HomeMy WebLinkAbout11 03 1998 PC MinutesALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOVEMBER 3,1998
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday,
November 3,1998 in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members present
were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice Chairman; Mr.
Dennis Rooker; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. William Finley; Mr. Rodney Thomas; and Mr. William
Nitchmann. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Planner; Mr. Maynard Sipe, Planner;
Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney; and Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of County Engineering.
The meeting convened at 6:05 p.m. A quorum was established with all members present.
The Commission moved, seconded and unanimously approved deferring the review of the
October 20, 1998 minutes for one week because Commissioners were not provided with
complete copies of the minutes and attachments prior to the meeting.
ZNIA 98-18 Wayland's Grant (Sign #81)
Request to rezone 19.20 acres from R-6, Residential to PRD, Planned Residential Development.
The property, described as Tax Map 55, Parcels 66 and 66A, is located on the north side of
Jarman's Gap Road approximately 3/4 mile from the intersection with Route 240, in the White
Hall Magisterial District. Density of R-6 zoning is 6 dwelling units per acre. It is located in the
Development Area Community of Crozet, and is recommended for Urban Density Residential
use of 6-34 dwelling units per acre.
The applicant requested deferral to November 17, 1998. The Commission moved, seconded and
unanimously approved deferral of ZMA 98-18 to their November 17, 1998 meeting; a public
hearing will be held at that time.
SUB 98-160 Dunlora Phase 3a Preliminary Plat
This is a proposed subdivision of 28.19 acres to create 45 lots averaging .386 acres (16,832 sq.
ft.) each in Dunlora Subdivision on Rio Road. Thirty-nine lots are to be served by a new public
road, five lots are to be served by a private road, and one lot is to access the existing public road,
Dunlora Drive (Route 1177).
Mr. Sipe presented the staff report, which stated that the property, located on Rio Road East and
Dunlora Drive, contains one existing dwelling on the portion being subdivided with the
remainder of the land primarily wooded. He said this is a proposed "by -right" subdivision, with
39 lots to be served by a new public road, 5 lots to be served by a private road, and 1 lot served
directly by a driveway off of Dunlora Drive. Mr. Sipe reported that the developer proposes to
incorporate this subdivision into the existing Dunlora Subdivison as "Phase 3a." He reported
that the property is located in the Urban Neighborhood, a designated development area, and is
designated for neighborhood density residential development (3-6 dwelling units per acre), and
told Commissioners that the Comprehensive Plan also designates the Meadowcreek Parkway
Phase II corridor which crosses through this property. Mr. Sipe continued that the Open Space
Plan identifies important streams and valleys across the property, and said the property is zoned
R-4 Residential, with the minimum lot size of 10,890 sq. ft.
17
He reported that staff recommends approval of the request for the private road and preliminary
plat with revised conditions as presented at this meeting. Mr. Sipe mentioned that while the
proposed development will have significant implications for the planning and construction of
Meadowcreek Parkway, the county attorney has advised staff that the county can not require any
reservation of the area for the Parkway by the developer as there has been no certain alignment
for the road determined to this date. He highlighted three items which warrant attention: the
waiver request to permit a private road; presence of Stream Valleys as designated in the Open
Space Plan; and provision of emergency access.
Mr. Sipe emphasized that only 4 lots (not 5 as stated in the staff report) are requested to be
served by the private road, and referenced a letter from the applicant dated August 27, 1998
stating justification for the request. He reported that no engineering data such as earthwork
computations have been furnished by the applicant to document the significant degradation, but
said the request may still be entertained on the basis of "General Welfare" under section 14-232
A-4 of the Subdivision Ordinance. Mr. Sipe reported that county engineering has indicated their
support for approval of the private road request, while noting that some reconfiguration of the
lots may be necessary to accommodate the final design. He said that staff has cautioned the
developer that he may not be able to achieve the number of lots shown in the preliminary plat
once the final design of the private road is complete.
Mr. Sipe said that currently some open space is shown between the private road and Dunlora
Drive, and staff believes that when the final road plan is reconfigured the open space may
increase slightly. He continued that the Open Space Plan has designated some areas on the
property as important stream valleys; sensitive soils are shown to exist along Town Branch to the
rear and along the intermittent stream valley that runs through the property, and these soils are
restricted for building and other uses due to flooding and wetness and shallow depth to rock. Mr.
Sipe reported that in keeping with the Open Space obje3ctive, staff recommends a condition
requiring staff approval of a homeowners agreement or other easement for the open space areas
which would ensure their preservation in a natural state.
He reported that the applicant has shown an emergency access easement and potential
emergency access road on the proposed plat, which will provide an optional emergency access
for the entire Dunlora Subdivision; staff recommends that an emergency access easement be
approved by County staff and the access road will be built or bonded according to staff -approved
plans. Mr. Sipe informed the Commissioners that staff has received "quite a few" letters from
the public, some of which have been presented to them at this meeting. He said the letters cover
many concerns, including (1) access to the new lots created on Dunlora Drive might be
dangerous, (2) wooded buffer along Dunlora Drive is desired by residents to be maintained in the
area of the lots served by the private road, (3) additional traffic generated would cause increased
congestion and dangerous conditions of the intersection of Dunlora Drive and Rio Road East,
and (4) existing recreational facilities in Dunlora are not adequate for usage by additional
residents.
