Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 05 1996 PC Minutes091 MARCH 5, 1996 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 5, 1996, Meeting Room 5-6, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Bill Nitchmann, Chair; Mr. Bruce Dotson, Vice Chair; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. David Tice; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ron Lilley, Senior Planner; Mr. John Shepherd, Planner; Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. Mr. Cilimberg summarized actions taken at the February 21st Board of Supervisors meeting. CONSENT AGENDA Nations Bank at Rio Road Site Plan Modification Request - To allow one-way circulation to serve the drive-thru lanes and rear parking area for the bank. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Tice seconded, that the Consent Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously. Forest Lakes South, Sections 6, 7 & 8 Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Proposal to create 35 lots in Section 6, 16 lots in Section 7, 19 lots in Section 8 for a total of 70 lots averaging .227 acres and a Common Area of 10.47 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 45135, Parcel 1 (portion), is located in Forest Lakes South on the North side of Ashwood Boulevard just past the Ashland Townhouses. This site is zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is recommended for low density residential (1 to 4 dwelling units per acre). Mr. Shepherd presented the staff report. He explained the item was before the Commission at the request of an adjacent property owner who has concerns about additional traffic on Powell Creek Drive which will result from the proposed entrance onto Powell Creek Drive rather than Ashwood Blvd. The report explained staff met with the Chief of Engineering about this concern. It was his opinion that "the Powell Creek entrance is superior to any entrance location on Ashwood Boulevard due to the topography of the site." Specifically, "the Powell Creek entrance is at a convenient grade that takes advantage of the existing topography to serve the lots. ...a road from Ashwood Boulevard would have a grade of approximately 11 % from the entrance to the intersection of Roads 8A and 8B." Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions. Mr. Jack Kelsey, County Chief of Engineering, answered the Commission's questions about the topography of the property, particularly about grades and the grade differentials, etc. He explained that the proposed entrance location on Powell Creek "makes the best sense" because it allows access at the same elevation as the top of the ridge lines. An access from Ashwood Boulevard would have a very steep angle and would also result in very steep driveways on some of the lots. Ms. Huckle asked about the width of the cul-de-sac roads. She was concerned they would not be wide enough to allow on -street parking which will be needed to accommodate parking for residents' visitors. Mr. Kelsey said the shoulder would be wide enough to allow parking. [NOTE: Later in the meeting the applicant's representative, Mr. Don Franco, said that on -street parking is not allowed in this development.] [NOTE: Many of Ms. Huckle's comments are inaudible on the tape of this meeting.] The applicant was represented by Mr. Don Franco. He offered additional information about additional grading, etc. which would be required if access were through Ashwood Blvd. He said the grade differential would be four or five times greater. Mr. Franco commented on various possibilities which were offered by the Commission, explaining the problems with each. Additional comments and answers to Commission questions included the following: --The roads are being designed to meet'96 State road standards--i.e. a "curb and gutter section, 22-24 feet wide." On -street parking is prohibited within the Forest Lakes covenants and the roads will not be designed to accommodate on -street parking. He said, however, that if a vehicle were parked on both sides of the road, a vehicle "might be able to squeeze through.,[NOTE: Later in the meeting, another representative of the applicant, Mr. Steve Runkle, disagreed with this description and said that a vehicle, including emergency vehicles, will be able to pass between parked vehicles even with vehicles parked on both sides.] --This proposed plan is consistent with the PUD and Master Plan of the rezoning which was approved several years ago. No waivers or modifications are being requested. Public comment was invited. Ms. JoAnne Ebersall, a resident of South Forest Lakes, expressed concerns about additional traffic on Powell Creek Drive and the safety hazard, particularly to school children, which will be the result of this additional traffic. (It was Ms. Ebersall's letter which called this item before the Commission.) Mr. Robert Nelson, Assistant Emergency Services Coordinator for Albemarle County and a resident of Poe's Lane/Hollymead, addressed the Commission. His concerns .r and comments included the following: --Impact to the floodplain and the design of the causeway crossing. --The road has