1978-08-07N370
August 7, 1978 (Night-Adjourned from August 2, 1978)
An adjourned meeting of the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, was held
on August 7, 1978, beginning at 7:30 P.M. in the Albemarle County Courthouse, Charlottesville,
Virginia; said meeting being adjourned from August 2, 1978.
Present: Messrs. Lindsay G. Dorrier, Jr., Gerald E. Fisher, J. T. Henley, Jr.,
F. Anthony Iachettg, C. Timothy Lindstrom and W. S. Roudabush.
Absent: None.
Officers Present: County Executive, Guy B. Agnor, Jr.; County Attorney, George R.
St. John; and County Planner, Robert W. Tucker.
Agenda Item No. 1. The meeting was called to order at 7:33 P.M. by the Chairman,
Mr. Fisher, with a moment of silence.
Agenda Item No. 2. SP-78-31. Bishop Walter F. Sullivan. To amend SP-446 and SP-78-06
(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 Berkeley
Subdivision. County Tax Map 61Z, Parcels 03-1, lA, 3 and 4. Charlottesville District.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on July 25 and:July 31, 1978.)
Agenda Item No. 3. Charlottesville Fashion Square Site Plan Amendments.
Agenda Item No. 4. Squire Hill Phase II Site Plan Amendments.
Mr. Fisher noted that the presentation on these three items will be combined.
Mr. Roudabush asked to make a statement. He said in 1972, his firm was engaged to
prepare a site plan for Squire Hill. He also has been slightly involved in. making a revised
drawing showing the change which the Board will discuss tonight. He has consulted with the
Commonwealth's Attorney and furnished him all pertinent information, and received a reply
which indicates that he has no conflict of interest, and there is no reason why he should
not fully participate in the discussion and vote on this request. However, the legal
implications of conflict of interest cannot be stated in writing. Since public comments will
be received on all three applications before the Board at the same time, Mr. Roudabush said
he has concluded that he will not vote on the modifications to the Squire Hill site plan, but
he will sit and listen to the discussion since he has no c~nflict on the other petitions.
Mr. Fisher said he had suggested this form of action because there is no way to separate
these issues and hold three separate hearings.
Mr. Tucker then proceeded with the staff report on SP-78-31:
Mr. M. E. Gibson, on behalf of Bishop Walter F. Sullivan, is-requesting that SP-446
(approved September, 1975) and SP-78-06 (approved March 15, 1978) be ~mended to
provide for possible development of the Branchlands Planned Community in the follow-
ing fashion. The applicant is proposing:
(a)
That the development of the Planned~Community's residential sections be allowed
to develop without direct access from the Route 29 North corridor.
,(b)
That the development of entrances "A" and "B" be an option contingent on whether
or not access is available from access points "X" and "Y".
(c:)
(d)
(e)
,(f)
That the Branchlands Planned CommunitY's approved circulation plan be amended to
no longer allow for a possible connection with the Fashion Square Mall property.
That the planned community be allowed to connect its residential collector with
the road already approved to collect the Squire Hill Apartment traffic and thus
have access to Rio Road across from Northfields Road.
\
That the Planned Community also be allowed to have access from Route 29 North
by way of Greenbrier. Drive.
That the language of Transportation paragraph D.3 be amended to delete
"Montague, Miller tract and"
(g)
That the widths of the rights-of-way and pavement be limited at this time to
fifty feet and thirty-six feet respectively.
(h)
That the northeastern leg of the collector road be aligned as close as possible
to the western edge of the easternmost stream.
Staff Comment
The staff would like to offer the following comments to the above noted amendment
requests:
Under items a, b, c, d, e, and f above, the staff can support these amendments because
the result of the ~mended development plan would help isolate the residential vehicular
traffic away from the commercial vehicular traffic. The result of these amendments
(if approved) would be that if an access to Rio Road via Squire Hill is allowed,
then the developer could opt not bo construct residential access from entrance "A",
and thus reduce the commercial oriented traffic which would be traversing the resi-
dential segment of the community. Similarly, if the collector road is allowed to
connect to Greenbrier Drive, the same result would be evident with regard to residential
access from entrance "B". Please note that under the proposed plan, the Planned
Community could have its residential development served by entrances "X" and "Y" only,
and that the commercial areas along the Route 29 North frontage would have direct access
from Route 29 North at the three proposed access points.
August 7, 1978 (Night-Adjourned from August 2, 1978)
3'7
The staff would not support a complete isolation of the commercial areas from the
residential areas, however, the staff feels that under the site development process,
site plans can be designed to offer vehicular access to both sides 'of a commercial
development without necessarily having any traffic traveling through the commercial
sites and into the residential areas.