Mr. Sipe concluded his report by outlining the staff s revised conditions of approval: Condition
"b" should state "Virginia Department of Transportation final approval of final road plans to
include review of traffic study to determine if a traffic light is warranted at the intersection of
Dunlora Drive and Rio Road East"; Condition "o" will be revised to reflect comments received
from the county attorney's staff. Two additional conditions are proposed: (1) lots 40 through 44
SR
shall be accessed only by means of the private road shown; (2) the open space provided on the
private road shall be extended to include the area of Lot 44 fronting along Dunlora Drive.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Sipe to point out the location of the corridor for the proposed Phase II
Meadowcreek Parkway; Mr. Sipe illustrated this on the location map presented. Mr. Keeler
emphasized that it is described as a corridor and could move. Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Sipe to
clarify which lots had been discussed with the developer to possibly not be built on, as
referenced in the staff report. Mr. Sipe confirmed that the lots in discussion were located on the
westernmost edge of the property.
In response to Mr. Loewenstein's question, Mr. Sipe confirmed that this is a by -right
subdivision, and confirmed the only reasons the item is before the Commission are the private
road proposal and a request from an adjacent property owner. At Mr. Keeler's suggestion, Mr.
Sipe pointed out on the map the adjacent property owner abutting the front of the property, who
was concerned about the implications on Meadowcreek Parkway.
Mr. Rooker asked if it would be possible to locate the main access to the subdivision where the
emergency access is located. Mr. Sipe replied that is something that could be entertained, but for
now the comments would need to pertain to the proposal as submitted. He further stated that
there is some advantage to access ng the internal road and minimizing access points on Rio Road
East. Mr. Rooker added that ' one of the primary objections of Dunlora residents is the
additional traffic that would be created o= ora Drive, and Vidd e wondered if that could be
ameliorated if the main entrance was g n ess road'pe said that would be
possible, but would require a revision to the plan proposed by the applicant. Mr. Loewenstein
suggested that idea be presented to the applicant during the public hearing.
Mr. Rooker asked County Attorney Larry Davis, "How far can we go in requiring notices to
potential buyers in this subdivision that this is the potential site of the future Meadowcreek
Parkway....can we require that sales information that is given out includes some notice that the
property may be ii} the site of the eadowcreek Parkway?"
Mr. Davis replied, "I think the extent' authority is what's recommended in the staff report,
which is that on the plat itself there's going to be a notation that says `this subdivision lies in the
area that is identified as the corridor for the Meadowcreek Parkway,"' and said, "what may be
helpful to future buyers is that under the real estate laws at this point there is an obligation to
disclose material factors which might affect property values, and certainly if this is clearly
identified and remains in the corridor that would be an obligation that real estate agents have to
advise their clients of in the transaction." Mr. Davis added, "Under existing authority, we do not
have the requirement to require nates�t aren't specified in our ordinance, so I don't think we
could require it in the deed in this administrative process."
Mr. Rooker said, "My concern is that the average person doesn't necessarily see the plat at the
courthouse for the whole subdivision. What they see usually is some kind of small map that's
included in a sales package. I think it would be very helpful to make certain that those sales
packages include some kind of notice on whatever maps are handed out within them."
Mr. Davis replied, "We don't have the authority under the subdivision ordinance to do that."
on
59
Mr. Rooker then asked, "Can we on the plat itself get a little more specific and say something
like `this area may be the location of a future highway.' Mr. Davis replied, "I think that
language would be appropriate to be added if it was the desire of the Commission."
Mr. Finley asked, "If it were purely by -right would lot configuration change, and what about
exits?" Mr. Sipe responded, "If the private road was not approved by the Commission .... the
applicant could take access directly to Dunlora Drive by -right.... with individual driveways for
each lot." In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Mr. Sipe replied one of the advantages with the
private road would be not increasing the number of entrances onto Dunlora Drive.
The applicant, Frank Stoner, representing RHH Development, the developer of the property,
addressed the Commission. He told Commissioners that the current plan was developed "in
direct collaboration with the Dunlora community," and said that developers met with residents
on three separate occasions in the last year with various members of the community. He said
that in the first meeting, held in October 1997, the developers suggested they might purchase the
property because it was directly adjacent to Dunlora Drive and expressed concern to residents
about what could be done on the property by -right and access on Dunlora Drive by -right over
which the community would have no control or influence.
Mr. Stoner said since then, they have solicited interest from the community for a Community
Planning Advisory Committee, and have had a number of applicants, and subsequently set up
that committee. He said they met in April 1998 and examined a number of different
development scenarios for the property, and took comments via survey to find out what was
important to Dunlora residents in terms of the property" development.
