Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07 28 1998 PC Minutes7-28-98 J U LY 28, 1998 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, July 28, 1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee - Washington, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Finley; and Mr. Will Rieley. Other officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. David Hirschman, Water Resources Manager; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Rooker. A Work Session began at 6:00 p.m. WORK SESSION Proposed Springridge Planned Residential Development PRD =ZMA 98-13 and associated amendments to the Forest Lakes South Planned Unit Development P( UD) Z( MA 98-12 - The Springridge PRD is a planned residential community with a proposed density of 135 homes which may be a mix of single family detached, single family attached, and townhouses. Mr. Loewenstein made the following statement: After consultation with the County Attorney, ,. I want to state for the record that although I am a resident of the area near the application under consideration, as well as a member of the Proffit Community Association, I am fully capable of exercising independent, fair, and unbiased decisions about this proposal. I, therefore, intend to participate personally in this work session and a public hearing which will actually be held at a later date." Mr. Loewenstein explained the purpose of the work session is to provide Commission comment to the staff and the applicant on any remaining unresolved issues. cm Mr. Benish introduced the topic. He briefly described the proposal. To rezone 75 acres, a parcel located to the east of Forest Lakes North, and just north and east of the Hollymead development, to Planned Residential Development. 50 of the 75 acres is within the County's designated development area and is designated for Neighborhood Density Residential--3-6 dwelling units/acre. 25 acres is in the rural areas. The intended use of the 50 acres is for single-family residential, in detached and attached units. The 25 acres in the rural areas is proposed to be used for active or passive recreational use. One application plan is currently being proffered and it generally recommends single-family detached around an outer perimeter of the site with single-family detached and/or attached in the inner circle of that development. The applicant has proffered to limit the density of the development to 135 units, if it is a single-family detached and attached proposal. If only detached is approved, the limitation would be for 100 dwelling units." / 9�f 7-28-98 2 He said staff has identified four major issues: --Transportation • Access to the site - This is a very controversial issue. The applicant is proposing to construct a road over the Hollymead dam and connect to Powell Creek Drive at the southern end of that road. The applicant proffers to build that road and dedicate it to public use. • School safety • Secondary access to the property • Overall traffic impacts to the Hollymead community and Rt. 29 North area. --Density and Design --The use of the 25 acres that is designated for rural areas. --Impact to schools as a result of increased enrollment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Runkle. He was assisted by Don Franco. Using slides which depicted conceptual drawings of the proposed development, which he described as a "quasi-neo traditional type plan with a mix of product," Mr. Runkle described the proposed layout in some detail, including the type of units which are envisioned, where they will be located on the property, and the location of open space. His comments included the following: -"Our intent is to access from Powell Creek, south of the Lake Hollymead dam." The reason for that point of access is "that is the only land we own that is contiguous with this property. That is the only means of access that we have at this point." --A lake which is shown on the plan will not be possible if public roads are required. If private roads are approved, "maybe a portion of that area shown would be a lake." --"In addition to sidewalks, there will be several points of interconnecting paths back into existing Forest Lakes." --!t is intended that the 25 acres of rural area will be !eft "essentially undisturbed, as a natural area and as a buffer for the rural area." --He asked for guidance from the Commission on both the desired density and the desired mix of unit types. --He asked for guidance about the 25 acres. He said: "We'll deed it to the County (or) we'll deed it to the Association with deed restrictions. We will guarantee, at least from our perspective, that it will never be developed in any way," --The applicant's figures for school enrollments indicate this proposal will be about the same as by -right development would be, with bonuses. The type of product mix has an impact on the enrollment projections. --The type of product mix also impacts the traffic figures. The applicant's "empirical evidence suggests we are running about 75% of what would be predicted by ITE figures for traffic generation, which is very close to what ITE projects for PUD's." The applicant's opinion is that traffic counts for this proposal vs. by -right development indicate a difference of 225 - 425 additional trips "depending on whose figures you use." --On the issue of a second access to the property, Mr. Runkle said an emergency access can be produced "in the form of a wider than normal jogging trail, in common area that has already been deeded." Though the applicant can require "a sub -association for this community to maintain that path," there is no way to guarantee that the association will keep the road passable during snow. He concluded: "If you feel it is important that we don't have / p5 7-28-98 3 more than 50 units because of this issue, we need to know that no:a,. There is no need to talk about more than 50 is that is going to be the controlling issue." !� . 'Lille 4 :..,.... L 1 1.. said: IRA/.. propose the ..,.. l a . --VI 1 LI IC Issue of access Mr. Runkle said. v VC p opose LI IC access 'that we propose, r%b`✓lously--the immediate point of wCt-eSS ^..^.Ming thrn�gh nor pr`�'pe1ty -But the -onnection across the dam is proposed simply because we thought it was most in keeping with the n rll.. L:�L a.�ll... 1 a.. ,....�... ... .. a:.. 1 L L.....J� TL�.aI.. L.. aL-aL ...,o Ip Plan is l La KS dbVUL irllCl interconnection IC�iuVn (JI i Ieigl lbl�rl IVVUJ. 1 I IGt J V1%I ly a Idl was nrnnnomA %/�1\ / In//'�� at 1 p Q:15n n100 _ tonn onn % iorth of r% eif rn�ri imnrrnicmnnfo nnA I I./1 VI./VJV4. YYe IVi./k 4t It 4J w 1 V,V V V/LVV, VV YVl 111 1 V11 JIIV IV44 11111./IV vemeIILJ, 4114 I would just as soon spend that on some other kind of off -site road improvements, if you think •i �. __�a_�__.. a L_ Lt_ aL _1 a•_� �w L_ r_-_.