Under item ,tg,, of the app~.ic.ant's ?equest, the staff is still in the process of
consultation,--with the Virginia Department of Highways regarding this request. The
staff feels that the residential collector through the Branchlands Community should
be ~esidentiat in character and should not provide the traveler a high speed cut
parallel to RoUte 29 North.
Under item "h" of the applicant's request, the staff feels that this item need not
be addressed until final site development plans are submitted for the development
of the residential collector and its appurtenant development.
Staff Recommendation
The staff recommends that the Branchlands Planned Community plan of development be
subject to the following conditions (as amended).
Mr. Tucker then said the Planning Commission at their meeting of June 27, 1978, voted
5/2 to recommend approval of SP-78-31, with basically the same conditions as those recommend-
ed by the staff. He then proceeded to read the Planning Commission's reconzmended conditions:
D. Transportation System Amended
~a~eee-a~'e~eeee~e~-e~-Re~e-29-~e~-a~-&~Se~a&-e$~ee~-&a~e~$e-e~a~
ee~e~-~e-A~e~e~-~a~-8= There shall not be more than two entrances on
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 ~pproved Plan #3
Amended·
The existing Branchlands entrance and crossover shall be closed and Entrance
~ 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 Tramsportation, 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 res'~dent'ia!
entrances specified in par.agraph D.5.
Rights-of-way shall be reserved and dedicated as shown on Approved Plan 3
Amended for future potential connections ~,-~e-M~a~-M~,~-~a,~
to Squire Hill Apartments and Westfield Section II.
&~&~&~a~-e&~e-~e~e~e~e~-~a~e-a~e-e~&~e~.
Ail streets are to be built to Virginia Department of Highways andTrans-
portation specifications for inclusion into the St'~teHig~w~Y SYst~em,
however, the roads shall not exceed 36 feet in pavement width with 50 foot
rights-of-way~ provided that parking arrangement£shall b'e ~s''a~re'e'd' upon by
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportat'io~ an'd th'e'~pPt~icant.
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''~e's'i'dential areas
shall have vehicular access facilities to the commerOiaI de'velO'pment along the
Route ~9 North frontage.
If connecting road "Y" is not constructed~ then the easternmost collector
road shall be connected.
8. The Planning Commission has determined that road connect'ion '"Y'" is in sub-
- stantial compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Tucker then proceeded with the staff report on the Charlottesville Fashion Square
site plan amendments:
Location:
Acreage:
Zoning:
On the southeast corner of Routes 29 North and 631
57+ acres
B-~ Business and Planned Community (commercial)
Proposal:
The applicant is proposing the same basic site development plan as was
previously approved on April 12, 1978 by the Board, with the exception
of the following changes:
The gross floor area of the commercial development is being reduced
from 593,638 square feet to 528,569 square feet due to the omission
of part of the second floor of building "G".
2. The parking is being reduced from 3,397 spaces to 3,181 spaces.
No longer will there be direct access from the Branchlands Planned
Community across from building "H".
372
August 7, 1978 (Night-Adjourned from August 2, 1978)
No longer will there be a state standards roadway on the periphery
of the site (along .Branchlands and Squire Hill frontage).
A parking area has been relocated in order to accommodate a possible
holding pond on the southwest corner of the property.
6. The interior mall design has been sightly altered.
As in the previous application, there is a future expansion area and a
future parking deck area noted; please note that approval of this amend-
ment does not speak to either item.
Staff Comment: Please note that all previously addressed items such as the required
improvements along Routes 29 North and 631, the grading and drainage plan,
and interior circulation are to remain as approved in the action of
April 12, 1978.
With regard to the proposed amendments, the staff feels that the trans-
portation facilities (as amended) are adequate and comparable to those
approved in the previous action.
The staff recommends approval of the site plan amendment subject to the
following conditions:
Recommended Conditions of Approval
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). (Clerks ~ote: set
out in their entirety on Pages 179-182 of Minute Book 16.)
2. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of sewer and water plans.
3. Fire Official and Building Inspections approvals.
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.
Ail 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" are not a part of this approval.
