HomeMy WebLinkAbout10 26 1999 PC MinutesAlbemarle County Planning Commission
October 26, 1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday,
October 26, 1999 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Mr. William Finley,
Chairman; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Dennis Rooker;
Mr. Rodney Thomas; Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and
Community Development; Ms. Elaine Echols, Senior Planner; Ms. Susan Thomas, Senior Planner;
Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Jared Loewenstein.
Approval of Minutes — October 12, 1999
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the minutes of October 12th, 1999 as
amended.
Review of the Board of Supervisors Meeting — October 20,1999
Mr. Cilimberg presented a review of the Board meeting, noting that the items relating to previous
Commission consideration included the Foxfield cellular tower — which was approved with
conditions; the Jones stream crossing — which was approved; and the St. Luke's Chapel addition —
which was approved. Mr. Cilimberg mentioned that the Board approved the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment for the section of Ashcroft which would recognize the changes through the zoning
action which occurred earlier this year; with that is an amendment to include the area in the
Albemarle County Service Authority jurisdictional area.
Mr. Cilimberg stated that the Crozet Convenience Store outdoor lighting waiver request was
presented with some recommendations by the applicant that were different than what was presented
to the Commission, with the Board approving the waiver based on the applicant providing consistent
lighting on the pedestrian area at all the frontage of the site. The Board did not approve a request
that was an appeal from an ARB decision regarding soffit lighting on the building, but the applicant
indicated that they were not pursuing that any longer.
Matters not listed on the agenda
None were offered, and the meeting proceeded.
Consent Agenda
Jarman's Gap Restaurant ( a new restaurant to be located in the building previously used by the
Singing Spatula and Crozet Natural Foods) is located at 5790 Three Notch'd Road on Tax Parcel
56A2-1-27. The request for off -site and cooperative parking is made under Sections 4.12.3.3. and
4.12.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Jarman's Gap Restaurant requests permission to provide 3 off -site
parking spaces at the Windham elder care facility at 1220 Crozet Avenue. These 3 off -site parking
spaces would be used for employee parking only.
Tim Fisher's Restaurant is located at 5773 and 5775 The Square, on Tax Parcel 56A2-1-23A and
56A2-1-71E. The request for off -site and cooperative parking is made under Sections 4.12.3.3 and
4.12.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Tim Fisher also requests permission to provide 8 off -site parking
... spaces at the Windham elder care facility at 1220 Crozet Avenue.
Planning Commission — October 26, 1999 213
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved the Consent Agenda as presented.
Deferred Items:
SP 99-55 CV201 Route 676 (Ivy Creek Methodist Church)
Request for special use permit to allow for a personal wireless service facility in accordance with
Section 10.2.2.6 of the Zoning Ordinance which allows for radio -wave transmission and relay
towers. The property, described as Tax Map 44, Parcel 12H, is the site of the Ivy Creek United
Methodist Church and is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District at 674 Woodlands Road
(Route 676), approximately %2 mile east of the intersection of Routes 676 and 660. The property
contains 1.6 acres and is zoned RA, Rural Areas. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property
as Rural Area 1. Deferred from the October 19, 1999 Planning Commission meeting.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report, stating that the application is very similar to other treetop
facilities the Commission has considered; this proposed site is adjacent to an Ag/Forestal District,
and adjacent to a parcel which has a conservation easement on it. She noted that the site has a very
short setback from that parcel boundary — approximately 10 feet. Ms. Thomas reported that the
church itself owns two parcels, with the tower site on the "panhandle" -shaped parcel. She stated that
staff felt that the site characteristics did not offer much camouflage, although from certain angles on
Woodlands Road, large oaks provide good camouflage for the traveling public. Ms. Thomas
emphasized that there is very little screening provided for the adjacent parcels to the north and to the
east; this is not a uniformly wooded site. She concluded that staff recommended denial of the
application because the visual impacts of the tower would negatively impact the character of the
district and the adjacent property. Ms. Thomas noted that staff agreed with her recommended
alternative condition that the tower be removed if the large oak providing most of the screening were
to come down.
Mr. Rooker asked if the more heavily wooded areas near the site were owned by the same property
owner as the church. Ms. Thomas responded that she understood the property to the west of the
church parcel to be owned by a different private owner.