Mr. Stoner said the plan now before the Commission is a direct reflection of those meetings and
the interest and concerns that Dunlora homeowners expressed in this project. He said the private
road was developed in an effort to preserve the wooded buffer along Dunlora Drive; he said they
would save 17 or 18 "significant trees" along Dunlora Drive. Mr. Stoner said in the community
planning process the developers feel that they have come to a reasonable solution with respect to
most of the outstanding issues. He said that he didn't believe the concerns residents at this
meeting would express "the overriding or predominant view of the community."
Mr. Stoner noted that a copy of the Dunlora covenants and restrictions was furnished to staff
outline the developers' rights as the declarant to add property to the Dunlora Community
Association. He said that in the Dunlora Master Plan, there were 275 lots originally approved;
270 of those lots were originally platted. He added that 13 have been eliminated in the platting
process or combined with other lots purchased by a single owner as a larger lot. He said there
were 15 lots on the South Dunlora portion that have since been disconnected from Dunlora that
will no longer be part of that subdivision. He told the Commission that leaves a net of 242 lots
in the current configuration; 10 of those lots remain undeveloped. Mr. Stoner said that the
Fowler Property, which is Dunlora Phase III, will add 16 more lots than were originally
contemplated in the Dunlora Master Plan.
He added that the current amenities were designed to serve a maximum capacity of 270 lots, and
reported that a study had been done on the swimming pool over the summer. Mr. Stoner said
they feel the pool can comfortably handle an additional 16 homes, but they have offered to the
community additional amenity contributions for each lot in the subdivision as well as explore the
6n
possibility of expanding the existing pool or putting in an Olympic size pool, which they would
assist in the funding of.
Mr. Stoner said the initial traffic study (1987) done on Dunlora Drive for the Dunlora Master
Plan indicated a total capacity of 3,153 vehicle trips per day at the Dunlora Entrance (between
Manfred Court and the front entrance). He said even though Phase III was not done at the time
of the study, its projected traffic generation is included in the study. He reported that the
standard at the time of the study was 7 vehicle trips per day for a single-family detached home,
and said he was unsure what a study today using the current standard of 10 vehicle trips per day
would indicate. Mr. Stoner said using the existing standard, the traffic on Dunlora Drive at that
point would be approximately 2,420 vehicle trips per day; adding the additional traffic from the
new phase would increase that to 2,860, still below what was projected in the 1987 study.
"This is not to say that a traffic signal is not warranted or doesn't warrant further study," added
Mr. Stoner, "but I just wanted to share with you the results of the ' 87 traffic study."
With respect to the buffer on lot #44, Mr. Stoner said they agree that it would be worthwhile to
preserve the buffer space on the end of that lot. "Our intent there was not to provide direct
access to Dunlora Drive," he said, "it was simply to terminate the private drive into the lot." Mr.
Stoner said regarding lot #41 and its access to the private road, they "don't have any problem
bringing a driveway off that road providing VDOT will accept that."
Mr. Stoner said they do not feel VDOT would respond well to the emergency access becoming a
permanent access point for this property, nor do they feel it's good planning. Mr. Rooker asked
if VDOT was willing to entertain a private entrance there if the developers would look into that.
Mr. Stoner replied, "From our perspective, this development is part of Dunlora, and should
access through the Dunlora gates. A number of lots in this phase will be on Dunlora Drive, and
by their very nature access through the Dunlora gates. We have not at this point exceeded the
traffic that was originally projected for the development, and I'm not sure that second access
point would make sense to the average consumer. I'm not sure they would still perceive they
were in Dunlora. I don't know that we would react favorably to that idea."
Mr. Rooker said, "Well you could actually develop the lots that are on Dunlora Drive off of
Dunlora Drive, and you could develop the rest of this off of another entrance," and added, "there
are a lot of subdivisions that have two different entrances that are very well done, fine
subdivisions."
Mr. Stoner noted that the plan shows a potential connection to the rear of this property that could
ultimately access to Free State Road or an upgraded version of that road. "We could see that as
very viable."
In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Mr. Stoner said they reserved in their initial subdivision
documents the right to add additional property to the subdivision, and to require shared
amenities. Mr. Nitchmann asked if there was discussion of a traffic signal for Dunlora Drive and
Rio Road during the planning process, to which Mr. Stoner responded, "we have not an updated
traffic study done. I think there's certainly interest within the neighborhood to look into that .... I
think at the point that road is four lane, a traffic signal will become almost essential given the
amount of traffic volume that road is carrying." Mr. Stoner said it was not part of the review
AI
process for this particular property, because they are still below the traffic counts originally
projected.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the original proposal for Dunlora contained conditions regarding a light
or sharing of cost for a light. Mr. Sipe responded that as Dunlora is a by -right subdivision, not a
rezoning, there would not have been any proffers. Mr. Keeler stated that VDOT did require a
traffic study back then, and said that since traffic volumes on Rio Road and traffic generation per
unit have changed, VDOT has requested another study, which staff has included as a condition.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that the staff condition "D" will require review of possible signalization at
that intersection.