Staff approval of landscape plan. Landscaping to be maintained in healthy
condition and replaced if any should die.
e
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 March 30, 1978; and the circumferential road. a~-~he-~e~-~ea~-ehe~-~e
~e~ea~e~-~F-mea~e-e~-~a~ee~-e~-e~-&e~a~e-~e~-~a~&e-ea~e~-a~-ea~e-e~
e&~e~a~e~-a~-~e-~ees-~ha~-eYe~-~e~h-a&e~e-e~-a-~e~-~e-~e-a~e~e~
9. Staff approval of on-site traffic plan.
10. Grading and drainage plan to be approved by Soil Erosion Control Committee.
il. 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 approximat'e areas
designated on the amended plan dated June 21~. 1978 CM. E~a~-a~me~a&-e~-&eea~e~
e~-~e~e~e~-~e~-~-a~-~-~he-a~e~ma~e-a~ea-e~-~e~-~-e~-~he-~a~&~
~a~-~e~e~a~
19. Approval is subject to the State Water Control Board quality requirements, if any.
Mr. Tucker said at the Planning Commission meeting held on gune 27, 1978, the Commission
gave conditional approval to this site plan amendment, with the staff's recommended conditions
Mr. Tucker then read the staff report on Squire Hill Phase II Site Plan.
August 7, 1978 (Night-Adjourned ~rom August 2, 1978)
373
Location:
Acreage:
Zoning:
History:
On the south side of Rio Road near Albemarle Square Shopping Center.
16+ acres
R-3 Residential
On September 25, 1972, the Planning Commission gave conditional approval
to the first phase of this development subject to the following conditions:
1. Approval of the entire preliminary site plan.
2. Specific approval of Phase I.
3. Dedication of rights-of-way.
4. Approval of the road alignment.
5. No further building permits to be issued over and above those indi-
cated as part of Phase I (Buildings 1-29) until the road is built
to meet State Standards or bonded.
Proposal:
The applicant has amended his proposal from what was understood to be 2he
original submittal. The applicant is Broposing that only the realignment
of the main road through the Phase II development be considered. The road
is now proposed to connect with boththe Fashion Square property and the
Branchlands Planned Community. The applicant is now proposing that the
roadway from Rio Road to Branchlands be in the ~tate system, and that the
stretch of road which extends into the Fashion Square site be privately
maintained.
Purpose:
To offer access from the Squire Hill Apartment complex to both Fashion
Square and the Branchlands Planned Community.
Staff Comment: Staff opinion is that access to the Fashion Square property should
be assured by requiring that the entire road through Squire Hill be de-
signed to meet Secondary Road standards and be approved for State Main-
tenance by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation. The
staff has no objection to the general alignment of the roadway and feels
that the proposed "T" intersection with the Branchlan~Collector road
will be functionally sound. The staff also feels that at such time as
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation feels that a
signal is necessary at the intersection of Rio Road and the Squire Hill
road, that such signal should be installed at this applicant's expense.
Therefore, the staff recommends that this site plan amendment be approv-
ed subject to the following conditions.
Recommended Conditions of Approval
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 develop-
ment may necessitate.
Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of roadway and
right-of-way specifications.
3. Ail the proposed roadways shall be approved by the Virginia Deoartment of
Highways and Transportation and submitted for state maintenance.
4. Bike trails shall be provided along the east/west collector road.
Mr. Tucker said the Planning Commission at their meeting on June 27, 1978, gave condi-
tional approval to this site plan with the staff's conditions, but adding No. 5L~o read:
"This approval does not speak to residential development"..
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. Tucker if he was convinced that the three plans as presented
tonight, will manage the residential and commercial population of this area into the far
future. Mr. Tucker said he feels that the alignment and proposed circulation is a better
network of traffic than was originally proposed.
Mr. Dan Roosevelt, Resident Engineer for the Virginia Department of Highways, said he
felt the County is trying to do two things which are at odds to each other. First they are
trying to build a local collector road which will be a short-cut betWeen Route 29 and the
area near Northfields Subdivision. Second, they are trying to develop the residential
character in Branchlands, and the two will not work together. If this section is opened up
to through traffic, the road will be used no mat~er what type of road is built. Because of
this, the 36-foot wide curb and gutter roadway suggested by Branchlands will not be s~fficient
to car~y the traffic. The Board must decide if the streets will be strictly residential and
eligible for 36-foot width, or whether there needs to be a collector road to draw traffic
through this area to Route 631. Mr. Roosevelt said he felt, as a minimum, the road should
be a rural cross-section, 24-feet wide, with 8-foot shoulders, and reverse frontage.
Dr. Iachetta asked for an answer to a question he had previously proposed to Mr.