Ms. Thomas confirmed that there have been towers adjacent to A/F Districts before, as well as
towers adjacent to conservation easements; however, she noted that the Arrowhead tower, for
example, is set back a distance greater than its height, and would not greatly impact the conservation
easement parcel. She added that that site is a completely wooded site, which this proposed site is
not.
Mr. Rieley recalled that the Commission recommended denial of the first Arrowhead application,
and the applicant withdrew the application because of the same issue — proximity to the line. He
added that the one eventually approved was in a different location.
Ms. Thomas said that the location was slightly modified, approximately 35-40 feet further away
from the shared boundary, which removed the issue of the potential falling of the tower onto the
adjacent conservation easement property.
Planning Commission — October 26, 1999 214
In response to Mr. Rooker's question regarding neighboring property owners, Ms. Thomas noted
that the adjoining property owner to the north has contacted staff expressing her opposition to the
Ivy Creek Methodist Church tower proposal.
Mr. Dick Shearer of CFW/Intellos addressed the Commission. He explained that CFW had
Waynesboro Landscaping & Garden Center evaluate the large oak tree on site, and they determined
that the tree was quite healthy (Attachment "A"). Mr. Shearer confirmed that CFW agreed with
staff s recommendation that if the tree died, the tower pole would be removed and relocated. He
said that the wooded property near the church site belongs to Ms. Riviere, and is part of the A/F
District. Mr. Shearer presented photos of sites similar to the proposed Ivy Creek site. He explained
that because of the system's design, CFW is "confined to a very specific area where these can
locate," and if they are moved even'/4 mile to a lower elevation, the coverage objective will not be
achieved.
Mr. Thomas asked if the tower could be moved away from the property line.
Mr. Shearer said that the Board of Zoning Appeals agreed to a variance in the setback allowance,
and there is not really another appropriate spot for the tower.
Mr. Thomas said that he visited the site, and it was not visible from the church.
Mr. Shearer said that the existing telephone poles have been suggested as location sites for the cell
tower, and CFW contacted Virginia Power, asking them to explain why this could or could not be
done. He referenced Virginia Power's written response (Attachment "B") as to why this is not
allowed.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Shearer to compare the proposed pole and antenna array to current CFW sites.
Mr. Shearer replied that the site closely resembles Red Hill, with the site visible only from one short
section of Route 676. He confirmed that the antenna would be panel antenna, flat against the pole,
extending seven feet above the tree line. Mr. Shearer indicated that there are some small trees to the
rear of the site, and CFW is willing to landscape to conceal the ground equipment.
Mr. Thomas asked what part of the tower site would be visible by the Riviere's from their property.
Mr. Shearer replied that the wooden pole would be visible, and it would look like a utility pole
without wires.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Shearer if Waynesboro Landscape & Garden Center had worked with CFW on
other projects. Mr. Shearer replied that they do all of CFW's landscaping.
Mr. Rieley asked what the species of the oak is. Mr. Shearer replied that he did not know, and was
not sure if any borings were done to determine the strength of the tree, or if the tree has any lightning
protection.
Planning Commission — October 26, 1999 215
Ms. Mary Morris Riviere addressed the Commission, stating her ownership of the land that the
IVIWW church abuts. She explained that her grandmother gave the land for the church, and her father
financed the church. Ms. Riviere said that she and her brother have given land to the church, and
after she acquired the family farm, she gave the church land. She noted that her farm is in a
conservation easement, and is well -kept. Ms. Riviere said she disapproves of the tower proposal,
expressing concern that the tower would be put in a cemetery. She added that the person who came
to speak with her about the proposal did not indicate how tall the proposed tower would be. Ms.
Riviere explained that she has given her granddaughter a lot right in the line of the tower, which
would put any house built in the path of the tower if it were to fall.
Mr. Rooker asked if she had spoken to the church about not leasing the land for the tower.
Ms. Riviere said that the person who came to talk with her about the tower first asked to put the
tower on her land, and said that the tower would not be noticed. She said that the conservation
easement on her property prevents her from putting up anything like this.
Mr. Rooker asked if she had spoken to anyone at the church explaining her desire for the tower not
to go on the church property.
Ms. Riviere said that she had not talked to anyone at the church.