been significantly "under -designed" by the developer. Delivery trucks often block the roadway. --On-street parking is a necessity; --Opening the causeway over the dam to traffic will result in increased traffic problems. --The development of these lots will require that they be "stripped" of their existing vegetation. --Is there a need for the emergency access road which is planned? (Mr. Shepherd explained the Zoning Ordinance requires developments of 50 or more lots to have at least 2 connections to public streets.) Ms. Anne O'Neil, a resident of Poe's Lane/Hollymead, asked about the buffer between this development and Hollymead. It was her belief that the developer had promised a 50-foot buffer between the two subdivisions. She wondered when that had changed to 20 - 25 feet. Mr. Franco explained that the rezoning requires that areas developed which are adjacent to Hollymead (including Sections 7 and 8) be single-family, detached dwellings. There is no requirement for a buffer zone between residential developments with like density. However, the developer has created a 20-foot buffer, ,%W with the intent of leaving the trees, which is in excess of what is required. On the issue of the floodplain, Mr. Franco explained: "What is shown and labeled as a 'floodplain' is not a floodplain associated with this creek. Rather, it is a floodplain which is being created in order to comply with the stormwater detention requirements.... We are increasing impervious area. Our control point is this stream so we are required to provide detention in order to compensate for the impervious area and the excess runoff. We reduce it by containing it here (he pointed to the plan). The detention is something that exists now. What we are doing is taking advantage of the existing detention embankment --it is a dry pond --and we are coming across that pond as opposed to creating another crossing (of an active stream) further down.... What you see outlined there is the existing floodplain associated with that detention structure." In response to Mr. Finley's question, Mr. Franco confirmed this is a "dry" detention area. On the issue of the adequacy of the design of Powell Creek Drive, Mr. Franco said a 22-foot wide, rural section roadway was approved --a Class 4 pavement design. The road is currently to state standards for 751 to 1,500 vehicle trips/day. The existing and planned development of Powell Creek totals 360 vtpd, with 1,200 vtpd for cross -traffic movement. He could not comment on potential additional capacity, but he said the 50- foot right-of-way allows plenty of room for expansion. Ms. Washington asked if there was any way to trigger a traffic study for Powell Creek Drive. Being a resident of Hollymead, she said there is an excessive amount of traffic on this road and it is sure to increase as future development takes place. Mr. Cilimberg said the Engineering Department and VDOT had looked at the traffic on Powell Creek at the time the connecting road was considered. He said the adequacy of Powell Creek Drive will be studied again (at the expense of the developer) when an additional rezoning for the property on the opposite side of Powell Creek is proposed. The results of that study will be a factor in the consideration of the rezoning at that time. Ms. Ebersall expressed opposition to any widening of Powell Creek Drive because she thought it would invite even more traffic which will travel at higher speeds. Mr. Nitchmann asked about the possibility of a grade -separated pedestrian crossing for Powell Creek Drive. Mr. Franco said he was not aware of any discussions about such a crossing at this location. He recalled the same idea had been discussed for the proposed Southern Parkway (in the vicinity of the Mill Creek development), with an estimated cost of three-quarters of a million dollars. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that a pedestrian pathway currently exists along one side of Powell Creek Drive. He said any future expansion of the road would have to provide for pedestrian access because that was a condition of approval for the South Forest Lakes development. Mr. Tice asked Mr. Franco to comment on the possibility of an access to Section 8 by extending "road 713" rather than by Powell Creek. Mr. Franco said several possibilities had been considered, including the one suggested by Mr. Tice. He said that though such an access could be constructed to VDOT standards, it would involve "massive clearing". He concluded: "It has been an access as well as a grading and clearing issue which has driven us to look at (the option proposed)." Mr. Nitchmann asked how the County's requirements have influenced this proposed access point. Mr. Franco replied: "The aesthetics is not what we're trying to create by grading out this whole area. Those parameters are being driven by both VDOT and the County requirements for state road design as well as access to the lots. There is a lot of focus right now to provide off-street parking, to make sure it's successful. Again, to meet those standards, we're not talking 2:1 or 3:1 slopes or driveway grades, because that's 50%. We're