Roosevelt, which was the rationale behind a full third lane on Route 29 North, with decelera-
tion lanes running off of that third lane, as compared to a fly-over with only deceleration
lanes coming off of those two lanes, and how this would Affect the Safety and movement of B~$
traffic on 29 North. Mr. Roosevelt said a fly-over would not Affect the number of lanes ~
needed on Route 29 since its capacity is already at the limit. For proper control on this
highway, three lanes are needed both north and south. At the Board's request, earlier in the
year, the Department of Highways studied two fly-overs. Number 1 was to come out of this
property near the entrance across from Charlottesville Shoppers World, run south in the median
of 29 and come out in the southbound lane. Number 2 was to come out basically across from
Edward's Oldsmobile, ~run south in the median and merge into traffic in the south lane. Both
~f t~ese fly-overs were estimated to cost about $900,000 each. Fly-over number 1 would have
gotten traffic into the southbound lane and eliminated the need for a traffic signal to get
traffic out of the mall property. However, on the negativeiside, the fly-over may have re-
quired the closing of Dominion Drive, and would have changed the traffic pattern of people
trying to get from the fly-over into Berkeley, and also might have caused the closing of
crossover "A" into the Branchlands development. Even with the addition of this fly-over, a
:August 7, 1978 (Night-Adjmurned from August 2, 1978)
traffic signal would still be needed at the entrance to Shopper's World, and another would be
needed at the entrance to Edward's Oldsmobile. Fly-over number 2 would have brought traffic
out of the mall property just b'ayond the Berkmar~'~ connection and would not have eliminated
the need for additional signals.
At this time,Mr. Fisher opened the public hearing on SP-78-31. Speaking for Branchlands
was Mr. M. E. Gibson, representing Bi.shop Sullivan of Richmond. Mr. Gibson said the purpose
of these amendments is to accommodate the ~eveloper of Fashion Mall~ and attempt to satisfy
the County's requirements for a north/southbound road. The reason for being involved in this
proposal is to remove the requirement from the Fashion Mall for a collector road, and shift
that collector road to the east on the Branchlands property; a road that is presently in
existence. In agreeing to do this, they want to insure that the residential character of the
development and that the amenities of the PUD will be preserved. However, they are in dis-
agreement with some of the new conditions. The chief area of concern is the width of the
right-of-way. Mr. Gibson said he feels that some of the assumptions used by the Highway
Department in arriving at their conclusions need to be examined. Branchlands is willing to
build a road for the traffic it generates. Based on the approved density of the project, the
36-foot urban standard right-of-way is correct. However, the Highway Department has assumed
that traffic will be coming from Squire Hill through Branch!ands, and by adding these figures
into the vehicle trips per day for Branchlands, it has thrown road standards over into a
higher category. They are also concerned about the design of the road. In their plans they
were careful to put as many turns as possible to discourage people cutting through from
Route 29. The only other issue on which there is a difference is the entrances onto Route 29.
The Board of Supervisors previously approved entrances "A" and "B", and the existing Branch-
lands entrance. However, the Planning Commission felt there should only be two approved
entrances. Three entrances were shown on the original approved plan, and have been approved
by both this Board and the Virginia Department of Highways (in a letter dated April 27, 1978).
Mr. Max Evans said the Branchlands PUD was designed with new entrances "A" and "B" onto
Route 29. However, in obtaining approvals, they were required to leave rights-of-way on the
north and south boundaries. In the event that such a linkage were developed in the future,
the right-of-way would be available. There was never any intention for a collector road to
go through~the Branchlands development. Entrances "A" and "B" were to serve not only the
commercial development along Route 29, but also residential ingress and egress. The Fashion
Square people said they could not afford to build a road behind th~ mall, and the County said
there was a need for a north/south linkage running generally parallel to Route 29. Therefore,
the Branchlands people had agreed to allow some connection to the proposed system within the
B~anchlands plan. After the Fashion Mall was designed and grades w~re established to build
the road linkage, it was found to be virtually impossible because of grade differences. The
Branchlands people had agreed that a connection could be made to the road that runs north and
.South, but furtherest away from Route 29 to the east, because the connection is good there,
and would link into a proposed road at Squire Hill. If this were done, then Branchlands
should have the option of not having to build entrances "A" and "B" because there would
already be two good access/egress points. However, if "A" and "B" were not built, Branchlands
would still need access from Route 29 into the commercial development, which would be accessi-
ble to the residents in the B~anchlands PUD, but would have no other connection with the
Fashion Mall in order to avoid people cutting through from Route 29 North. The roads that are
planned for Branchlands have a minimal number of curb cuts, with these curb cuts feeding into
cluster development areas. These roads do not generate more traffic than is necessary for a
50-foot right-of-way with 36-foot pavement and gutter, with sidewalks on either side. The
plan provides for all necessary off-street parking, but there is still need for on-street
parking. Mr. Evans said that entrances'"Y" and "Z" would provide for greater stacking of
traffic from the residential development. There are also control lights on the major arteries
at these entrances, so he feels they will be the ones used if the development comes about,
and that probably "A" and "B" will not be built.