Mr. Rooker said that regardless of what action the Commission and Board make, it is up to the
church as to whether they lease church property for this purpose. "It sounds to me that [your family]
has been a great benefactor of that church over the years ... you may want to express your opinions to
the church about them allowing a tower to be put on the property."
Ms. Riviere responded, "I'm sure they know that I am not for this thing, and they have asked
me ... for land. Every time, I have explained that I could not give any land away. Still they call
me ... I just can't see having this thing standing up in front of my house....should we have a storm or
something, the whole bit would come over on my granddaughter's house."
Mr. Thomas asked if her granddaughter's property was also in the conservation easement.
Ms. Riviere confirmed that it is, even though she has not built the house yet.
Ms. Babs Huckle, who owns property adjacent to Ms. Riviere, addressed the Commission. She read
from a prepared statement, expressing her opposition to the tower (Attachment "C").
Mr. Shearer re -addressed the Commission, offering to answer questions.
Mr. Rooker asked him about the height of the tower, in comparison to other towers CFW has used in
the county thus far.
Mr. Shearer responded that their lowest tower is 65 feet, with the highest at approximately 100 feet.
Planning Commission — October 26, 1999 216
Mr. Finley asked how far the property line to the north is from the site. Mr. Shearer responded that
the property is 10 feet from the site. Mr. Finley asked if the tower site is located in the cemetery.
Mr. Shearer replied that the site would be in the cemetery area.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Rooker noted his consistent opposition to towers that violate setback requirements when there is
an objection by the adjoining property owner. "We clearly have an objection from the neighboring
property owner. You've got a 10-foot setback for a 90-foot tower. To me, it could serve as a
significant restriction on her right to use her property." Mr. Rooker added, "We should encourage
people to put their property in conservation easements, Ag/Forestal Districts. We have two property
owners here ... who have done so, and to me it would be somewhat of a slap in the face to approve a
tower this close to the property line." He emphasized that he could not support this application.
Mr. Rieley agreed, noting that the two critical issues are the proximity to the line and the A/F
District on the adjoining property. He also added that sparsely -treed sites do not work for these
towers, stating that the Red Hill site — which Mr. Shearer used in comparison — is one of the least
successful tower installations because it is highly visible due to the angle of view and the fact that
there are just a few large trees. Mr. Rieley said that the focus on the old oak tree underscores the
fact that there is too much reliance on one tree for screening. He expressed his reluctance to support
the application, and encouraged the applicant to seek a better site in this locality.
Mr. Finley said, "We've waivered setbacks, but I don't believe it's ever been that short — 10 feet."
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Ms. Washington seconded a recommendation for denial of SP 99-
55. In a 4-1 vote, with Mr. Thomas dissenting, the motion for denial of SP 99-55 passed.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Ms. Washington seconded a recommendation for denial of a setback
waiver in association with SP 99-55. In a 4-1 vote, with Mr. Thomas dissenting, the motion for
denial passed.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Thomas seconded a recommendation for approval of a site plan
waiver in association with SP 99-55. In a 3-2 vote, with Mr. Rieley and Ms. Washington dissenting,
the motion passed.
Mr. Rieley explained that his reason for voting against the site plan waiver is that the site is so
narrow, there are site plan issues that would need to come before the Commission.
Commissioners thanked Ms. Thomas for her excellent work, as this meeting was her last for county
planning.
Regular Item•
Dunlora Final Plat (SUB 99-241)
Request for final plat approval to create 44 lots on 28.64 acres. The property is zoned R-4
Residential. The property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcels 154A and 164A, is located in the
Planning Commission — October 26, 1999 217
Rivanna Magisterial District off Dunlora Drive across from the intersection of Charter Oaks Drive
and Dunlora Drive. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Neighborhood 2.
Mr. Kamptner excused himself from the discussion, as he is a resident of Dunlora.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report, noting that the Commission last saw the subdivision plat in
November 1998, and approved the plat for 45 lots; when the plat came in for final engineering plans,
the area to the north — where there was a note shown for future connection — actually became a road.