talking about being down in the 16% range which is in excess of 5:1 slopes --it's closer to 6:1...." Ms. Huckle asked if VDOT has changed any requirements for the radii dimensions of cul-de-sacs. Mr. Franco said this plan has been developed under VDOT's new design standards. He explained that a tight radius does not help reduce grading when rolling terrain is present. Mr. Steve Runkle, representing the applicant, addressed the Commission. He reminded the Commission of the history of the connector road (Powell Creek Drive). He said the road was proffered during the rezoning. The proffer was "strongly recommended" by staff, the Commission and the Board. It was to provide access to the neighborhood and *'"` also a second point of access to Hollymead and Sutherland schools. Part of the .;- 6 consideration at that time was in response to Hollymead residents' desire to diminish traffic on Hollymead Drive. That reduction to traffic volume has occurred as a result of this road. He stressed that the applicant is not requesting an increase in density. He pointed out the road has been designed to accommodate the ultimate density of the rezoning. He acknowledged the proposed access point will result in more useable lots, but he pointed out that this plan is more in keeping with the goal of the Comprehensive Plan to achieve as much density as possible in the growth areas and it results in the least environmental degradation. Access onto Ashwood Blvd. would result in some lots being very difficult to access because of steep driveways, and the loss of two lots. He stressed that it has always been known that "this would be the second point of access for the schools." Regarding the 20-foot buffer area, Mr. Runkle said the developer has commonly provided 20-foot common areas. He could not recall if it was proffered in the rezoning or not. He hoped the buffer area could be wider, but he could not promise that it would. On the issue of emergency access. Mr. Runkle commented: "I agree there ought to be multiple points of contact to neighborhoods when feasible. In Albemarle County there are multiple situations where more than 50 lots are generated with no feasible second point of access, but that is a requirement in the Zoning Ordinance. ... I don't know what is magic about the number 50, but it seems to me the line can be better drawn by what is reasonable given the development situation and the physical ability to create more than one point of access...." Someone asked Mr. Runkle if there was any plan to bring the emergency access road up to state standards. Mr. Runkle could not answer definitively. He repeated that if the development exceeds 50 lots the developer will have to provide a second point of access and if this emergency road is the most reasonable point of access, and it is accessible to the developer, it may be that it will be constructed as a gravel and grass "pad" with a chain across it. If that road is not available to the developer, the alternative will be "to divide this road through this first intersection." (He pointed to the location on the plan.) Mr. Shepherd quoted from the 1991 rezoning: No lot within the property will front on or have direct access to any road in the Hollymead PUD." He explained: "That means that while there could be an emergency access through there, there is no contemplation of building a full-blown road that will connect to Poe's Lane." Mr. Runkle stressed that the applicant has tried to do what the County has wanted throughout this development. On the issue of on -street parking, he said it is difficult to prevent on -street parking because of enforcement problems. He pointed out that each lot will have at least 2 off- street parking spaces --garage space is not counted in meeting this requirement --and many lots will have room for more than 2 spaces. There is no doubt, however, that people will still park on the street, but he did not think on -street parking will create any type of unsafe situation. Mr. Robert Nelson was allowed to speak again. He expressed concerns about drainage from this development causing problems on property on the opposite side of Rt. 29 which is scheduled for future development. Mr. Kelsey explained that future development will be required to provide on -site detention for each particular site so that post -development runoff does not exceed pre -development conditions. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Though Mr. Dotson expressed appreciation for citizen concerns, he said additional development will result in additional traffic, and that traffic will be present regardless of the access point for this section of the development. Having been made aware of the topographic concerns, he said he would support staffs recommendation for approval. He anticipated the citizens would make their concerns known again at the time of the next rezoning for this area. Mr. Loewenstein expressed his agreement with Mr. Dotson's statements. He expressed concerns about existing traffic problems on Powell Creek Drive, but said he was "reasonably convinced" that the proposed access to Section 8 is appropriate. He said he would feel more comfortable if more were known about the timing of future improvements to Powell Creek Drive. He said future requests for development south of Sections 6, 7 and 8 will depend upon the improvement of Powell Creek Drive, with the maintenance of pedestrian access. He concluded he would support staffs recommendation for approval. Mr. Finley said he did not see much difference in access on Powell Creek Drive vs. access on Ashwood Blvd. He understood the citizens' concern, but said the traffic will be present regardless of the access point. Mr. Nitchmann said he supported staffs recommendation. Ms. Washington agreed. MOTION: Ms. Washington moved that the Forest Lakes South, Sections 6, 7 and 8 Preliminary Subdivision Plat be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. Final plat will be subject to Albemarle County Engineering review of all relevant plat requirements and the following conditions: a. [18-52(d) Albemarle County Engineering Policy] Note A must be modified to reduce the 10' dimension beyond the floodplain, or state "unless otherwise approved by Albemarle County Engineering." b. [18-52(d) & (e)] The existing Ashland Townhouses detention basin easement must be shown with the deed book and page number referenced on this preliminary plat. The reference to Note A must be removed, as this easement exists and will not be a condition of the plat for sections 6, 7 and 8. c. [18-52(d) & (e)] Permanent drainage easements are required over the outfall channels in the Open Space of sections 7 and 8. The necessity of an easement in the swale between sections 7 and 8 can be assessed with a site visit and addressed with road plans and final plat. The option of incorporating easement language into the notes for the open space can also be addressed with the final plat. d. [18-55(m)] County Engineering approval of an erosion control plan. e. [18-55(m)] Albemarle County Engineering approval of final public road plans and drainage computations. f. [18-55(m)] VDOT approval of public road plans and drainage computations. g. [18-55(m)] Albemarle County Engineering approval of revised detention plans and computations. The basin road 7A, developed with Thornridge, will need to be recalculated and perhaps revised due to the proposed improvements. The "C" values used in the previous analysis for the basin next to section 6, developed with Ashland Townhouses, must be verified. h. [18-55(m)] Albemarle County Engineering receipt of a copy and proof of recordation of a revised stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Maintenance Agreement. i. [18-55(m)] Roads built or bonded in accordance with the approved final public road plans. 2. [32.7.2.4] Sections 6 and 7 have more than 50 lots. Therefore, reasonably direct vehicular access shall be provided from sections 6 and 7 to two public street connections. An emergency access can be provided from Poe's Lane in Hollymead, subject to the approval of Bruce Crow, Assistant Fire Marshall, and Engineering approval of the design. 3. Pursuant to the letter from Tom Gale to Yolanda Hipski, dated February 1, 1995, submit a phased conceptual plan showing "Stop Awhiles" and pedestrian path locations. Final plat approval will be subject to approval of this plan by the Agent. 4. [18-36] Indicate the locations of fire hydrants. Fire hydrants must be provided so that all portions of all lot frontages are within 400' of a hydrant. Im 5. [18-26] Verify that adequate fireflow is available. Required fireflow is 1,000 gmp @ 20 psi. 6. Final water and sewer plans are required for Albemarle County Service Authority review and approval prior to granting tentative approval. 7. [32.7.6.1 ] The proposed emergency access road on the Northeast section of the property should also indicate any proposed improvements, how it plans to tie in to the paved street, any design specifications including a cross section of the road's base. Also, a copy of any maintenance agreement specifying who will be the responsible party to maintain said emergency access after buildout should be provided if this road is not to be maintained by VDOT. 8. Be advised that two off-street parking spaces are required for each dwelling. This may involve details during road plan approval for certain lots. Mr. Dotson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. WORK SESSION Comprehensive Plan - Human Services *ftw Mr. Benish introduced Ms. Roxanne White, Assistant County Executive, who presented an update of the Human Services Plan. The Plan was accepted by the Board of Supervisors in October 1995. Staff was seeking Commission comment on the incorporation of the Human Services Plan into the Comprehensive Plan. It was staffs intent to incorporate this plan into the Comp Plan by reference and to highlight only the over-riding mission statement, principles and goals of the Plan. Commission comments, suggestions, and requests included the following: --Mr. Nitchmann asked about funding particulars, i.e. how much does the County fund in these areas, how much of that funding is under the complete control of the County, how much is given to charitable