Mr. Gibson said the right-of-way, as recommended, is acceptable to the Branchlands
people. They are willing to agree to no on-street parking during business hours, but did
want parking after business hours. As far as the entrances are concerned, they would like to
have three entrances as previously approved by both the Board of Supervisors and the Highway
Department.
Mr. Fisher then proceeded with comments on Fashion Mall site plan amendments. Mr. Eric
Deckinger was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Deckinger said their approved plan now
requires a 50-foot collector road to come in from the Branchlands property and out to Rio
Road. There are two basic problems involved; first is the o~erall design of the project, and
second is the economics. Not only would Fashion Mall have to build a 50-foot road coming
through this property, but also has to build a 30-foot roadway running parallel with that
road to service the automobile traffic within the Shopping Mall. This 80-feet of roadway
would cut off the edge of a building, and the Fashion Mall would loose approximately four
acres of land to roads and several hundred auto spaces. The combination costs of building the
road and loosing the parking amounts to over $400,000. This is in addition to the $600,000 in
off-site roadwork which the applicant has i;~ agreed to do on both 29 North and Rio Road. Mr.
Deckinger said they met with the property owners of Squire Hill and Branchlands and came to
a joint agreement on the collector road. This alternate route would serve the definition of
a local collector road better. They are satisfied that it serves the needs of the community
and the County, and better serves the traffic going in and out of the Shopping Center.
Dr. Iachetta asked Mr. Deckinger if the applicant would have any objection to a temporary
connection with the Branchlands property. Mr. Deckinger said they had no objection.
Mr. Marcus Weinstein was present for Squire Hill. He said they accept all of the re-
commendations of the Planning Commmission. If they are ~equired to build roads to State
standards, that is acceptable and also the addition of a light at Rio Road, if that becomes
necessary.
At 9:16 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 9:28 P.M., at which time Mr. Fisher
opened the floor for comments from the public.
August 7, 1978 ~(Night-Adjourned fromAt~ust 2, 1978)
375
First to speak was Mr. Paul Wood, representing the Charlottesville/Albemarle Chamber
of Commerce. He said they support the revised plan for the Fashion Mall as they have
supported the other plans. They appreciate the Board's indulgence and thoroughness in
reviewing this plan.
Mr. Preston Stallings, President of the Blue Ridge Home Builders Association, said
they support this plan as they have throughout these proceedings.
Mr. Gilbert Roy, representing the Berkeley Community Association, said that although
some citizens are delighted at having a mall, the citizens of Berkeley are concerned about
the traffic and pollution this will generate. If there is any way to lessen the backup of
traffic on Route 29 North, the Berkeley residents would appreciate it.
M§i Eleanor May, from Crossroads, spoke in favor of the mall as being a stimulus for
business in the County. She felt the addition of a mall would help decrease the amount of
out-shopping, and suggested it would be a better way to serve customers.
Mr. Sherman White said he supports the mall because he supports growth.
jobs broaden the tax base and provide a ~etter way 0g life for all.
Additional
Mr. Bill Edwards spoke as Vice-President of the Retail Merchants Association. He
reminded the Board of a resolution passed by that group supporting the mall~ and asked that
the Board give expeditious approval.
Mr. Joe Wright said he feels the mall is one of the most exciting things that has ever
happened to Albemarle County, and hopes the Board will give it favorable attention.
Mr. Bernard Haggerty, from Virginia National Bank, noted that it is important for the
Charlottesville/Albemarle area to continue to be a central regional shopping area. He felt
the Board did an excellent job when they adopted the new comprehensive plan, and noted that
the plan calls for commercial development in the area, so this proposal is not a deviation
from that plan. He urged the Board's support and endorsement of the Planning Commission's
recommendations as presented.
Mr. James Hicks said he approves of this mall and hopes the Board will look favorably
upon the petition. He is for controlled growth, but jobs for people are more important,
and the residents have to live with traffic and pollution.
Mr. George Dupree, an Associate Professor in the School of Commerce at the University
of Virginia, noted that there is some support at the University for the mall, although most
have not spoken out in favor.
Mr. W. A. Pace said the County's planning department says that the plan presented to-
night is a much better plan. He then asked those in favor of the petition to stand (about
three-fourths of the citizens present).