She said that when staff began looking at the engineering plans and the road itself, staff discovered it
went through a significant stream valley, and engineering was unable to approve the plans for that
road because the road was not shown as a road on the preliminary plat, and because of the impact of
the road to the stream valley. Additionally, Ms. Echols said the applicant also indicated a desire not
to have a note on the plat — as the Commission required — about the future Meadowcreek Parkway;
instead, they are reserving for future dedication an area on the plat for the Parkway. Referencing the
final plat presented, Ms. Echols said that the "hatched marks" indicate the possible alignment of the
Parkway right-of-way, which the applicant proposes to reserve for dedication, instead of putting the
note on the plat. Ms. Echols emphasized that staff felt it was very important for the Commission to
see the plat before it moves forward.
Ms. Echols said that staff evaluated the benefits of the stream crossing and the cross of the stream
crossing to the community, and felt that there were benefits in terms of interconnections and
transportation/traffic flow in the Dunlora area; the interconnections can be made between
developments, taking access off of Dunlora Drive. She explained that the destination of the road
crossing the stream is Free State Road, which would ultimately provide access to the Meadowcreek
Parkway, and additional means of access for Dunlora is advantageous for this development and the
existing Dunlora development. Ms. Echols noted that a transportation system west of Dunlora Drive
provides for internal and external flow independent of Dunlora Drive.
Ms. Echols stated that staff believes that there are costs associated with the stream crossing: the road
construction impacts critical slopes shown on the Open Space Plan; the stream itself will be
impacted with the clearing of the 2.5 acres of wooded buffer, and the installation of the pipe and
concrete for the culvert; the installation of the culvert will change the stream ecology; there will be
two stream crossing within close proximity. She added that the request is not in violation of the
Subdivision Ordinance, but staff felt that it was important for the Commission to see because of its
impacts. Ms. Echols said this is an example of what a development area in a master plan would look
at an identify prior to any new development plans coming in to see if it is a critical environmental
feature that should be maintained, or one that could be impacted by development.
Ms. Echols concluded that after evaluation, staff has agreed to support the interconnections, despite
the need for stream crossing.
Mr. Rooker asked if there has been any determination of the impact of this new connection on the
traffic on Dunlora Drive.
Mr. Cilimberg said that with Phase 3B — whichever direction the traffic would come in — it would
still be on Dunlora Drive; it's just a question of where on Dunlora Drive the traffic enters, until the
Planning Commission — October 26, 1999 218
Meadowcreek Parkway is in place or the Free State Road is improved, including the bridge over the
railroad. Mr. Cilimberg noted that those improvements would benefit all of Dunlora in that it gives
two-way ingress and egress.
Ms. Echols mentioned that once Free State road is improved or the Parkway provides access, the
developments west of Dunlora Drive would have two ways in and out; the benefit of the
interconnection for the applicant is that Free State Bridge does not support construction traffic, and
the crossing would provide access to Phase 3B property.
Mr. Rooker asked if the connection over the stream is not approved, the developer could still
develop the 313 property by accessing it from the roads in 4A.
Ms. Echols replied that there is no direct connection from 4A to 3B, and a similar stream crossing
situation would occur.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized, "They are going to need an interconnection since they can't use Free
State Road — either through 3A or through 4A or from some other property they don't own right
now ... that alternative to 3A access will still involve a stream crossing."
Mr. Rieley noted that the connection drawn in the proposal the Commission approved said "future
connection" and showed up on the final plat as to be constructed immediately. "This is now opening
up a big area for development no matter which way the traffic goes. It may be the best way to knit
the subdivisions together ultimately when it's developed. I think there's a big question in my mind
11*4 . about what the appropriate time is for 313 to be developed."
Mr. Rooker said, "One way or another, [the developer] can gain access to 313 through Dunlora
Drive ... the question is where is the best [location] of two or three potential accesses."
Mr. Finley asked where connections would be to the Meadowcreek Parkway.
Mr. Cilimberg replied that the Parkway as described in the CATS study would have one connection
to it between Rio Road and the Rivanna River, which would most likely be the existing Free State
Road. He said that what may happen is traffic would be brought through interconnections of
neighborhoods to Free State Road and then the Meadowcreek Parkway as well as having Dunlora
Drive.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Cilimberg if he agreed that the corridor as shown on the plat would likely be
the alignment for the Parkway location.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff is trying to have a contract finalized on locating that part of the
Parkway, but it may be some time before VDOT funds are available to get that work completed.
Planning has asked Engineering to review the potential alignments, so that recommendations could
be made to the Commission that are "reasonably safe in terms of reserving the right kind of location
for that road." He added that Engineering has commented that the alignments seem to be likely
practical alignments.