-__ L_aL_ IL Is Illore auvdlildgeous not W IIdVC LIIdl l:Ur-IIICLa1U11. VV'e IIdYC no �Jre1CIC11t;C 11VIICLIICr VNC connect from Powell (creek, whether we connect from Timberwood Parkway --come across the dam but not make the connection --or whether we make the connection as shown with the connection across the dam. There are positives and negatives to each of those." He said the applicant spent $40,000450,000 on a UVA survey and part of that survey showed that the community, as a whole --North and South Forest Lakes and Hollymead--are against a connection (approximately 65% against). That survey showed that a majority felt neighborhoods, in general, should not be connected. He asked for Commission guidance on this issue. --An important issue to the applicant is the level of off -site improvements for roads that would be required or expected for different levels of density or product mix on this property." Comments received by the applicant thus far, including comments from VDOT, "indicate about $800,000 worth of off -site road improvements." "if that were the case, we would either elect to develop by right, or not develop at all." --The applicant's traffic study showed,"with the connection and with the development, the level of service at any of these intersections would be A-B and capacity issues would not exist on any road section." Traffic calming devices were recommended and realignment of the Hollymead Drive/ Powell Creek Drive intersection. Applicant answers to Commission questions were as follows: --Mr. Rieley asked the applicant to describe the character of the land which will be dedicated to open space. Mr. Runkle replied: There is a power line running through a portion of it. It's about 600-800 feet from the bottom most eastern boundary to Proffit Road, in that direction. We have a 15-foot easement but we don't own any property, and haven't been able to get anybody to sell any property, that would attach it to Proffit Road. There is a stream and a sewer line running along the stream. The narrow part is relatively steep as it slopes up from the stream, but once you get up to that point on the rest of this, it is pretty flat topography. The growth area portion is probably 90-95% usable. The average grade, until you get near the stream, is about 5%." The area above the stream is development area; the area below the stream is rural area. --Mr. Nitchmann asked who would incur the cost of the road over the dam, and who would maintain the road. Mr. Runkle said for a public road, VDOT will require that the County guarantee the dam structure. The applicant will perform the initial construction of the road, at an estimated cost of $150,000, or is willing to spend that $150,000 on other off -site improvements, such as traffic calming safety measures along Powell Creek Drive. VDOT agrees that traffic calming may be a good idea, but "they are also suggesting that the cross- section in front of the school should be 38 feet." The applicant believes "those things are inconsistent." Other VDOT suggestions include 11 overlaying Hollymead Drive and curb and gutter throughout the entire section from Ashwood to Timberwood Parkway. The applicant / 9�1 7-28-98 4 supports improving the intersection of Hollymead Drive and Powell Creek Drive with "some kind of roundabout (and perhaps) one or two raised crosswalks in the vicinity of the school." Though not a public hearing, public comment was invited. Ms. Moderay Mix (?), a Hollymead resident, expressed concern that additional traffic on Hollymead Drive would push it into a category that would require that it be a four -lane highway. Widening to four lanes would result in the loss of the existing pathway and part of property owners' yards. She also expressed concern about the safety of school children who currently walk to school. Mr. Jack MacDonald, Chair of the Forest Lakes Transportation Committee, called the Commission's attention to a study performed by his committee, a copy of which was included in the Commission's documents. He explained various aspects of the study, which was related to the traffic impact that development of this property, and a road over the dam, will have on the 3 existing neighborhoods. The study shows that most people living in Forest Lakes North are going to travel through residential neighborhoods to get to Rt. 29 to go south to Charlottesville. Also, if the neighborhoods are connected, those neighborhoods to the south will travel through the residential neighborhoods to get to the shopping area at Forest Lakes North, rather than getting onto Rt. 29. He disagreed with the numbers in the applicant's survey relative to the vehicle count on Powell Creek Road. Ms. JoAnn Eversoll (?), a resident of Powell Creek Drive, described existing traffic problems which school buses are experiencing. She was concerned about both student safety in the vicinity of the schools, and also in the Hollymead neighborhoods in general. She said traffic on Powell Creek Drive must be reduced, not increased. Mr. John Graham, a resident of Forest Lakes South, expressed concern about VDOT's suggestion that Powell Creek Drive be widened to 38 feet. He wanted to "head off' this idea early. (Mr. Benish said the widening of Powell Creek is not being proposed by the applicant and is not a formal recommendation by VDOT at this time.) Mr. Graham said widening to 38 feet could remove as much as 1/3 of some property owners' yards. (It was pointed out to Mr. Graham that VDOT would only be able to use that portion of yards which lies within their right-of-way. The existing VDOT right-of-way is 50 feet.) Ms. Elizabeth Herra (?), a Hollymead resident, said the survey distributed by the applicant did not allow for a vote for 'no' option, nor did it allow for a vote for a Proffit Road access. She described existing rush hour traffic problems on Hollymead Drive. Mr. Bruce Rose, a Forest Lakes resident, expressed concern about existing traffic in front of the school and student safety. He said the county should be trying to reduce traffic rather than increasing it. He said the majority of residents are against the road over the dam. Mr. David Watson, a resident of Powell Creek Drive, said Powell Creek is already overloaded and to add more traffic would be an "issue of health, safety and welfare of our children." /?7 7-28-98 5 Mr. Fred Gerke, a Proffit Road resident and President of the Proffit Community Association, expressed concerns about the loss of the rural area to the east of this site and the possibility of an access from Proffit Road. He said Profit Road has "borne a disproportionate share of the increased traffic resulting from the growth of the northern and eastern areas of Albemarle County. He said the existing traffic situation on Proffit Road is "already intolerable, and getting worse." Though he had concerns about density and traffic issues, he said a PRD approach to development of this property is preferable to by -right development because it offers greater control to the County. Mr. Tom Loach, a Crozet resident, thanked the Commission for holding a work session on this proposal prior to the public hearing. He said he believes the two main issues are implementation and design. On the issue of design, he said the proposal has a "lot of positives," including the use of open space, the use of sidewalks, curb and gutter, and the mix of product types. There being no further public comment, the Commission discussed the proposal. Their comments and directions to staff included the following: --Mr. Nitchmann asked why there is always a lot of discrepancy in the vehicle count numbers between staffs data, VDOT's data, and the public's data. He said it would be nice if, just once, there could be the same interpretation, but absent that consistency, he said he must rely on staffs interpretation. He said he hopes staffs data is available at the time of the public hearing. Mr. Cilimberg said staff will provide VDOT with some of the other information that has been presented and ask for their response. Mr. Loewenstein said it would be helpful if VDOT would use recent traffic counts for the basis of their projections. Mr. Benish said staff is also awaiting VDOT's comments on Rt. 29 improvements. Mr. Cilimberg said the improvements to 29 will have a major impact on people's choices of routes. --Mr. Tice said it will be useful to have staffs comments on how the future development of the North Fork Research Park and other employment centers to the north may