Mr. Rooker asked how that condition would effect the ability to go forward with the subdivision
irregardless of VDOT's recommendation for a light. Mr. Keeler said the actual installation of a
signal is subject to VDOT; they would not allow installation of a signal until their warrants are
met... in this case, the warrants would be traffic volumes. He further stated the developers would
be required to come to an agreement with VDOT to post a bond with VDOT for installation of
the signal at such time the rra s.were met. p
Mr. Rooker asked what^the mechanism requiring the developer to install the light. In response to
Mr. Rooker's question, Mr. Keeler replied that the applicant does the study which is submitted to
VDOT. Mr. Keeler said if it shows a traffic light is warranted, the expense is the applicants, but
VDOT has a shared expense formula. Mr. Keeler said "This is a little different from other
situations because the signal would be warranted at Rio Road solely based on this subdivision. If
you did not have this subdivision and Dunlora Drive there, you would not have the need for a
traffic signal; therefore, there is no question that it would be substantially generated by this
subdivision. So we're not looking at it as being an off -site improvement, but being a
responsibility of the developer to provide safe and convenient access to Rio Road."
Mr. Rooker clarified, "the approval of the final road plans will follow this study, and if the study
shows the traffic light is necessary at that point, VDOT won't approve the final road plans unless
that traffic light is included as part of the road plans." Mr. Keeler said, "We won't sign the plat
unless there is some arrangement made for the installation of the signal, either immediate or
whenever they say it needs to go in."
Mr. Rieley told the applicant that after on -site and plat observations, he didn't think it would be
possible to create a public road and maintain the proposed lot sizes along that section. Mr.
Stoner said he agreed, and said the right-of-way for a public road might also destroy the wooded
buffer. "I think we wanted something as innocuous as we can develop; I suspect the entrance
that you see there may move slightly uphill from where it's shown on that plan....there's a
natural area for that road to cut in and a natural flat area behind the berm that's at the
road....from our perspective, the objective was to create some wooded buffer there that would
help buffer those houses from the road. The berm there would help hide the private road from
the Dunlora Drive."
Mr. Rooker commented that if there were a public road, the lots could simply front on Dunlora
Drive, and the cut-off road would not be needed.
Public comment was invited, each speaker was given a three -minute time limit.
61)
The first speaker, Gunnar Sedlemiek, a resident of Dunlora, addressed the Commission and
stated the plat presented to them "does not show the existing Dunlora layout." He said that as
Dunlora Drive goes to the north and west, there is a sharp curve and a decline in the elevation,
which raises concerns about visibility for the 6 lots that will be fronting on Dunlora Drive. He
stated that if the developer is allowed to build on the lots on the western side on Dunlora Drive,
the buildings would have to be very close to the road with front -loading garages because the
property drops off very rapidly. Mr. Sedlemiek added that at the intersection of the proposed
road entering onto Dunlora Drive would create a 4-way intersection on a crest of a hill, which
would create another visibility problem for traffic. He referenced the plat and said that the
"pigtail" road shown on the very north end presumably goes on to a future development, which
would dump even more traffic onto the 4-way intersection. Mr. Sedlemiek concluded by
suggesting the Commission consider these issues and ask the developer to replat the lots along
Dunlora Drive and eliminate the access to the further development.
Bill Carswell, a resident of Dunlora, addressed the Commission. He said he is in favor of the use
of the property, but is not comfortable with the plan, specifically the lots on Dunlora Drive. Mr.
Carswell said the 45 mile -per -hour speed planned for Dunlora Drive raises safety concerns, and
said the original subdivision plat changes have put added pressure on the Dunlora and Rio Road
intersection. He said a traffic light is needed there. Mr. Carswell said he is also concerned about
the "pigtail," leading to possible future development. He presented a map to the Commission
(Attachment A) which illustrated present and potential future development for the area. Mr.
Carswell concluded, "With the number of parcels that are owned by development entities that
further push this road towards Free State Road, we're going to have a thoroughfare that's going
to be along the lines of Georgetown Road...."
®�wr Jim Carswell, a resident of Dunlora, addressed the Commission, and referenced the development
map that his son, the previous speaker, presented. Mr. Carswell expressed his concern that his
real concern is not the initial "44" houses planned and the traffic they would generate, but the
possibility of many more houses being added and the traffic they would generate. Mr. Carswell
acknowledged that he signed the covenants and restrictions permitting this addition at the time he
moved to Dunlora, but said "I never dreamed that it would end up as this is, which is going to be
just a plain nightmare for all of us if you consider all those other lots that are above there...." He
concluded, "I think this in the long run is going to be a terrible mistake...." Mr. Carswell also
told the Commission the Meadowcreek Parkway is badly needed.
Mr. Richard Giles, a Dunlora resident, addressed the Commission, and stated that congestion is
obviously an issue. He asked if the rights of existing homeowners could also have rights in
knowing what is planned for the Meadowcreek Parkway, and asked the Commission to consider
another road coming off of Rio Road to access Dunlora. Mr. Giles said from a strategic point of
view, there might be a way to use that road to start Meadowcreek Parkway North. He added that
the added development should be a separate neighborhood, as it was never intended to be part of
Dunlora.
Mr. John Springett, a Dunlora resident, said he attended one of the planning meetings as Mr.