At this time, Mr. Fisher closed the public hearing. Dr. Iachetta said he had a problem
with the exclusion of a connection from Branchlands into the mall, even on a temporary basis.
Also, he would support Highway Department recommendations for standards on the collector
road.
Mr. Lindstrom said he had a concern from a theoretical standpoint. He felt it ~as
stretching a point too far to say that 10 acres that will become a part of the parking lot
for the Fashion Mall can be called a part of the Branchlands PUD. That acreage is required
to give Branchlands the minimum acreage required under the County's ordinance, but to then
cut off all access, is stretching the point even farther. The real issue tonight is the
type of road running through Branchlands and Squire Hill. The Comprehensive Plan indicates
there will be a major residential collector in this area, and none of the roads shown on the
plan fit that category. Mr. Lindstrom said that although he is not happy with any of these
plans, he is willing to accept the one presented tonight, because of all the options present-
ed, it seems to be the best. However, he felt that some connection is needed between the
Fashion Mall and Branchlands to maintain the integrity of the PUD concept, unless the
applicant's are willing to let the balance of Branchlands revert to an RPN.
Mr. Fisher asked Mr. St. John if the temporary access proposed from the northern
extremity of the Branchlands property into the Fashion Mall site could be closed at sometime
in the future as a right-of-way. Mr. St. John said if it is private access, it can be
controlled in conditions of approval on a site plan. However, if it becomes a part of the
secondary highway system, then the Board will have to go through standard abandonment pro-
cedures'. Mr. Gibson said there is a 40-foot change of grade from the Branchlands property
to the Fashion Mall property. This would require extensive filling and a great deal of
roadwork at a tremendous expense for a temporary turn-around. Dr. Iachetta said as a result
of having to deal with chopping off this portion of a PUD, he wants to put the Board on
notice that he will move at some later date to delete the PUD section of the zoning ordinance.
He said this whole proposal is completely inconsistent with the logic of planning. Mr.
Lindstrom agreed.
Mr. Dorrier said he felt the three plans presented tonight, as approved by the Planning
Commission, are acceptable. However, at this time he did not see a need for a third entrance
on Route 29 North. Mr. Gibson said the applicant for Branchlands would agree to a temporary
connection until such time as a permanent collector road is built, with the expectation of
having the right-of-way on that permanent road limited to 50-feet, with the 36-feet urban
character road, provided they are given their third commercial entrance back. Mr. Fisher
said he could not agree to limiting the right-of-way width on a road that will not be built
for many years. The Board always conditions such approvals on specifications of the Virginia
Department of Highways which are in effect at such time.
At 10:30 P.M., the Board took a short recess and reconvened at 10:49 P.M. Mr. Fisher
said the Board always conditions approvals on roads being built to Highway Department
specifications for inclusion into the State Highway System. For the Board to arbitrarily
limit pavement width, etc., might mean that the roads would not be acceptable to State
376
August 7, 1978 (Night-Adjourned from August 2, 1978)
standards, and would not be taken into the system. Mr. Gibson said the applicant is willing
to accept the Board's language, and to language the states that common access along Route 29
will be in accord with Highway Department wishe~.
Dr. Iachetta said Condition D(4) should be rewritten to state: "Ail streets are to be
built to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation specifications for inclusion
into the State Highway System". He then offered motion to approve SP-78-31 with all other
conditions recommended by the Planning Uommission, changing D(4) as above. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Dorrier.
that
Mr. Gibson asked that the Board also amend Condition D(1) so as to allow/the commercial
entrances would be approved by the Highway Department. Dr. Iachetta said he was unwilling
to leave this condition open-ended, but would change the language to state that there would
be not more than three entrances on Route 29 North. This amended motion was secondedLby
Mr. Dorrier. The vote was taken, and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
(Note:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Cmnditions of approval for SP-78-31 are set out in their entirety below.)
A. Density - Land Use - Concept
Be
1. Locations and acreages of various land uses and residential densities shall comply
with Approved Plan 1.
2. The cluster arrangement concept providing for a minimum number of entrances onto
the internal road system be adhered to as indicated in Approved Plan 2.
Site Plans - Subd~ision of Land
Site plans and subdivisions shall comply with Article 17 of the Zoning Ordinance
and Chapter 18 of the Code of Albemarle, respectively.
No grading permit shall be issued for roads, streets, or highways until plans and
profiles have been approved by the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation.
C. Sewer and Water
Plans for water and sewer as outlined by Section 2-7-2 of the Zoning Ordinance
shall be filed as specified.
Plans for water and sewer improvements for any phase to be developed shall be
approved by the Albemarle County Service Authority prior to the issuance of any
building permit for that phase of development.