effect traffic patterns. He said traffic patterns 20 years from now may be very different than current projections. Mr. Cilimberg said that staffs current traffic model includes the North Fork property and properties to the north, through the year 2015. --Mr. Loewenstein identified the following issues to be addressed by staff prior to the public hearing: Whether or not there should be greater densities in areas 5 and 6, total density, density mix and access. The access issue raises other issues, such as safety. --Mr. Nitchmann asked if it is proven that "the more accesses to a community, the better." He asked if staff could provide information about this question at the public hearing. He described the neighborhood he had grown up in and said "because there were a lot of ways to get in and out of it, I think it diminished the traffic in any one area." He said his initial reaction is "build the road over the dam and put an access onto Proffit Road ... to give more options so that school buses don't have to travel on Rt. 29, and people have more choices." He indicated safety concerns could be addressed with traffic calming measures. He said the county is going to continue to be faced with growth issues "and what better place to put growth than in an area that is close to a major work center, shopping and a major highway." He felt limiting this to a by -right development would be "a waste of a lot of land that could be developed into good, mixed residential use." 7-28-98 0 --Mr. Loewenstein said it would be helpful to have additional input from the Board regarding the road over the dam. He acknowledged the Board has not supported such a road in the past due to liability issues. He said he has no idea if the Board would be willing to reconsider their position and this is an important question which needs to be addressed. Mr. Cilimberg said staff will try to get comment from the Board but he anticipated the Board will want to know more about the proposal and will also want to know the Commission's recommendation. Mr. Loewenstein said information should be available in terms of liability limits and "what kinds of dollars we are talking about." Mr. Cilimberg offered to provide the Board's minutes from it's last discussion of this issue. Mr. Loewenstein said it is important to have as much information as possible about the traffic impact of the North Fork development and other properties to the north. He said if it is true that 80-85% of people are travelling south into town, then the Proffit Road access would not make sense. --Ms. Washington said her main concern is the traffic impact on all the roads. She said it will not be possible to satisfy everyone and she is looking at more ways to access the school rather than less ways. She thought both a road over the dam and access from Proffit Road should be considered. She said the Board might view the road differently if the County does not have to build it. She was concerned about the intersection of Powell Creek Dr and Hollymead Drive, which she said would definitely need to have traffic calming measures. She suggested there may need to be school crossing guards at the intersections to direct traffic in the mornings and afternoons. --Mr. Nitchmann thought the widening of Powell Creek Drive to 38 feet would be in direct opposition to calming measures. He asked: "Why would you want to widen something to make it faster?" Noting that there are some other factors involved, Mr. Cilimberg said there are indications that on -street parking, and bike paths along roadways, actually serve to slow down traffic. However, the lots in these neighborhoods have driveways, so there is no guarantee that on -street parking will occur even if there is room for it. Mr. Nitchmann said he would not support on -street parking given the safety issue involved, i.e. the opportunity for children to run from behind parked cars into the street. (Mr. Keeler recalled that on -street parking had been discouraged in an earlier Comprehensive Plan for the very reason stated by Mr. Nitchmann. Mr. Rieley said he believes this is "a mixed issue which we need to look at some more.") --Mr. Rieley commented on the overall plan. He said he is enthusiastic about the design and the mix of housing types. Presently, he is supportive of the 120 unit mix, which he said "seems to be the best mix of the most density we can get with the least negative impact. He said one issue the developer will have to grapple with is that of the private vs. public road. He understood that it is easier to do this type of development if you don't have to deal with VDOT standards, but "it is also nice to be able to dedicate the road to the State have them plow the snow." He said he thinks the issue of VDOT standards for this type of development is one which the County will be wrestling with in the next few years and he hopes the county will "do it in an aggressive way." He asked the developer to provide more specific information, at the public hearing, about the amount of site amenities, e.g. "street trees, street lights. He also said he believes, at this density, that sidewalks are justified on both sides of the street. He said: " I think we should be supporting better quality, higher density development, not penalizing it through these confiscatory kind of contributions for off - site road improvements. I would rather have a developer put sidewalks on both sides of the street, adn be able to invest in the kind of amenities that are going to make it a better neighborhood than spend enormous amounts of money off -site that make the whole project /97 7-28-98 7 questionable from an economic standpoint. Regarding the issue of connecting neighborhoods and the road across the dam, he said he agrees completely with Commissioner Nitchmann's comments. He said: "One of the big problems we are facing and one of the limitations of the cul-de-sac type development is that we, in fact, end up channelling a lot of traffic on certain roads. This is a way of dispersing it. It if gets dispersed more, it will be better for the people who live there, not worse, I think. On the issue of the county's liability for the dam, I would encourage us to take on what little liability 1 think there is relative to a dam of this age. There are (many) roads over the top of dams. There must be 25 ponds that Rt. 250 crosses between here and Richmond. There are certainly ways of addressing it if settlement is the major issue, and, with a dam of this age, I don't think it is a big issue. I don't think that should be a major limitation." He said he believes that connections, in as many ways as possible and practical, should be encouraged. He concluded: "I think this is a huge step in the right direction and I hope we can help make it successful." --Mr. Finley asked if staff could provide more information about how maintenance agreements would work if VDOT maintains the road and the County maintains the dam. --Mr. Loewenstein said he does not detect concern about the proposed density or the proposed mix of housing types. Mr. Nitchmann said he thinks it should be up to the developer to propose what he thinks will be the best product. --Mr. Tice said it is no secret that what the county has been looking for in terms of development "has been a moving target for the last few years." He said he feels this proposal "comes closest to hitting that target than anything that has been proposed in the ,- last 2'/2 years." Though he agreed that the product mix and density were not a concern, he acknowledged that there are still serious concerns that need to be addressed in terms of traffic and safety issues. Mr. Loewenstein