Planning Commission — October 26, 1999 219
Mr. Rieley asked if the lines were generated by the applicant.
Mr. Cilimberg said that there were lines in the early analysis done by County Engineering. He
added that the design speed for this part of the Parkway would probably be the same as what is south
of Rio Road, which has been lower than the approval by the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
Ms. Echols introduced Mark Graham of the County Engineering Department.
Mr. Graham said that it is too soon to know the alignment of the Parkway, reiterating that a contract
is still being negotiated for an engineer to do the plan, but it is much too early to pinpoint the
alignment. He acknowledged that the alignments on the maps presented are "the two best guesses
right now."
Mr. Rieley commented that since the Commission last reviewed the plat, there are fundamentally
different issues now before them, including the alignment for the northern segment of the Parkway,
and a stream crossing that will have a major impact. He asked why this would not generate an
additional public hearing, given the changes in the application.
Ms. Echols said that staff did notify adjoining property owners, and let them know that it was
coming back before the Commission.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that subdivision plats are never legally public hearings, but public comment can
be received, just as with the preliminary plat.
Mr. Rieley asked about the stream designation as "intermittent" on the USGS map, and asked staff
how this stream would be treated differently than a perennial stream.
Mr. Graham said that a stream crossing for a perennial stream "opens up a lot of issues," and would
probably have to go through a joint permit application to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Clean Water Act because of the amount of disturbance. He explained that there is a general permit
for road crossings of streams, but it is limited in impact to 70 feet, and this application would involve
300-400 feet of stream impacted.
Mr. Rieley expressed concern about how perennial stream is defined, and asked if the Ordinance
requires that the county looks to the USGS for that designation.
Mr. Graham responded that that is part of the definition used for stream buffers, and federal and state
laws dealing with disturbance of stream also reference the USGS terminology as a guide. He added
that traditionally, the Department of Environmental Quality and Army Corps of Engineers will not
get involved in something that is not shown as perennial on a topographical map.
Mr. Rieley asked if the regulations would apply if it could be demonstrated that a stream is
perennial.
Mr. Graham responded that the regulations could apply, but he was not sure of the administrative
process; he acknowledged that affected property owners can appeal decisions that a permit not be
Planning Commission — October 26, 1999 220
required. He said that most local ordinances came from the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act,
which recognized what had been an informal process under the Clean Water Act, and localities put
that into regulation.
Mr. Finley asked if consideration of the intermittent stream was part of staff's evaluation of the
interconnection.
Ms. Echols replied that staff looked for alternate ways to serve the parcels with transportation, and
all of the alternatives have problems for the applicant or for the county. She added that staff found
no language in the Subdivision Ordinance for the Commission to disapprove the crossing, noting
that sometimes the ordinances don't always help address all the issues encountered in the
development areas.
Public comment was invited.
The applicant, Frank Stoner, representing Robert Hauser Homes, addressed the Commission. Mr.
Stoner explained that all potential connections were evaluated before the developer came up with the
present stream -crossing proposal. He stated that going east through Phase 4A crosses an equally -
significant stream valley, and the developer does not own enough property that is common between
the two subdivision sections to physically accommodate the connection; there is only 50 feet of
common boundary between the property in Phase 4A and the property in Phase 3B. He said that
Free State Road was not an option because there is an 8,000-lb. weight limit on the Free State
Bridge; they only have an access easement that traverses another property.
Mr. Stoner said that the connection to 3A seemed most logical because it brought all the traffic onto
Dunlora Drive at a point where it wouldn't disturb the rest of the neighborhood — what will be
Shepherd's Ridge Road accesses Dunlora Drive a the front of the subdivision. He added that if it
were possible to get direct access onto Meadowcreek Parkway, that could be an option, but there are
too many variables there that are beyond the developer's control, and the county's stated intention
has been to minimize the number of entrances on that road. Mr. Stoner acknowledged that the
stream crossing is significant, but in comparison to other potential crossings, including the
Meadowcreek Parkway, the proposed crossing provides a similar or lesser impact. He added that if
the 4A connection was chosen, two stream valleys would be impacted.
Mr. Rooker asked why the Commission was considering this now, since there is not a development
plan for 3B.