Stoner described, and shared the comments he made at that time with the Commission.
Regarding the Meadowcreek Parkway, "let's not build houses and then tear them down at public
expense." Regarding another road entrance, Mr. Springett said he understood the developer to
tell residents that they were in favor of such a road, but VDOT was not supportive of this. Mr.
Springett said that the developer has "made some accommodations" to the entry of lots onto
6,;
Dunlora Drive, but told Commissioners that there should be no direct driveway entrances to
Dunlora Drive because it is dangerous. Mr. Springett said "the pigtail" has the potential for a
vast amount of traffic, and suggested that a new entryway to the subdivision is needed.
Ms. Betty Spann, a Dunlora resident, addressed the Commission, and said that although there
were meetings held with the Dunlora community, residents did not have a great deal of input into
the development plan. Ms. Spann said the first meeting in October 1997 was a "very heated
discussion meeting," with about 30% of residents in attendance. She said the second meeting
was held at 8:00 a.m., and only provided space for 25 to attend; the third meeting was held
October 27, 1998, with a small percentage of homeowners in attendance. Ms. Spann said
Dunlora residents want the additional property to be developed as a whole separate development,
not a part of Dunlora. "We'd like to maintain what we thought we bought into."
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Nitchmann asked for clarification of the "pigtail" road and its ramifications, and what the
Commission's legal rights are. "I guess my concern here is we've got another Hollymead-Forest
Lakes situation developing here in front of our eyes before it happens: the north doesn't want
the south, the south doesn't want the north, and ....if we approve this and all of these other
properties get approved, you're going to have [a lot] more cars trying to get out to Dunlora
Drive."
Mr. Nitchmann expressed concern about building when there is uncertainty about placement of
the Meadowcreek Parkway. "You're going to build this and sell this and then maybe five years
from now you're going to come back and buy those lots back with my tax dollars .... I understand
the individual has a right to develop his property .... I'm just trying to figure out how we get
ourselves in these pickles. Does this all boil down to VDOT's ability to control everything that
goes on in the state, and to go as slow as they would like to go on certain projects...."
Mr. Davis told Commissioners that the Subdivision Ordinance 14-510 says that one standard to
try and achieve is to coordinate all streets, including coordination with future subdivisions of
adjacent property. "One factor that may play into future subdivisions that are beyond this
property is some of this property may need to be rezoned before it's developed, and that will
certainly give the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors an opportunity to determine
whether or not it should become a part of the subdivision through that legislative process. That
will offer some protections in the future .... I believe some of this property is not zoned to the
density that they would want to develop."
Mr. Nitchmann asked, "Once this road is built then, and somebody else owns the property up
here and wants to do something, we can't force them to go in and widen that road all the way
down there can we."
Mr. Rooker responded, "If that extended road would not serve the capacity of the additional lots
and VDOT standards would require a wider road in order to handle that amount of traffic, then
that developer would be required to improve it all the way out."
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question regarding needing an adequate right-of-way for such a
road, Mr. Keeler stated that as a public road, a 50 foot right-of-way is required, which would
allow up to 4,000 trips. Mr. Davis added that any future development would have to meet safety
64
standards that are dictated by VDOT and by the subdivision ordinance standards for roads.
"Whether or not that would require that road to be upgraded or not is dependent on those
standards, and those standards may not require it unless there was a significant amount of traffic
that was being generated." Mr. Davis added, "In the review process, the county ordinance would
require that there be adequate roads provided for those developments, and may require that there
be access to another roadway as well that would diminish some of the traffic impact on this road.
During the rezoning process, that would certainly be a major factor to look at before any
increased density would be added for these properties, and there may be a solution... [which]
may lie in the future of the Meadowcreek Parkway itself."
Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Davis if the "pigtail" road was intended to extend to Free State Road.
Mr. Davis responded that that was mentioned as a possibility, and added that Free State Road is a
potential access to the undeveloped property, which may be a primary entrance point if they
choose to develop it that way. In response to Mr. Thomas' concern about the one -lane bridge
across the railroad tracks on Free State Road, Mr. Davis said that would have to be addressed
before there would be any major traffic added to the road."
Mr. Sipe added, "The bridge currently places a limit on development of that area .... and I think
the bridge would need to be improved by a developer to achieve any large development." Mr.
Keeler said although he had not looked at the Dunlora file recently, he recalled the original
preliminary plat as approved for the entire development required connection of the properties to
the west, and the connection was farther back in Dunlora then what's being proposed now.
Mr. Rieley asked if there were unconnected "pigtails" in the existing Dunlora. Mr. Keeler
responded, "No, not at this time. I believe the condition was phrased that after a certain section,
they had to provide access — an emergency connection out to the west .... that plat was approved
in ' 87, that was before the code amendment that gave preliminary plats a 5-year life span .... this
is not an uncommon situation where in the initial planning stages try to get access to other
properties and it sounds like a good idea initially; later on it's not well -received.... it's something
we've recently worked for in a couple of developments out in Crozet..... interconnectivity is the
buzzword that's being used."
