to a pedestrian access, since Shoppers World does not have parking spaces available for this parcel. Mr. Lindstrom said a pedestrian access would lessen traffic, allowing people to walk from Shoppers World to this site rather than having to drive. Mr. Henley said he had no problem with a pedestrian walkway, and Mr. McCann agreed. Mr. Lindstrom said he would support the motion with the conditions as amended because on the whole, this site plan will improve the traffic situation at this intersection. Mr. Henley said he felt the residents of Four Seasons and Berkeley were making out very nicely on this vote. Dr. Iachetta said he does not agree with the Highway Department that the turn lanes this site plan makes available will improve the traffic situation and create safer conditions. Roll was called and the motion to approve this site plan, with the conditions which follow, carried by the following recorded vote: AYES Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Lindstrom and McCann. NAYS: Dr. Iachetta. ABSENT Miss Nash. 1. No building permit will be issued until the following conditions are met: a. Compliance with the Stormwater Detention Ordinance; b. Grading Permit; c. Virginia Department of Highways & Transportation approval of the commercial entrance; d. Fire Official approval of the marking of fire lane and fire flow of 1,000 gpm and hydrant location; e. County Attorney approval of the maintenance agreement of stormwater detention facilities; f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of extending the water line for relocation of fire hydrant, if needed. g. There will be no vehicular access to Shoppers World property, and the easement will be abandoned. h. All road improvements shown on this site plan will be completed prior to occupancy of the building. Agenda Item No. 4. Discussion: Highway Department's new subdivision road policy and County's private road ordinance. Mr. Dan Roosevelt said basically, this new subdivision road policy has reduced the horizontal and vertical curvature requirements for low volume, dead end and fixed volume roads. Mr. Roosevelt said the change is in the design speed for sight and stopping distance, indicating that where the distance had been 15 feet, it will now be 25 feet and where is had been 20 feet it will now be 25 feet. Mr. Roosevelt said another change made is in the bonding and maintenance fees; where bonding had been $5,000 per mile, it is now $15,000 per mile, maintenance fees have increased from $600 per mile to $2,400 per mile. Mr. Fisher asked if there was any reduction in the right of way required for roads with capacity of 250 vtd. Mr. Roosevelt said there is no right of way reduction, which remains 30 feet for up to 250 vehicle trips per day with curb and gutter. Without curb and gutter the minimum right of way is 40 feet. Mr. Roosevelt said these new regulations will greatly improve the chances of many rural roads being accepted into the State Secon- dary System. Mr. Fisher then asked Mr. J. Ashley Williams, Assistant County Engineer, to compare the new state regulations with the County's private road standards. Mr. Williams said regulations are based on the number of lots served. He noted that for 13 lots or more (which represents 251 vehicle trips a day or more) private road requirements are the same as those for the State Highway Department, however there is no verticle or horizontal alignment. Mr. Williams noted that right of way for private roads is 30 feet. Finally, ne noted that the maximum percent of grade allowed for private roads is 15%, with the exception of roads less than 300 feet in length, which are allowed grades of 18%. Mr. Robert Tucker presented figures showing that 112 subdivisions were approved this past year, 40 of which were on existing state roads. There were 56 subdivision plats involved with private roads, and 740 lots equalling about 16 miles of private roads. There were 16 subdivision plats approved with 463 lots using state roads, equalling seven miles and 35 streets. Mr. Fisher said he was very much concerned that there are becoming far too many private roads, and that this will cause great problems in the future. He suggested the possibility of a "middle ground" standard for 10 lots or more. Mr. Fisher concluded by stating that judging from the preliminary census figures received by the county, there has been a population increase of 71% in housing units, and that something must be done soon to assure properly maintained roads for future use. Dr. Iachetta said there should be a definite cut-off point for use of the private roads, and anything above that certain number of lots should be state maintained. Mr. Fisher said that time was running out for further discussion of this matter, and suggested deferring the discussion to October 8, 1980. Motion was offered to defer to October 8th by Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. McCann, and carried by the following recorded vote: AYES Messrs. Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and McCann. NAYS: None. �RSFNT• Miss Nash.