restated the concerns which have been identified, primarily related to access and traffic issues, and he said the Commission's concerns echo some of those raised by the public. Mr. Runkle described the kind of additional information the applicant will be able to provide to staff. He stressed that the applicant is not going to 4-lane Hollymead Drive nor does the applicant support the widening of Powell Creek Drive to 38 feet. The applicant does support traffic calming devices. He pointed out that the applicant does not currently own land that would allow an access to Proffit Road. He was skeptical that the applicant will be able to get the additional traffic information that the Commission is requesting by August 18th, and then have time to modify the proposal so that it is closer to what the Commission may want. Mr. Nitchmann said he was not suggesting modifications, he was just seeking additional information. The meeting recessed from 7:45 to 7:55. The meeting reconvened in regular session at 7:55. A quorum was confirmed. i 10 7-28-98 E:3 Ms. Scala presented a combined staff report for proposals to continue four agricultural/forestal districts, each for a period of 10 years. She described a few property withdrawals from some of the districts, and explained that withdrawal is allowed, without question, at the time a district is up for renewal. Carter's Bridge Ag/Forestal District - Proposal to continue the Carter's Bridge Ag/Forestal District for 10 years. The Carter's Bridge AF District is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District near Carter's Bridge, Blenheim, Woodridge, and Keene. Carter's Bridge AF District is in the Rural Areas as designated by the Comp Plan, and consists of approximately 12, 005.839 acres. Public comment was invited. None was offered. MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the Carter's Bridge Ag/Forestal District be continued, as described by staff, for a period of 10 years, and that the four parcels which were subdivided be withdrawn from the District. The motion passed unanimously. Lanark Aq/Forestal District - Proposal to continue the Lanark Ag/Forestal District for 10 years. The Lanark AF District is located in the Scottsville Magisterial District near Carter Mountain, Overton, and along Route 627. Lanark AF District is in the Rural Area as designated by the Comp Plan, and consists of approximately 5,633.522 acres. Public comment was invited. None was offered. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that the Lanark Ag/Forestal District be continued, as described by staff, for a period of 10 years. The motion passed unanimously. Panorama Agricultural/Forestal District - Proposal to continue the Panorama Ag/Forestal District for 10 years. The Panorama AF District is located in the Jack Jouett and Rio Magisterial Districts and is located to the west of Rt. 29N along the Rivanna River and Rt. 661. Panorama AF District is in the Rural Area, as designated by the Comp Plan, and consists of approximately 1,107.422 acres. Ms. Scala explained that the major property owner in this district has indicated that they wish to withdraw, but staff has not yet received notification of withdrawal. The property owner can still withdraw, up to the time of the Board hearing. If that property does withdraw, the district will consist of approximately 270 acres and will still qualify as a district. Public comment was invited. Mr. Donald Robertson, an adjoining property owner, spoke in opposition to agricultural/forestal districts because he feels they place restrictions on property rights of adjoining properties. , �;I,-6/ 7-28-98 There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. MOTiON: Mr. Rieiey moved, Muir. Tice seconded, that the Panorama AgiForestai District be continued, as described by staff, for a period of 10 years. The motion passed unanimously. Free Union Acaricuitural/Forestal District - Proposal to continue the Free Union AgiForestal District for ten years. The Free Union AF District is located in the White Hall Magisterial District near Free Union, Gibson Mountain, and along Routes 671, but , and 687. Free Union AF District is in the Rural Area, as designated by the Comp Plan, and consists of approximately 2,391.82 acres. Public comment was invited. None was offered. MO r run: ivis. Washington moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that the Free Union AgiForestai District be continued, as described by staff, for a period of 10 years. The motion passed unanimously. ZMA 97-12 Fried-_Grayrocic - Request to rezone approximateiy 53.02 acres from PRD to R-4. Property located on the north side of Rt. 691 (Jarman's Gap Road) approximately 1.3 miles west of Crozet, Tax Map 55, Parcels 65 and 65A, part of. Recommended for Urban Density Residentiai (6.u1 - 34 dweiiing units per acre) in the Community of Crozet. white Hall Magisterial District. Referred back to the Pianning Commission by the Board or' Supervisors on June 17, 1998. Mr. Keeler called the Commission's attention to a memo which briefly described the history of this request. No additional staff report was given. The appiicant was represented by Steve Blaine, Gary Kirkbride, and Dennis Katur. They described changes which have been made to the plan in response to Commission and citizen comments. Those changes were described as follows'. TI_ _ 1 _ `_ _ _ l 1_ _ . _ _ _ 11_ _ _ , _I _ _ _'� TI_ .. 'en' _ s'1_ _ --I ne riiusi sryr�rrrc:an� cnanye rs rn ine prupuseu oensI r ne uensI uri ine 4 acres has been reduce to 127, with a proffer to submit a downzoning on the property to the north, reducing it to 27 single-family dwellings. ( The original plan was for i 3i dwellings on 54 acres (2.4 du/acre), and the zoning on the property to the north presently allows for 70 townhouse units.) Overall, the density has been reduced from 201 dwellings to 154 dwellings (25% decrease). --The original proffer for street trees at 100-foot intervals has been changed to 40-foot intervals, "staggered across the street." --The orientation of the lots along Jarman's Gap Road has been changed. ,�Z 0,2 7-28-98 10 .► --The western area buffer has been changed to 50-feet, 30 feet of which will be deeded, in fee simple, to the Homeowner's Association. 20-feet will be a restricted easement that will prohibit development and building within the buffer area. --Changes in design elements include a redesign of street layout to represent more of a grid pattern, the elimination of cul-de-sacs, a boulevarded entrance, a walkway system providing pedestrian access for all dwellings, a tot lot, picnic area, and basketball court. --The plan has significant open space --approximately 12 acres of common open space, including two lakes, but excluding the buffer areas. It is no more than a 10-minute walk to all recreational areas. In addition, back yards will provide another 7 acres of open space. Additional comments by the applicant's representatives included the following- --Potential redistricting of elementary school children should not be a part of this review process because "that is a decision of the School Board and what this Commission does would not have an impact on that Board's decision." --There are adequate utilities and infrastructure to serve this development. --"This application has gotten caught up in the County's search for design guidelines. ...This is supposed to be a three-month process. This is the fourth public hearing that has been held on this application. This applicant has received mixed signals. We have been told that the project should contain mixed uses, including commercial. Yet this is not what the Comp Plan calls for. It