Mr. Rooker asked, "Do we have the right to require this subdivision to enter off of its own entry
onto Rio Road as opposed to coming through the existing Dunlora Subdivision?" He added,
"We've got at least 100 people here who live in the existing subdivision who have asked for
that."
Mr. Davis responded, "I think you could only require that if you found that the road as its
proposed does not meet the standards that are required by the ordinance and VDOT, and I
believe staff s analysis is that the road that's shown does meet those standards. Imposing that as
an alternative to a road that otherwise meets the standards of the ordinance, I think you have to
be very careful in doing that."
Mr. Rooker clarified, "The applicant could decide to do that but we don't have the power to
require him to do that, is that what we're saying?"
Mr. Davis responded, "I think the road that they've designed has met the standards of the
subdivision ordinance, and I think....VDOT may have problems with another entrance on Rio
AS
Road....they want to limit access points to a busy road." He added that he believes the Planning
Department would have some concerns about this as well.
Mr. Keeler said, "I think we would want to consult with VDOT and the county engineering
department. The distance from Dunlora to the access road is about 425 feet, which is not an
adequate distance on a four -lane divided highway for two crossovers; it's clearly not an adequate
distance for two traffic signals. So you would have competing entrances there, and... if it does
turn out that more land is served beyond this point, the new entrance very well could be the one
to receive a crossover and a signal when the road is improved. I don't know, that's why I'd like
to talk that notion over with VDOT and engineering before that type of decision was made."
Mr. Rooker said, "If this subdivision has its own entrance, it would take that traffic off of the
other entrance, and you probably would not need a red light at that entrance; you might not need
a red light at either entrance."
Mr. Keeler responded, "I understand that some in Dunlora want a signal. Maybe the way to get
it is to have a little more traffic. It may simply come down to that with VDOT."
Mr. Rooker referenced a petition signed by 94 people who have asked that the subdivision have
its own entrance, and a number of letters that have comments the same way, and added that he is
trying to determine whether it is a viable alternative to require the subdivision to have its own
entrance, and whether or not we have the capacity to do that.
Mr. Davis said, "I think you'd have to identify a significant safety problem that's justified by a
traffic study or design problem that would say that it would be unsafe to have the entrance where
it is, and to then be able to justify the alternate access....based on the staff analysis, I don't think
that they find that condition to be unsafe."
Mr. Rooker asked if they could use the opinions of the residents who spoke at the public hearing
who believe the road configuration to be unsafe.
Mr. Davis responded, "I think it's what you believe is what's significant to be able to verify
that."
Mr. Nitchmann stated, "That's why we have our engineering department and staff to tell us
that..."
Mr. Finley clarified that VDOT initially approved the design of the road based on the capacity
with the additional development as presented by the applicant. "It seems like we can't really
decide on that [additional road] until we know what the VDOT decision would be, what the
analysis would show."
Mr. Loewenstein asked, "What about the factor of dramatically changed traffic conditions on Rio
Road itself since that study was done 1 I years ago that have no relationship even to the existing
Dunlora....to what degree and in what way can we factor that into our decision? It seems to me
we're not just talking about traffic that's entering and exiting Dunlora. We're also talking about
the traffic that's going by Dunlora in either direction from and to somewhere else. Rio Road has
A4401 been significantly upgraded since 1987. A great deal of additional development has gone in just
north of this over time — both commercial and residential. One of the things that concerns me
66
about this is that the traffic study is so old. How do we make a determination taking that into
account?"
Mr. Davis said that the condition recommended by staff which would require a traffic study
update will probably address that concern, especially pertaining to the traffic light requirement
for that intersection, "which is probably going to be more of a factor for traffic on Rio Road than
traffic generated from this subdivision....I suspect that the additional traffic on Rio Road will
probably lend more credence to the fact that they would want to eliminate curb cuts to Rio Road
than anything else."
Mr. Rooker said, "We're approving more and more vehicle trips per day pouring into Rio Road
which will go south. ...and that road is a disaster...." He stated that the recently installed
guardrails that took years for VDOT to agree to are "a minor improvement to a road that's way
overburdened." He added he is concerned about the "public health, safety and welfare" attached
to putting additional traffic on this overburdened road. "The one improvement that would
alleviate some of this traffic is the Meadowcreek Parkway, and they're talking about basically
covering up the north part of it....this development is out in front of the Meadowcreek Parkway
going south pouring traffic on a road that's overburdened. Assuming the Meadowcreek Parkway
is not built for some reason, that is a disastrous traffic situation."
Mr. Rooker concluded, "He is proposing to build on the proposed Meadowcreek Parkway going
north. It seems to me there are some public health, safety and welfare concerns here. If we just
look at this in isolation, this is a subdivision as a matter of right; but if you look at it with respect
to existing traffic problems, I wonder whether or not there is some further control that we can
exercise."
Mr. Davis informed the Commission, "If this was a rezoning before you, those would be
pertinent factors for you to consider what those impacts would be, but since this is a by -right
development, those off -site impacts which are not substantially created by this development
would be inappropriate for you to tie to this development under current law in Virginia."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "So the bottom line is basically... do we like the proposed private road here
or not, save the four lots, because we can't do a heck of a lot about the rest of it."