The developer, or developers, shall install and dedicate to the Albemarle County
Service Authority a~l on-site and off-site water and sewer improvements which are
necessary to serve that phase to be developed, at no cost to the Service Authority.
De
Transportation System Amended
1. There shall not be more than three entrances to R~ute 29 North. Such entrances
shall be subject to Virginia Department of Highwaysrand Transportation approval,
including the possible requirement of new crossovers. The internal road layout
shall conform to Approved Plan 3 Amended~
The existing Branchlands entrance and crossover shall 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 T~ans-
portation, 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 D-5.
Rights-of-way shall be reserved and dedicated as shown on Approved Plan 3 Amended
for future potential connections to Squire Hill. Apartments and Westfield Section II.
Ail streets are to be built to Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation
specifications for inclusion into the State Highway System.
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.
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.
If connecting road "Y" is not constructed, then the easternmost collector road
shall be connected.
The Planning Commission has determined that road connection "Y" is in substantial
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
~ugust 7, 1978 (Night-Adjourned from August 2, 1978)
377
E. Other
1. Recreational facilities shall be provided according to the following:
Tot Lots:
Playfields:
Sport Facilities: (Tennis
handball, swimming, etc.)
55 square feet/dwelling unit
165 square feet/dwelling unit
165 square feet/dwelling unit
Bike trails should be constructed along open space corridors (stream beds) or
sewer easements. Such construction shall occur with each phase of development
on the open space corridors and sewer easements located within or immediately
adjacent to that phase of development; provided that the Planning Commission
may require reasonable extension of such bike trail~..~hrough other areas if such
extension provides linkage to an existing or approved bike trail.
Approval by County Attorney's Office of homeowners' association agreements for
the maintenance of driveways, open space, and other commonly-owned or common-use
amenities.
Owners of properties designa~.ed for commercial use and Walter F. Sullivan, Bishop
of Richmond, as owner of an 8.0 acre tract to be reserved for Church purposes and
not sold as part of the planned community property (referred to hereinafter as
the Church property) shall not be required to be members of the homeowners'
association; provided that these owners shall be solely responsible for the
maintenance of the driveways, open space, etc. located within their respective
tracts, and that such maintenance shall be comparable to that level established
in the homeowners' association agreements for other such uses.
Should commercial development or sale of commercially designated property occur
prior to establishment of homeowners' association agreements, the Planning
Commission may require in the deed restrictions for such property, provisions
for the maintenance of such driveways, open spaces, etc., as the Commission shall
deem appropriate for adequate buffering and protection of residential areas and
for the reasonable usage of such areas by future residents of the ~lanned community.
In respect to usage, the homeowners' association members shall enjoy the same
rights and privileges of use of driveways, open space, etc. within commercially
designated areas and the Church property as shall be established by homeowners'
association agreements for other such uses within the planned community.
Approval by the County Attorney of deed restrictions for sections to be sold.
Developer of Section C (Approved Plan 1) to provide fencing, in area designated
"Section C", adequate to discourage access and trespass onto adjoining property
(Chapel Hill Subdivision).
Agenda Item No. 3. Charlottesville Fashion Square Site Plan Amendments. Motion was
offered by Ma. Dorrier to approve this site plan with the conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission at their meeting of June 27, 1978. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Roudabush and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roud~bush.
None.
Agenda Item No. 4. Squire Hill Phase II Site Plan Amendments. Motion was offered by
Dr. Iachetta, seconded by Mr. Henley, to approve this site plan with the five conditions
recommended by the Planning Commission. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Lindstrom.
NAYS: None.
ABSTAINING: Mr. Roudabush.
At 11:01 P.M., the Board recessed and reconvened at 11:09 P.M.
Agenda Item No. 5. ZTA-?8-08. Bearing Technology, Inc. To amend the M-1 zone of the
Zoning Ordinance to provide for the following as a use by right: "Engineering, engineering
design, assembly and fabrication of machinery and components including such on-site accessory
uses as machining, babbitting, welding and sheet metal work, but specifically excluding such
intensive uses as punch pressing, drop hammering and foundry." (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on July 25 and ~uly 31, 1978.)
Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report:
Bearing Technology, inc. requests that the M-! Limited Industrial Zone be amended
to permit manufacture of bearings by right and offers two proposals.
Applicant's Proposal #1:
Section 8-1-34
Engineering, engineering design, assembly and fabrications of machinery
and components including such on-site accessory uses as machining,
babbitting, welding, and sheet metal work, but specifically excluding
such intensive uses as punch pressing, drop hammering and foundry.