is not what the Crozet Community Study recommends for this area. In fact, commercial area in this location is contrary to the Crozet Community Study's recommendation to support downtown Crozet businesses. Interparcel connection has been stressed as an important design element, yet when it was suggested to the citizens of Jarman Gap Estates, that suggestion met with violent reaction." --"This has been, for the applicant, an arbitrary process --ad hoc, unpredictable, costly and time consuming. It has also been time consuming for the staff at a time when they are understaffed, overworked, and underpaid.... There are hidden costs with this type of process. The delays that have resulted will prevent the applicant from making a 1999 build market year. During that year's delay, there will be dozens of residents building houses in the rural areas. We don't know how many of those houses could have been located in the Grayrock project." --It is unrealistic to expect to arrive at a single design standard for this entire community. Mr. Kirkbride described a community meeting which the applicant held with Crozet residents, summarized written comments which the applicant received from citizens, and described how the applicant responded to those comments. Citizens wanted to see: --A plan for the entire property: The applicant feels the proposed plan fulfills this need and represents a 25% reduction in density from the original plan. --A variety of lot sizes: Lots range in size from 11,000 sq. ft. to 19,000 sq. ft. --Homes along Jarman's Gap Road should face the street (i.e. Jarman's Gap Rd.): The plan has been "changed to orient the houses to the street, either their fronts or their sides." --Sidewalk, curb and gutter should be provided throughout the development: The street network and the pedestrian walkway system has been revised so as to provide a ,-Z03 7-28-98 11 pedestrian trail in front of every unit, or directly across the street. All trails lead to the open space. --Adequate buffers are needed: A 50-foot buffer is proposed (as described above). --Vehicular and pedestrian access should be provided to the Bargemann property: "An interparcel access has been identified which could be either vehicular or pedestrian. It is centrally located." --Recreation areas should be provided: Open space, a picnic area and a play area is provided, in conjunction with the trail system. --A more detailed landscape plan and the establishment of architectural guidelines: A draft of the architectural guidelines has been provided and the architecture of the units along Jarman's Gap Road has been stressed. --Dead end streets should be minimized: The original proposal had five dead-end streets. "We have reduced those to two turnaround positions adjacent to Jarman's Gap Road. They are technically cul-de-sacs, but they are only one -lot deep, and they do provide emergency access opportunities." The applicant presented a brief slide presentation showing a variety of existing housing types and landscaping in Crozet, and examples of potential housing types for the proposed development. Referring to some of the photographs, Mr. Tice asked if the applicant was implying that design elements, such as porches, etc., are included as proffers in this project. Mr. Kirkbride replied: "Not as proffers, but in terms of the architectural design guidelines that have been discussed, yes. When I show you some types of units, we are not proffering to *46., the units, per se, but we envision this type of unit and the elements with it." Mr. Tice asked. - "So the proposal in front of us guarantees that this project is going to have these kinds of elements?" Mr. Kirkbride replied: "No, I don't think that would be a fair characterization." (The Commission was attempting to clarify the relevance of the slides.) Mr. Kirkbride said citizens had asked for examples of the type of units that are envisioned and these photographs are a response to that request. Again, Mr.Kirkbride said: "We are not proffering to the units." The price range of homes was described as between $150,000 and $200, 000. Mr. Kirkbride specifically addressed issues which he said were raised "in a memo circulated by Mr. Rieley" about the new plan. Issues raised in that memo included the way the open space has been calculated, the angle of houses along Jarman's Gap Road, the lack of curb and gutter, the use of a pedestrian trail in place in sidewalks, and the lack of a safety shelf in the existing ponds. He explained the applicant's position on all these issues. Regarding a safety shelf in the ponds, he explained that depth measurements were taken around the entire perimeters of the ponds (a distance of 15 feet from the edge of the pond towards the center) and it was found that the "average depth in that area is 3 feet." At the Commission's request, he presented a drawing showing where measurements were taken. Applicant answers to specific Commission questions were as follows- --Mr. Rieley asked why the applicant had chosen not to respond to a Supervisor suggestion that the applicant submit a plan for the entire property (not just the southern part as is addressed with this proposal). Mr. Blaine responded: "We have done that in the form of the proffer. The proffer says if this zoning is approved, we'll submit a downzoning, which is completely within your control, reflecting the plan that is submitted. I believe the 7-28-98 12 %#Aw� alternative is to combine the applications and face another year (in the process). We can move forward with this phase of the project and the balance is totally in your hands." Mr. Rieley asked staff if the addition of the northern parcel would require a new application and beginning the process again. Mr. Keeler responded: "It would necessitate beginning the process again because it would be a new application." Mr. Kamptner agreed with Mr. Keeler's response. --Mr. Finley asked for a description of the landscape plan along Jarman's Gap Road. The applicant responded: "It is a 20-foot landscape easement and landscape buffer ... with a combination of street trees at the openings and evergreen trees between the points were we expose the front of the houses.... It will be maintained by the Association." --Recalling the Commission's comments at the February meeting, Mr.Tice said he had reviewed the minutes and disagrees that there was a "mixed message." He said: "What I see consistently is not a message of mixed use, but a message of mixed housing types and lot sizes." He acknowledged that while the applicant has made "some effort" to adjust lot sizes, there is still a "question of whether that goes along with the Crozet Community study recommendations for innovative housing design and layouts with a mix of housing types and price ranges." Mr. Blaine said there is a significant change on the variation of lot sizes and the architectural guidelines that are referenced in the proffers will allow for a variety of housing types, but the lots will not allow for apartments or duplexes. Mr. Tice asked why the townhouse plan had been dropped. Mr. Blaine responded: "That is in response to what we heard expressed by the Supervisor for the district in which the project is located and a number of citizens. I didn't discern a concern about the townhouse type, but about what that was going to look like and the level of density." Mr. Tice asked if there had been any consideration given to "sticking to the 201 units, but better integrating it within the community so that you didn't have the segregation of uses and the high density up on that northern end?" Mr. Blaine responded: "The concerns were not expressed in that detail." Mr. Tice