Mr. Davis confirmed, "I think the staff analysis is it meets the standards of the subdivision
ordinance...."
Mr. Nitchmann stated, "So if we say we don't like the proposed private [road], the developer can
say `I'll just dump the four or five lots on Dunlora Drive and go on my way' and there's nothing
legal we can do to stop him there...."
Mr. Rieley acknowledged that he thinks VDOT will not grant another access that close to
Dunlora because of the existing nature of Rio Road, but added, "I can see a time 20 years down
the road with a Meadowcreek Parkway Phase II in place in which the character of that road is
completely different, and it is serving much higher density of uses along its margins, and in fact
it is more like a city street .... in that case a 400-foot intersection is nothing.... is there a way we
can plan for concerns of people here to not consign all future development that is going to occur
'mom- to the north onto Dunlora Drive and plan for a connection that will make some sense onto Rio
67
Road....can we leave the door open for that by making this emergency access a right-of-way that
can be dedicated to public use so it can be exercised sometime in the future...."
Mr. Davis responded that the Commission could require that the emergency access road have the
width that might accommodate a future dedication of roadway, but said the alignment of
Meadowcreek Parkway in the future may have a serious impact on that access.
Mr. Finley asked if the condition requiring VDOT approval of road plans would address the 50-
foot right-of-way.
Mr. Davis said that condition "M" requiring county staff approved road plans would address the
emergency access road width and right-of-way. Mr. Sipe added, "The access easement is
currently provided at 30 feet, which is our minimum standard for roads generally, and they
would need to be 50."
Mr. Keeler asked if the entire access easement is on applicant -owned land, or down the property
line. Mr. Stoner replied, "It is shown on an existing property line between Mrs. Haynie's
property and Mrs. Fowler's property....Mrs. Fowler owns a strip which is 20 feet wide; we have
asked for an additional 30 feet adjacent to that which is owned by Mrs. Fowler's daughters, so it
may be possible to get an easement or acquisition of that property."
Mr. Rooker asked why the building lots on the western side of the main subdivision road are
shown close to the road. Mr. Sipe replied, "The applicant has chosen where to indicate a general
building site. We did question some of the lots, but those were on the east side where there are
steep slopes on the lots and we made the applicant furnish calculations of the building site area.
So we were satisfied that all of the lots shown will meet the building site requirements, and we
will do that again in the final plat process, but there was not requirement in our design that made
those lots shaped the way they are...."
Mr. Rooker said, "If that road were to become the Meadowcreek Parkway, those lots are built
awfully close to the road."
Mr. Sipe said those lots would be impacted by the parkway on its western -most possible
alignment, and stated the applicant indicated he would develop those lots last, but "we didn't
receive any commitment on that in writing."
Mr. Nitchmann asked what VDOT said about the plan given the proposed parkway.
Mr. Sipe responded, "That's really a land use issue for the county because that's a county -
planned road not a VDOT-planned road, and it's reserved in our Comprehensive Plan as a
generalized corridor. The county would have to have more specific engineering or some
alignment study to require reservations. VDOT didn't comment on that particularly. We did
take a look at the possible impact of this and run that by them also. They just sort of validated
our work."
Mr. Rieley said he agreed with Mr. Nitchmann's concerns about the proposed parkway. "I don't
what the alignment study would have cost, but it's going to be a hell of a lot less than tearing
1**011 down a lot of houses to put this roadway through."
p�I
Mr. Davis reported that the county is looking at a way to advance a process to determine where
an alignment can be and "hopefully that can be resolved shortly." He added that the developers
have agreed to delay development of some of these lots to see if the corridor can be determined
in a way that some planning sense can be made. "We're taking those comments very seriously
and trying to do something about it."
Mr. Nitchmann said, "So it's really not VDOT....it's us that's the potential of all of these future
problems that could exist because we're dragging our feet on trying to decide where the
Meadow[creek] Parkway should go?"
Mr. Davis replied, "The process for building this type of road... VDOT supplies all the money,
and generally you do not acquire a design corridor until the project is advanced to a point where
you are in a position to then acquire a right-of-way and move forward with construction. The
timeline that is required to accumulate the kind of money for this road construction, that's
probably 17 years out unless we can find resources to advance that. The county now is trying to
come up with a process where we can at least set the design corridor so that any development
that happens along this now....can be coordinated so that the parkway can be preserved and we
do not have to take lots in the future, and don't have to have any kind of economic waste of the
development that might occur in the next 17 years before we can actually fund the parkway as
we envision it."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if discussions are underway with VDOT to make this a primary road.
Mr. Davis said that would certainly advance the funding significantly, and that would be one
way to speed up the process.
Mr. Rooker reported that several members of the Commonwealth Transportation Board outside
of the district had told him it would be possible to get it funded as a primary road, but local
members have not been able to do a whole lot about it.