Mr. Stoner explained that when they started the final design on Phase 3A, it became apparent that
there would be a significant amount of export fill that would need to be removed. That prospect, if
done by truck, would be an expensive and disturbing process, and would necessitate a future need to
bring fill in for the future connection. "It seemed like a common-sense solution to not have to move
that fill from 3A to an offsite location." He added that there will probably not be enough fill in 3A
to build the connection today, but there will be 10-15k cubic yards of fill as part of the current
project to start the process.
Mr. Rieley asked how steep the road would be going in and out of the section.
Planning Commission — October 26, 1999 221
Mr. Stoner replied that there is a 9 or 10% slope, adding that the developer had initially considered
pursuing a waiver that would permit a greater vertical curvature of the road, and thus minimize the
impact to the stream valley. However, VDOT is not usually responsive to that type of road
alignment. Mr. Stoner confirmed that VDOT is reviewing their current plans for a road.
Regarding the Meadowcreek Parkway alignment and note on the plat, Mr. Stoner recalled that in
November 1998, the Commission approved the preliminary plat with requirement that there would
be a note attached to the plat and to the plats of every lot within the subdivision that stated "Lots
within Dunlora Phase 3A are within the Meadowcreek Parkway corridor as shown in the Albemarle
County Comprehensive and Land Use Plan. Future construction of the Meadowcreek Parkway may
require taking of lots for this highway."
Mr. Stoner emphasized that this note is a "lose -lose" proposition, as it "puts a cloud" on all the lots
in the subdivision, and does not accomplish anything for the county in terms of reserving right-of-
way, improving the alignment, or providing any significant relief from the future problems that will
be encountered when the road is built. He said that after numerous discussions with Planning and
Engineering staff and VDOT, the developer felt that there could be a better approach — with the
county getting reservation of land in the location deemed most logical to build the road, thereby
eliminating future conflicts that would arise if the road remained totally undefined.
Mr. Stoner said that the developer has eliminated development on four of the lots that were shown
on the original plat to accommodate the reservation of right-of-way. "That sacrifice would provide
the county the ability to make this road extension in the future without the cost commensurate with
buying peoples homes, going through a neighborhood, potentially cutting off the primary access
route for a neighborhood, if in fact an alignment were selected which crossed Shepherd's Ridge
Road." He emphasized that the road in Phase 3A is being built today, and homes will be built within
several months, and the community will probably be fully developed when Meadowcreek gets built.
"We'd like to avoid a future conflict if we can and provide a cooperative framework to resolve the
alignment issues..."
Mr. Rooker asked if Mr. Stoner would have a problem with a condition that the legend appear in the
future on plats in the event that the alignment of the Meadowcreek Parkway changes so that it would
not be along the alignments indicated.
Mr. Stoner said that Commission actions do not preclude any future change in alignment, adding that
the process for realignment can continue regardless of whether a note is placed on the plat.
Mr. Rooker expressed concern that a plat presented as the developer's final plat is presented, it
implies that the county has selected that area for the Meadowcreek Parkway, and any deviation from
that which might impact Dunlora Phase 3A more than one of these alignments would mean that "the
county [was] changing its mind, pulling back on a commitment that it made at the time this was
approved." Mr. Rooker added that staff would need to generally agree that the alignments presented
are the most likely alignments for that area.
Planning Commission — October 26, 1999 222
Mr. Rieley raised the issue that a consultant is just now beginning to examine the corridor to
determine what the most reasonable lines are. "If we're going to jump in ahead of that consultant's
work, it seems to me we're designing with lines on a piece of paper — lines that are going to be very
difficult to change."
Mr. Thomas asked if the impact would affect the county or the developer.
Mr. Rooker said it impacts people who would potentially buy lots in that area, noting that the
language for the note on the final plat intended to notify buyers that the alignment of the
Meadowcreek Parkway might substantially impact or take lots in that area.
Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that the Dunlora final plat will not show any potential alignments, but
will show an area within the subdivision that the developer has reserved for a proposed Meadwcreek
Parkway that would be given upon demand to the county. "We didn't want to imply that there is a
selected corridor, but simply that if you relieve them of the obligation of a note, in exchange what
the county is getting is areas reserved and ultimately dedicated should they be needed for the
Meadowcreek Parkway."
Staff confirmed on the map what area the applicant intends to reserve.