responded: "It seems like the position it puts us in is saying we either accept this scheme for the southern part, and then our choice is either to have high density at the top or not, as opposed to taking an integrated look at the entire 74 acres and looking at ways we could take the 201 units and work it within the entire property, and be able to maintain that density that we are after with the Comprehensive Plan in the designated growth areas." Mr. Nitchmann said that though the applicant has offered to downzone the northern 20 acres, the Commission could decide more density is needed on that property. Mr. Tice said: "But the only choice would be to stick it up there." Mr. Nitchmann replied: "That's fine. It's their property. Let them develop it the way they would like. They do own the property." Mr. Tice said: "(But) it locks us in to that separation." Mr. Blaine pointed out that the northern property will always be separated from the southern part because of a separate entrance and a difference in topography. Public comment was invited. Mr. Tom Loach, a Crozet resident, compared this proposal to the Springridge project which was discussed earlier in the meeting. He described why he believed the Springridge project is superior, e.g. it has genuine community space, sidewalks, curb and gutter, a mix of housing types and the availability of conceptual architectural drawings. He said there is no reason to accept anything less than good design, and "to do so would be damaging to the 7-28-98 13 work of the DISC committee." He questioned the accuracy of the school enrollment projections and though he agreed that redistricting is not a matter to be addressed by this Commission, "the residents have the right to be made aware of what's going to be the educational future for their children." Mr. Eric Strucko, a member of the DISC committee, and the Albemarle County Housing Committee, but speaking only on his own behalf, expressed the belief that this project "does not comply with the direction that Albemarle County wants to go when it comes to new development --it doesn't have the themes that the committee has been working on such as recreation space and diverse housing types. He expressed concern about affordability because a minimum sales price of $150,000 is cost -prohibitive to a lot of county residents. He said would like to see more diverse housing types in all developments. He said he believes the County has the authority to recommend a different kind of design. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rieley asked how the buffer along the western edge of the property relates to the old road trace --is it included in the 30-foot buffer? Mr. Blaine said it straddles the property and "whatever portion is in the Grayrock property would be within the buffer." In response to Ms. Washington's question about sidewalks, Mr. Blaine responded: "There will be walkways on at least one side." She asked: "Why no sidewalks?" Mr. Blaine responded: "Well, these would be sidewalks but they wouldn't be ( word unintelligible) sidewalks." Ms. Washington asked if there was a way to fit sidewalks on both sides. Mr. Blaine responded: "Well there is a way but it would create more impervious surfaces and would create more of a maintenance cost for the homeowners." Ms. Washington said she is concerned about not having sidewalks on both sides because the Commission recently required that another development have sidewalks on both sides, and projects should be treated consistently. She also expressed concern about the fact that the average person will not be able to afford these houses. She said she is drawn to support "mixed housing types, more common areas and sidewalks." Mr. Rieley said he thinks that this plan is a significant improvement over the previous plan in terms of eliminating the interior cul-de-sacs and going to a street grid system with intersections, and though addressing the disposition of the northern section of the property is "laudable" he is still very uncomfortable with a promise to rezone in the future rather than dealing with it all at one time." He said that though he thinks there are a number of design considerations that could be improved, he agrees with Mr. Nitchmann that it is not the Commission's charge to design every feature of the project. He said he still has several concerns: --The lack of any real open space in the area of the houses. "What we have is undevelopable fringe area that you can't do anything else with and that has been called open space." --The children's play area is at the bottom of a steep slope, a long distance from any of the houses. --The safety of the ponds is still a concern. "it is not reassuring to see that 15 feet out from the edge of the pond, in places, the pond is 6 feet deep. That is plenty deep enough ,�e2k 7-28-98 14 for a child to drown in. That is a serious safety issue. We require a safety ledge on all detention ponds that we build in this county for that very reason, and, in a place where we want to introduce over a 100 new houses ... we certainly should have that same level of safety." --Off-site traffic issues have not changed. Mr. Rieley said that though he thinks this plan is much better, he still has strong reservations. He said he believes there are things the applicant could do, "quickly," that would make it acceptable. He said sidewalks on both sides are a bare minimum. (He did not feel as strongly about curb and gutter because he said it does not relate to the circulation within the community.) Regarding sidewalks on both sides, he said: "I think the issue of adding impervious area really is gratuitous. If you total up the number of linear feet of curb around this and multiply it by the 2 feet of the curb, and divide that by the acreage of the overall site, it is pretty insignificant." He concluded: "Though it has come a long way, I think it has a long way to go." Mr. Tice agreed with Mr. Rieley. He had been present at the June Board meeting and he said his impression of what a number of Board members had in mind in suggesting that the applicant look at this entire property, was more than just downzoning the top part so that it generally matched the design below. I think they were really looking at the spirit of the Comp Plan and the spirit of the Crozet Community Study --calling for innovative site design and mixed product types. I don't think we have that." He acknowledged that there has been considerable progress on several points, but he said "The other side of that is I think we have actually backslid on the issue of density and innovative design. We've gone from 2.4 du/acre to 2 du/acre. If we were to look at going back and restoring the 201 total units, but integrating it in a better fashion, that would still only be a density of roughly 2.8 du/acre. So we are not talking about making a huge density that is out of character with the area and what is called for in the Comp Plan. Just like I was in February, I am very torn on this project. He commended the applicant for the way many of the concerns have been addressed, but he concluded: "I don't believe this is what the Board members had in mind who wanted us to look at the whole project in a more integrated way." Mr. Finley said he has read the minutes of the Board's meeting and he did not find that a majority of the Board had stipulated that we look at the whole thing, and at more innovative design." He said it was difficult, from the minutes, to determine the exact "count" of the Board, but it was clear that the Board wanted the plan to come back to the Commission because of the many changes. Mr. Finley said people are saying