organizations, how are decisions made as to which programs to fund? He asked how it was determined that the appointment of an oversight group is needed and exactly what will this group oversee. He was concerned about the possible creation of another level of bureaucracy to be funded by tax dollars at some future time. --Mr. Finley asked how much control is envisioned for the oversight group. --Mr. Loewenstein thought an appointed oversight group could provide for a better on -going evaluation of existing and future programs and result in better coordination of resources. He favored more effort being spent to determine the effectiveness of programs. --Mr. Nitchmann asked: "When is it time for the government to turn over some of these social services or community action activities to the private sector?" --Mr. Dotson felt the education of the population is an important aspect of Human Services. He suggested the addition of another Goal to address the education of non - clients. --Ms. Huckle thought a section on Family Planning should be a part of the Human Services Plan. She felt this is the key to solving all the other problems addressed in the document. --Ms. Huckle wondered it was premature to incorporate this Human Services document into the Comp Plan before all questions raised by the Commission have been answered. --Ms. Washington commended staff for their work on the development of the Human Services Plan. She felt there is a need for more detailed networking and a need for an oversight group which will oversee the implementation of the Plan. She said more emphasis needs to be placed on "prevention and intervention." She said more progress will be made if the effort is by a "total unit" trying to bring about change. Working as separate entities results in a "band -aid" effect. She hoped the Board of Supervisors and the Planning Commission will be supportive of this initiative. --Mr. Andersen agreed with Ms. Washington's statements. He felt the focus should be on the goals and objectives listed in the document. --Mr. Finley wondered how much control an appointed oversight group might have over non-profit, volunteer organizations such as church groups, etc. (Ms. White said the intent of this document is to focus on targeting the County's resources, though it is hoped that private groups will want to be a part of this network.) Mr. Dotson suggested that rather than re -stating the goals, objectives and strategies of this Human Services Plan in the Comp Plan, perhaps it should be the Commission's role to develop language which will describe how this document relates to the other components of the Comp Plan, i.e. Land Use, Accessibility, Transportation, Housing, Rural Policy, etc. "What is the relevance of this? How is it going to effect our decisions? What questions should we be asking as we make our decisions?" He said it is really not the role of the Commission to become involved in the actual workings of the services addressed in this document. He asked if staff could draft some language with this approach in mind. Mr. Tice agreed with Mr. Dotson. He said the Commission should identify areas of concern, but its main focus should be relevance to the other parts of the Comp Plan. Mr. Loewenstein said he was comfortable with "two levels of text." He felt it was important that the Comp Plan text be accessible to and understandable by the general population. Public comment was invited. V 3-5-96 10 Ms. Lois Rochester, a member of the League of Women Voters and a participant in the development of the Human Services Plan, addressed the Commission. She recalled the League, over a year ago, had supported the following: (1) More emphasis on Human Services in the Comp Plan; (2) The development and periodic updating of a social database so as to provide a basis for decision making; (3) The appointment of a city/county citizen oversight group; and (4) The development of strategies for the more efficient and effective delivery of services. She felt the completion of this document shows that great progress has been made and is a step in the right direction. She commended Ms. White for her work on this project. She stressed that the League feels strongly that there should be an appointed oversight committee. Mr. John Dawson, representing the Children & Youth Commission, urged the Commission to support the Human Services Plan. It was decided this topic would be discussed at another work session to be scheduled, possibly, on the last Tuesday of March. MISCELLANEOUS Meeting Time, Place, Day - The Commission unanimously voted that the meeting time, place and day would remain the same, i.e. Tuesday, 7:00 p.m., County Office Building. Monticello High School - The Commission asked staff to arrange for the County Engineer to present a status report on this project. Mr. Nitchmann asked for specific information on road location, impact to intersections, and other development plans for the surrounding area. Mr. Cilimberg was to arrange a presentation for either March 12th or the last meeting of March. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. 4WayneXilimberg(,Se cr tary 1.