In response to Mr. Thomas' question about placement of the lots in the subdivision given the
proposed parkway, Mr. Davis replied that it is up to the applicant to choose whether to develop
those lots because it's already zoned and he can meet the ordinance requirements and plat those
lots. "Whether or not he can market those lots knowing that the Meadowcreek Parkway may go
through there within the next 20 years is a problem that he'll have to deal with."
Mr. Finley asked staff if engineering had to approve the right-angle bend in the private road, and
if not, how the lots might be reconfigured. "Would there be any way of re-routing the private
road to get buffer all the way along Dunlora and maybe even tie in to the main loop... and have
one exit to Dunlora."
Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of County Engineering, addressed the Commission, and said he
examined the possibility of an alternate way to access the roads with another private road or
public road, and said his only conclusion was possibly coming off the main road going back into
the proposed development with another road and access the lots from the rear; the only problem
would be construction there on critical slopes. "That would have more detriment than allowing
them to have driveways coming directly onto Dunlora Drive." Mr. Kelsey added, "If you try to
come up with a private road off of that same public road, then you would be serving more than 5
lots, and that would require that the private road be built to public road standards."
Mr. Loewenstein clarified, "Extending the private road would be the most degrading; the second
most degrading would be individual driveways onto Dunlora; and the least degrading would be a
private driveway more or less as shown."
Mr. Rieley commented that a fourth option could be not having any at all.
Mr. Finely asked about the right angle turn on the road, and Mr. Kelsey replied, "we'd have to
work with that... in private road standards there is a site distance requirement that has to be
met... it might not be able to be quite as sharp as shown... we'll have to make sure proper radius
is put in there. We'll have to look at the grade as you come around that bend to make sure you
can see cars coming in the opposite direction."
In response to Mr. Rooker's question about VDOT standards for driveway entrances onto public
roads, Mr. Kelsey stated that VDOT has some entrance standards for the appearance of the
entrance, and consider the site distance available.
Mr. Finley asked if there were a lot of trees on the remaining three lots along Dunlora. Mr.
Kelsey said the whole area along Dunlora Drive has mature hardwoods.
Ms. Washington said that although the Dunlora residents did not want the additional
development added to the subdivision, the staff report indicated that this was something that the
owner had the right to add to Dunlora.
Mr. Keeler confirmed that the applicant reserved the right in the original declarations to add land
Now to Dunlora. Ms. Washington said the current property owners "really have no say whether they
make this parcel a part of Dunlora or not. They can't stop making this Fowler property part of
Dunlora because of what was stated years ago."
Mr. Keeler replied, "I don't think the county can. Even if you don't approve the road
connection, I think they reserve the right to call this part of Dunlora...."
Mr. Rieley commented, "I am deeply conflicted on this one .... there really is no public road
alternative here, and our benchmark for determining whether a private road is appropriate is its
measure of degradation relative to a public road, and since there's not public road to measure it
against, I can't make my usual plea for a careful comparison of the two. I'm also a little t1
concerned that this is application of a private road to a situation where it may not fit very
well... quite small lots for which we've been trying to encourage sidewalks, and urba gutter, and
real urban scale amenities. Here we have a proposal for lots in a new development for lots of
that scale built on a 14-foot wide roadway, the cheapest road that is allowable... "
He added that a lot probably would n i u p ab y end up being dropped based on his review of the plan and
proposed road, and expressed concern about the steepness of the land behind the lots where the
houses will lie.
Mr. Rieley stated, "I frankly would have preferred to see, although we have no authority to
require it, I certainly would have preferred to see what we have seen in other developments in
A*W. which there is an existing development of an existing tone and scale and at least repeating that
tone and scale on the other side of the road....."
70
"On the issue of the private road," Mr. Rieley concluded, "I'm reluctantly ready to concede on
that one, but I think that we should absolutely require the 50-foot wide right-of-way to be
reserved for existing emergency access and the future public road connection."
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded approval of the private
road request pertinent to SUB 98-160 (Dunlora Subdivision). In a 5-2 vote, the motion passed,
with Ms. Washington and Mr. Thomas dissenting.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of SUB 98-160 (Preliminary
Plat for Dunlora Phase 3a) with conditions set forth by staff and additional changes: staff
Condition `B" modified to include the language "include review of a traffic study to determine if
a traffic light is warranted at the intersection of Dunlora and Rio Road"; with staff Condition "N"
modified to say that "future construction of the Meadowcreek Parkway may require the taking of
lots for the construction of this highway"; and additional language added to staff Condition "M"
to state "applicant to provide property with a minimum width of 50 feet to the emergency access
easement with such property to be dedicated upon demand of the county for public use and be
noted on the plat as such." The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioners emphasized their hesitation in approving these items, stating that they were not
particularly pleased with the plan itself, the traffic flow, the potential for impact on existing
neighborhoods, or the impact on the proposed Meadowcreek Parkway. Commissioners agreed
that after discussions with staff and the County Attorney that they do not have a legal basis to
deny the plan.
Mr. Loewenstein said, "I am convinced that probably there is a better plan. I'm sorry that it's
not possible for us to get it."
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
V. Wayne Cilimberg
Secretary
71