Mr. Cilimberg emphasized that there is no precise alignment available at this time. He further stated
that the Land Use Plan and CATS are not locating the road, but are showing a general corridor. Mr.
Cilimberg said that in previous subdivision cases, the county has accepted from developers locations
that they are willing to provide as providing for what is identified in the CP and CATS, citing Forest
Lakes and Hollymead as examples — although in those cases, the roads were not even sent through
those developments. He stated that there is no way to know where or even if the Meadowcreek
Parkway will go, but currently CATS and the CP show the Parkway as going through the Dunlora
area, and a specific consultant is being sought to determine alignments for segments of the road. Mr.
Cilimberg said that getting that completed is probably one year away, and VDOT is in control, as
they are funding the consultant.
Mr. Stoner reported that Robert Hauser Homes recently met with Angela Tucker of VDOT, Charles
Martin (Rivanna District Supervisor), Mr. Cilimberg, David Bowerman, and the VDOT consultant to
evaluate the situation. He said that the comments from VDOT were that as they evaluate potential
road designs, the most significant criteria are: where they can acquire right-of-way which will have
the least impact on existing homeowners, and where it is most environmentally sound. Mr. Stoner
emphasized that in the corridor, there is only one location that the road can go that does not
substantially impact the Dunlora neighborhood, or impact the Covenant Church. He stated that there
is no other realistic alignment that makes sense for the road, and encouraged Commissioners to
develop a cooperative model for establishing the alignment.
Mr. Rooker expressed his appreciation for the applicant's work, but added that it would be helpful if
staff was as confident that this location is the realistic corridor for the road placement.
Mr. Cilimberg said that staff is just being cautious not to tell Commissioners something that could be
untrue. He added that it is very unlikely that VDOT would try to buy the subdivision homes.
Planning Commission — October 26, 1999 223
�ftwl Mr. Rooker asked the applicant if he would be willing to show the corridor going through the
property for the future phase above Town Brook, and asked him if that would preclude their
development of that property.
Mr. Stoner responded, "We hope not."
Mr. Rooker asked how the property would be developed if the alignment would fall right in the
subdivision.
Mr. Cilimberg explained that developing northward, access would be needed to get to the
development area from Rio Road, and the developer would have to work with the county that serves
their need and also serves the county's ultimate need. He added that the timing of the future phases
would hopefully allow the county to have the alignment/location study complete.
Mr. Rooker said that his intention in originally suggesting placing a note on the plat was purely to
inform the potential homebuyer of what might occur in the future.
Mr. Finley said that what the applicant has on the plat regarding the corridor is sufficient.
Mr. Rooker expressed concern that a homebuyer might assume that that is the final alignment of the
Meadowcreek Parkway.
Mr. Thomas said he felt it was a very generous offer for the applicant to reserve that area for the
Parkway.
Mr. Stoner said that homebuyers in Dunlora to date have understood that their subdivision is in the
corridor, but the road placement is so uncertain that most purchasers don't pay too much attention to
it. He emphasized that all the developer is suggesting is that a specific reservation of land may
accomplish more for everyone in that it stipulates a more specific area and gives the county
something.
Mr. Rooker said he would agree if there were more certainty that the road will be going in the area
marked as reserved.
Ms. Katie Hobbs addressed the Commission, indicating that the county has a "grave responsibility to
make sure that the people moving to this area completely understand what may happen there." She
also expressed concern that the stream may be spring -fed, and may not be just intermittent. Ms.
Hobbs added that she feels the Parkway would be awfully close to the new homes, if built.
Ms. Barbara Pew addressed the Commission. She stated that her family owns property in the
corridor, and they are required to inform potential buyers that their property is in the Meadowcreek
corridor. Ms. Pew emphasized that Mr. Stoner should also have to inform buyers.
Mr. Stoner re -addressed the Commission, noting that over 30% of the site has been reserved as Open
Space, and mentioning that the requirement that realtors inform people that property is in the
Planning Commission — October 26, 1999 224
corridor also applies to all Dunlora homeowners, as realtors are "legally" required to inform
homebuyers of such issues through the Realtors Disclosure Requirement.
Mr. Rooker said that the requirement was more of an ethical obligation than a legal requirement.