that Albemarle County doesn't want it like this, but without the report of the DISC committee, "how do we know?" He said even after the committee has completed its report, it will be some time before any recommendations it might make are enforceable. He asked if it has been firmly decided that sidewalks should be required on both sides of the street. He pointed out that on one hand the County is saying "less runoff in the watershed," but there will be more runoff with added impervious surface, even though the percentage of increase may be small. He said: "It seems to me the applicant has made an effort. They have held community meetings. And (we have density goals), but the community seems to be the one backing down on the infill ,,, or density." So we tell developers "to settle up with the community and when they do that we say they have decreased density, which is against the recommendations in the Comp 7-28-98 15 Plan." He concluded: "Developers are in a real bind to know what to propose in order to get a project approved." Mr. Tice said the Comp Plan recommendation for density on this property is 6-34 du/acre, is far greater than what is proposed here, but everyone agrees that was an error and it should never have been set that high. Mr. Nitchmann asked if the Commission has the legal right to tell an applicant how to develop his property, in terms of housing type, sidewalks, etc. "How far, legally, do we have the right to go?" Mr. Kamptner responded: "You have the right to consider a lot of factors consistent with the principles of zoning. The flip side is if there is an existing reasonable use of the property, you have the ability to deny a rezoning request. The item that is before you tonight is a proffered rezoning. There are conceptual plans that are included and if you don't feel those are consistent with the principles of good zoning, then you have the ability to deny the application." Mr. Nitchmann asked: "But somewhere along the line, doesn't (a denial) have to be based on health, safety and welfare?" Mr. Nitchmann said he could not support comparisons of the development methods of two different applicants. He said he does not feel he can dictate to a developer the design of his project. He stated this proposed plan is much better than the original plan and even if a completely different plan was presented there would still be those who would say "I just don't like it this way because of the fact that I just don't like it this way." He said if the County is in the process of trying to decide what type of development is desirable then he hopes it is done in such a way "that people will be ,. able to find the kind of homes they want." On the issue of sidewalks, he said he has spoken to a lot of people and a common comment is "why do you want to bring the city into the rural area --if you want sidewalks every place, move to the city." He said if requiring sidewalks is a means of trying to socialize a community, then Commissioners need to become social engineers and have a serious discussion about the issue. He concluded: "I think this is a nice subdivision. It meets all the requirements that we could ask for that are in the Comp Plan. It meets zoning requirements. I don't see any reason to deny this other than personal preference by a few Commissioners and maybe a few members of the Board of Supervisors and a few members of the public that don't like this." Mr. Loewenstein said he would rather not get into a discussion of "personalizing these opinions." Referring to some written comments made by some Commissioners that were not made available to all Commissioners, Mr. Nitchmann said he believes "it is time to start personalizing things." He asked the County Attorney: "is this proper procedure?" Mr. Kamptner responded: "I don't have an answer off hand. This will have to be researched." Mr. Rieley explained that one of the documents referred to by Mr. Nitchmann was an "e-mail he had written to Mr. Loach in direct response to a direct question that he asked me. It was not about a matter before the Commission. It was after a community meeting in Crozet at which this new plan was presented. He asked me what my impressions were and I told him. I sent him back a memo and he subsequently shared it with the Board of Supervisors. If there is something improper about that, I would be happy to hear about it." M 7-28-98 16 Mr. Tice said he understands that an applicant (Greenwood Farm) had asked Mr. Nitchmann if the Board had considered something about erosion and sediment control and Mr. Nitchmann had responded. He could see no difference in Mr. Nitchmann's verbal response and Mr. Rieley's written response. Mr. Nitchmann said he believes the two are different because (1) he had not responded in writing, and (2) the Greenwood request will not be before the Board of Supervisors again, whereas the memo from Mr. Rieley was described by a member of the public as "expressing his concerns about the plan currently before the Board." Mr. Nitchmann said he is concerned because Mr. Rieley's memo was on an item still going through the process. Mr. Nitchmann said he has never seen this happen before "and it looks like something is changing in the way we are running our government and I am just trying to get a handle on what it is so I can operate within those guidelines in the future." Mr. Loewenstein described the other document which Mr. Nitchmann had referred to. He said: "I received an inquiry from a resident of the Crozet community requesting that the Planning Commission hold a work session to discuss the planning of the entire Jarman Gap neighborhood, which would include, but not be limited to, this application that is before us tonight. My (e-mail) response said that I understood the request and am forwarding it to Mr. Cilimberg and the staff will see if something can be scheduled in the near future. That's it. don't see anything here that gets into areas that you have talked about. However, I do agree that you have raised some questions that it would be helpful to have guidance about from the County Attorney, and I would ask that each of us, for further elucidation, might want to look at the text of the Planning Commissioner's Handbook which does provide some guidelines to us." He asked if Mr. Kamptner could provide any additional guidance, beyond what might be covered in the Handbook. Mr. Kamptner responded: "Just from what I have heard about both of you who were responding to specific questions raised by citizens, I don't see any problem with that." Returning to the item before the Commission, Mr. Keeler made some comments about sidewalks: "The Ordinance allows you to require sidewalks on one or both sides of the street, beginning at a density of 2 units/acre. This development is close to 2 units/acre-- depending on any subsequent rezoning --so that would militate towards one side, assuming that you go to both sides with higher densities. That's your decision to make. There is a difference in impervious coverage. In our recommendations, we attempt to segregate issues of sidewalks or walkways from issues of curb and gutter. We look at curb and gutter as an engineering matter to handle drainage. When you add curb and gutter to a state road -- assuming most of these roads would have a travelway of 20 feet--VDOT will say you have to go to 28 feet, so there is a 40% increase in impervious coverage in the travelway itself when you add curb and gutter." Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Keeler to clarify the relevance of the proffer for the northern part of this property, "for calculating the density for the purpose of determining whether or not it falls within the parameters where we can require curb and gutter or sidewalks." Mr. Keeler responded: "With this proposal, plus the proposal to reduce the density to 27 units north of the lakes, the total is 154 units on 74 acres. So, yes, we'd be right at 2 units/acre." Mr. Rieley concluded: "So we would be entitled to determine whether or not sidewalks are ,2,:91 7-28-98 17 included." Mr. Keeler responded: "Yes. So unless you specifically accept a proffer for walkways on one side, I don't think it sets aside your authority to require that under the Ordinance." Mr. Kamptner added: "The sidewalk requirement comes under the Subdivision Ordinance, so that would be taken care of at the platting stage and it operates independently, in this case, from the Zoning Ordinance." Mr. Loewenstein said he agrees that this is a much improved plan, but there are still some issues which are of concern. Those issues include the lack of sidewalks, inadequate open space, affordability , and the location of the play area. He said: "I think piecemeal development is poor development. What I would have preferred is an integrated plan for this entire area, to promote a better mix of housing across the entire acreage rather than looking simply at the section to the south. That is not what is before us tonight, so I have to admit it is a very difficult decision -to make, but I do still have some significant concerns. I am not convinced, with a little more tweaking as others before me have already suggested, this couldn't go from being a greatly improved application to a really fine one." MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that ZMA 97-12 Fried (Grayrock) be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to acceptance of the applicant's proffers. Discussion: , Acknowledging that proffers cannot be required, Mr. Rieley said he wanted to once again express his concerns so that the applicant can have the opportunity to respond, if they so choose. He listed the following items: --Some open space, including a children's play area on the same elevation as the houses be included; --The pond will be adjusted to meet the same safety requirements as required for stormwater detention ponds. --Concrete sidewalks ("not curb and gutter") be included on both sides of the roadway. He concluded: "I think if we could get it that far in that direction, I think it would push me to the side of supporting it." Mr. Finley asked if Mr. Rieley really believes that would rather have sidewalks than a few extra feet of yard. Mr. Rieley said he is sensitive to Mr. Nitchmann's comments about "trying to jam a personal preference down people's throats, but ultimately the issue is, as density increases... then you get to the point where certain things are required at that density to be a livable neighborhood...." He pointed out that though some may consider this the rural area, it is still a growth area. "We are building urban environments and urban environments have sidewalks. It is part of what makes them livable and compensates for the fact that there is not a lot of space. I think we can have good, livable communities at higher densities, but it includes doing things like building sidewalks and taking care of the land by how we treat it on top." Mr. Loewenstein said he believes the issue of sidewalks is one of public safety. "If we put aside everything else except the safety issue, to me, sidewalks help alleviate a significant problem that exists otherwise. Where do people walk? If they have to cross the road to get 011- 7-28-98 18 to a small pedestrian path on the other side, that also poses a problem. Even if we restrict ourselves completely to discussing the issue of safety, I think the sidewalk issue is one that is highly germane. I don't think it has anything to do with aesthetic preferences or social engineering. I think it is definitively part of our charge to do, as was suggested earlier, protect the public health, safety and welfare and sidewalks go a long way towards doing that." Mr. Finley said he has been told that in those developments where sidewalks do exist, mothers will still push their baby carriages in the street because the sidewalk is not wide enough for two adults to walk side -by -side. That is a safety issue also." Ms. Washington once again expressed the belief that the sidewalk issue must be dealt with in a consistent way by the Commission. Mr. Rieley pointed out that the plan that is before the Commission, "because the developer chose not to modify the plan, is the same plan that failed to pass the Board of Supervisors on a 3:3 vote." He said at some stage, it can be presumed that the plan "needs some adjustment in order to get approval." The motion for approval failed to pass by a vote of 2:4, with Commissioners Nitchmann and Finley voting for the motion, and Commissioners Rieley, Washington, Loewenstein and Tice voting against. Certification of Executive Session held on July 14. 1998 - The Commission had failed to take this action at the July 14th meeting. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION WHEREAS, the Albemarle County Planning Commission convened an executive meeting on July 14,1998 pursuant to an affirmative recorded vote and in accordance with the provisions of The Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and WHEREAS, Section 2.1-344.1 of the Code of Virginia requires a certification by the Albemarle County Planning Commission that such executive meeting was conducted in conformity with Virginia law; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Albemarle County Planning Commission hereby certifies that, to the best of each member's knowledge, (i) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements by Virginia law were discussed in the executive meeting to which this certification resolution applies, and (ii) only such public business matters as were identified in the motion convening the executive meeting were heard, discussed or considered by the Albemarle County Planning Commission. cm 7-28-98 VOTE: 19 AYES: Finley, Rieley, Tice, Washington NAYS: None ABSTENTIONS: Nitchmann ABSENT DURING VOTE ON CERTIFICATION: Rooker (He was present at the July 14th meeting.) ABSENT DURING July 14 MEETING: Loewenstein r Deloris Bradshaw,"Recording Secretary Albemarle County Planning Commission Mr. Nitchmann said he could not recall what was discussed on July 14th, so he abstained from the action on the certification. Resignation of Commissioner Tice - Mr. Loewenstein announced that Mr. Tice is resigning from the Commission, effective August 1, 1998. He is moving out of the area. He thanked Mr. Tice for his service and said his "tremendous contributions to the work of this Commission and the betterment of Albemarle County for all its residents are a fine legacy." Other Commissioners echoed Mr. Loewenstein's remarks. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. K: M 0, o Al ...A-... (� V. Wayne 911imberg, 8-4-98 AUGUST 4, 1998 The Albemarle County Planning Commission met on Tuesday, August 4, 1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. William Finley; and Mr. Dennis Rooker. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; and Mr. Juan Wade, Planner. Absent: Commissioners Rieley, Nitchmann and Washington. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:25 p.m. Because a quorum could not be established, the Commission was unable to conduct business. MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that all items on the agenda be continued to the August 11th meeting, with the meeting to begin at 6:00 p.m. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. CM .4.- / '�?