.378
August 7, 1978 (Night-Adjourned from August 2, 1978)
Applicant's Proposal #2:
(This has been developed by the staff from the applicant's
comments.) '
Section 8-1-34
Engineering design, assembly and fabrication of journal and thrust
bearings for shafts up to 12 inches in diameter and accessories such
as shaft seals and passive and active support systems employing
machinery not exceeding 15 horsepower per unit and involving no
assembly line operation.
Staff Recommendation
Section 8-1-34
Assembly and fabrication of machinery and components by machining,
jigging, lathing, welding and sheet metal work employing machinery
not exceeding 15 horsepower per unit and excluding such uses as
punch pressing, drop hammering and foundry.
Mr. Tucker said on August 1, 1978, by unanimous vote, the Planning Commission approved
the amendment as a use by right in the M-1 Zone with the following wording:
Section 8-1-34
Assembly and fabrication of machinery and components by machining,
jigging, babbitting, lathing, welding and sheet metal work employing
machinery not exceeding 15 horsepower per unit and excluding such
uses as drop hammering and foundry.
Mr. David Lewis, the applicant, and Mr. Herbert Tull, owner of the property under the
next zoning request, were present. There followed a lengthy discussion by the Board and the
applicants as to the wording of the amendments, problems which might arise through use of
this amendment, and several suggested language changes. Motion was then offered by Dr.
Iachetta to amend and reenact the zoning ordinance by the addition of section 8-1-34 as a
use by right in the M-1 Zone with the following wording:
Section 8-1-84
Engineering, engineering design, assembly and fabrication of machinery
and components, including such on-site accessory uses as machining,
babbitting, welding and sheet metal work employing machinery not
exceeding 15 horsepower per unit and excluding such uses as drop
hammering and foundry.
The foregoing motion was seconded by Mr. Roudabush and carried by the following recorded
vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta and Roudabush.
Mr. Lindstrom.
Agenda Item No. 6. ZMA-78-11. Bearing Technology, Inc. To rezone 12 acres from B-1
Business and A-1 Agricultural to M-1 Limited Industrial. Property located in Ivy Industrial
Park on south side of Route 738 about one mile west of intersection of Routes 250 West and
738. County Tax Map 58, Parcel 37C (part thereof). Samuel Miller District. .(A~vertised
in the Daily Progress on July 25 and July 31, 1978.)
Mr. Tucker gave the staff's report:
Character of the Area
This property is located on the south side of the access road serving the Tull
Manufacturing Company, which branches off eastward from the main Detto~, Edwards,
and Morris access road. This property is heavily wooded.
Comprehensive Plan'
Ivy, designated as a larger Type I Village, is the only village specifically
recommended for industrial development in the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Comment
Employing criteria setforth in the Comprehensive Plan, this property does not receive
any priority ranking. However, industrial zoning is adjacent to this property, an
industrial use exists on the property (Tull Manufacturing) and M-1 2oning is less
intensive than B-1 zoning. Considering these factors, staff recommends approval.
Mr. Tucker said that the Planning Commission, at its meeting on August 1, 1978, by unani-
mous vote, recommended approval of this request.
Mption was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Dr. Iachetta to approve ZMA-78-11 as re-
commended by the Planning Commission. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No. 7. SP-78-41. Bearing Technology, Inc. Special permit for engineering
and fabrication (per ZTA-78-08) on two acres proposed for M-1 (per Z~-78-11). Property on
south side of Route 738 about one mile west of intersection of Routes 250 West and 738. Count
Tax Map 58, Parcel 37C (part thereof), Samuel Miller District. (Advertised in the Daily
Progress on July 25 and July 31, 1978.)
August 7, 1978 (Night-Adjourned from August 2, 1978)
37,,.
Mr. Tucker noted that this application had been filed in the event that ZTA-78-08 had
been approved as a use by special permit instead of a use by right. Since that amendment
was passed as a use by right, this application is no longer needed. The applica~hen
requested withdrawal of the petition. Motion to this effect was offered by Dr. Iachetta,
seconded by Mr. Dorrier, and carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom and Roudabush.
None.
Not Docketed: At 11:45 P.M., motion was offered by Mr. Lindstrom, seconded by Mr.
Dorrier, to adjourn into executive session to receive reports from Mr. St. John on legal
matters. The motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES:
NAYS:
Messrs. Dorrier, Fisher, Henley, Iachetta, Lindstrom andRoudabush.
None.
The Board reconvened at !2:00 A.M., and immediately adjourned.
~ir~an