Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 08 1994 PC Minutes3-8-94 MARCH 8, 1994 1 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March 8, 1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms. Katherine Imhoff; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. ]uanDiego Wade, Transportation Planner; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. NOTE: Because the applicant had not yet arrived, the first item (Rivanna Ridge preliminary Plat) was postponed until later in the meeting. Six -Year Secondw Roar{ Plan - Review and approval of recommended priority list for secondary road projects to be included in the Virginia Department of Transportation Six -Year Secondary Road Plan. Mr. Benish presented the staff report. He pointed out changes which staff had made to the list since the previous meeting_ Those changes were: (1) Grassmere Road/Grade RR Xing was moved up to position 22. (2) The addition of one project --Intersection of Rt. 795 and 790, at the Stoney Point Subdivision. Staff suggested (if the Commission wished to include it) that it be placed above position 23, which would place it out of the Six -Year financial plan, but it would be the first project outside the plan, making it a "relatively high ranking." Specific Commission concerns were as follows: --Ms. Huckle asked for an explanation of the history of a traffic signal at the intersection of Rio and Hillsdale roads (which was part of additional monies allocated for Priority 1). Mr. Keeler explained that the County had held a bond for the signal for many years but the intersection had not met VDOT's warrants (in terms of traffic count) to require a signal. The developer had asked the Board to either install the light or release his bond. Mr. Benish was not certain about the status of the bond. Staff was not prepared to address the current status of this issue at any greater length on such short notice. Ms. Huckle was concerned that the light was now going to be installed at taxpayers' expense. Staff offered to check into the status of the bond and report back to the Commission. Mr. Keeler pointed out that the bond was only a very small part of the cost of the installation of the signal. Mr. Blue also expressed an interest in knowing whether or not VDOT's formula for figuring the warrants .have changed or, rather, has the Iand use changed, --Mr. Blue asked why there was a discrepancy between the County's projected cost of 7q 3-8-94 2 the Meadow Creek Parkway ($72,000,000) and VDOT's projected cost ($28,000,000). Staff explained that VDOT was using an old projection (based on a concept projected in the CAT Study) which did not take into consideration the County consultant's report. Mr. Benish stated that VDOT is willing to reflect the consultant's estimate in their plan, if that is the County's preference. Mr. Blue felt, also, that part of the discrepancy lies in the "route that the consultant picked." He pointed out that the County's figure was 5 or 6 times as costly, per mile. He noted that if the consultant's figures are correct, it is "a good reason why a number of Commissioners were very reluctant to approve the Meadow Creek Parkway north of Rio Road, not only because of citizen disapproval and some other things, but also on the basis of cost." Mr. Blue concluded that if VDOT's figure is more accurate, it would make a big difference as to his feelings about its placement in the priority list. (Mr. Wade pointed out that the consultants looked at the alignment much more carefully than did VDOT and that could account for some of the difference in the figures. He confirmed that VDOT's figure did not include the "T" connectors.) --Ms. Huckle called attention to Rt. 760 (County priority No. 51). She wondered if this should, perhaps, be moved up higher since VDOT had ranked it at position No. 26. She noted that this is a schoolbus road. (Mr. Benish explained: "Those priorities correspond. The priorities that you are counting off from VDOT only go down as far as there are construction funds available. Their 21 ends at our 22 and then picks up where the unpaved road projects begin, so our priorities are actually corresponding.") Mr. Dotson noted that there have been right-of-way acquisition problems with Rt. 760. Mr. Benish added that most of the unpaved road projects do not presently have right-of-way acquired --that is part of the process. He explained further that the County does not normally get involved with "acquiring" right-of-way, rather it must be donated. --Ms. Huckle called attention to priority No. 38 (Avon St. to 5th St). She felt there was going to be a need for this road in the near future as development in this area increases. Ms. Angela Tucker, representing VDOT, also was present to answer Commission questions. Mr. Nitchmann asked if the Meadow Creek Parkway (Project 12) was moved down on the list, (he suggested to position 37), would it possibly make funding available more quickly for some of the other projects? Ms. Tucker responded affirmatively. Ms. Huckle was pleased to see that the County and VDOT