Mr. Stoner stated that if property were purchased, a realtor could be sued if he failed to represent a
material fact, and would lose his license.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Ms. Echols mentioned that there are a few items that need to be completed by the applicant before
the plat is officially recorded.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Stoner what the planned pace is for development in Phase 3A.
Mr. Stoner said that Robert Hauser Homes hopes to begin selling lots within the next three months.
Mr. Cilimberg noted that absent the requests for the removal of the note and the substitution of the
reservation area, and the inclusion of the crossing as part of the plat, a preliminary plat has been
approved that will be automatically approved as a final once conditions are met.
Mr. Rieley said he wanted to be absolutely sure that the stream to be crossed is correctly defined as
intermittent, because if it is perennial, it is subject to additional requirements. He added that the
USGS maps were not intended to be used in such a defining way, and the law should not be based on
that. He added that neighborhood interconnectivity is highly important, and is enormously difficult
to achieve later. "If these are allowed to develop as separate cul-de-sac communities, we'll never get
them knit together into a network of streets that can relieve traffic on major thoroughfares." He said
that there really isn't much of a choice on the connection, and requested that staff make sure that the
stream designation is accurate.
Regarding the notes on the plat versus the corridor, Mr. Rieley said it is upsetting that subdivisions
are determining where enormously important structures will occur. He stated that while the
locations of future houses are an extremely important aspect of the road alignment, "I don't know
that we can presuppose that is going to determine the alignment." Mr. Rieley added that his study of
the area topography, the lines the applicant suggests are not necessarily the best or most likely lines.
He stated that the note needs to be on the plat, as it is the only fair way to treat the people buying
homes there, and after the consultant's work is done, the issue can be revisited.
Mr. Rooker agreed with Mr. Rieley on both issues. He said that what the applicant proposes makes
a lot of sense, if staff can agree with some certainty that this is the corridor where the road will be
built. "Without that assurance from staff, I'm not comfortable removing the legend from the plat."
Mr. Thomas said, "Looking at where Meadowcreek Parkway enters ... Rio Road, there's not too
many other places the corridor can be moved ... I think putting on [the plat] the designated portion of
the proposed parkway is enough, and I don't really think we need the notes on the plat. I think it's a
shot in the dark as to where the Parkway is going to go anyway."
Planning Commission — October 26, 1999 225
Ms. Washington said that she felt comfortable that realtors would inform homebuyers of the
proposed road before purchasing.
Mr. Finley agreed with Mr. Thomas and Ms. Washington, indicating that title insurance and
attorneys would be able to inform homebuyers of the potential road alignment.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of SUB 99-241 with
conditions as presented by staff.
Mr. Rooker asked what legend would be included on the plat, and suggested adding a line that said
there is no guarantee that the road would ultimately be built in the reserved area. He emphasized
that people need the best information possible when buying a home, expressing concern that the plat
as is would imply to any potential buyer that the Parkway alignment as shown is definite.
Mr. Thomas said he felt that the real estate agents and attorneys would be enough.
Mr. Rooker disagreed, noting that there is an ethical — but not a legal — requirement that homeowners
be informed of possible future road alignments. He added that many residents of Forest Lakes who
were to be impacted by the Meadowcreek Parkway claim that they had no knowledge that the road
might come through there, despite the fact that there was supposedly a legal requirement that the
realtors disclose this fact.
Mr. Rooker further emphasized that the plat is somewhat misleading, because it shows the alignment
of the Parkway, and seems definite. He requested that the line of further disclosure regarding the
fact that no alignment is definite be added to the plat as an amendment to the motion.
Ms. Washington indicated she was not willing to amend her motion.
Mr. Finley agreed.
In a 3-2 vote, with Mr. Rieley and Mr. Rooker dissenting, the Commission approved SUB 99-241.
Old Business
The Commission unanimously agreed to appoint Mr. Thomas as the Commission's representative on
the Eastern Planning Initiative Advisory Committee.
New Business
Staff did not make a presentation on the Development Areas Initiatives Steering Committee findings,
and agreed to do so at a later date.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Planning Commission — October 26, 1999 226
Commissioners unanimously agreed to reconvene their October 26th meeting at the Rivanna Trails
'- Foundation supper at 6:30 p.m. on October 28th, if necessary. (If there are more than 3
Commissioners present at the supper).
Planning Commission — October 26, 1999 227