were in agreement on the rankings for much of the list (completely in agreement through item No. 15). She concluded: "Since we have this wonderful meeting of the minds, it seems to me it would be a good thing to approve these as they are and add some of these grade crossings, if those are safety issues, up a little higher after item No. 21." Mr. Nitchnimm, referring to priority No. 16 (Avon St. to Rt. 20), asked what determines whether or not a road is eligible for secondary road funds. Ms. Tucker explained that the road (1) must be a realignment of an existing roadway (not a new road), or (2) must 79 3-8-94 3 constitute sufficient public service, or (3) must reduce the need for other improvements. (Ms. Tucker stated that she did not believe that VDOT has decided, "110%," that project No. 16 is not eligible. In response to Ms. Imhoff question, Ms. Tucker confirmed that if this road should become eligible, it would then "knock off" some of the other priorities. Ms. Imhoff noted that lack of that information "makes it hard to make a decision." Mr. Nitchmann stated that the traffic was going to increase considerably in that area in the next year. Mr. Benish pointed out that it might be possible to use Revenue Sharing monies for this project. Regarding the possibility of moving the Meadow Creek Parkway to a lower priority, Mr. Nitchmann understood that it was really a moot issue in terms of freeing up monies for other projects, because the Parkway would not actually be receiving any funds over the next three years. Ms. Tucker agreed, stating: "It's not hurting anything where it's at and it can be adjusted every two years." MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Dotson, that the Six -Year Secondary Road Improvement Plan, 1994-95 through 1999-2000, be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval as presented by staff, including the addition of the Rt 795/Rt 790 intersection at position No. 23. Discussion: Ms. Imhoff stated that she would support the motion, but she continued to have concerns about the bridge project at the Moorman's River and she hoped something could be worked out on the design of that project. The previously stated motion for approval passed unanimously. (SUB-93.0m 'vanna RidgePre] minary Plat - Proposal to create a total of 11 lots on 67.1 acres. The lots are proposed to be served by a private road off Rio Road. Property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcels 25 and 30, is located on the north side of Rio Road (Route 631) approximately 1,000 feet west of Woodburn Road (Route 659). Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Charlottesville magisterial District. This property is not located in a designated growth area. (Rural Area 1). Ms. Hipski presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary plat subject to conditions, and approval of private roads. In response to Ms. Imhoffs request, Ms. Hipski pointed out the location of the intermittent tributary referred to in condition 1(h). She also noted the existence of another intermittent stream (not shown on the USGS maps). The stream had been identified by a field visit be Ms. Hipski and the Water Resources Manager. Ms. Hipski confirmed there would be a 100 foot septic and building buffer required on each side of the stream. Ms. Hipski explained 3--8-94 4 further that the Water Resources Protection Areas Ordinance would not apply to this stream because it is not shown as a perennial stream on the USGS maps. In response to Ms. Imhoff s request, Ms. Hipski and Mr. Benish briefly summarized the history of a possible "greenway" along the reservoir. Mr. Benish confirmed that staff feels the 200 foot setback would allow for the greenway. There was a discussion of the properties which VDOT has acquired in Squirrel Ridge in preparation for the construction of Alternative 10 (Western Bypass) and also of how Alternative 10 will effect this property. Mr. Blue noted that the alignment shown on Ms. Tucker's drawings (VDOT's representative) was a little different than that shown on staffs drawings and VDOT's alignment would have little impact on this property. Mr. Blue stated it was his understanding that VDOT has purchased property in Squirrel Ridge "with county approval --county encouragement" because the property owners in the area were worried about the future of their homes. Regarding the present proposal Mr. Blue commented: "This is a by -right subdivision and everything they have on it is legal and there is really no reason for the Commission to review it except for the fact that this is completely stupid. Alternative 10 is going to go through this subdivision and if the Board of Supervisors approves this and the developer sells the lots and houses are sold, then is the County in the position� 1of doing exactly the same thing they are doing just slightly to the west in Squirrel Ridge7lthey encourage `►'D:0T to buy those houses? I've read the staff report and I understand the staff has talked to the County Attorney and there is nothing we can do about it." He quoted the following from a February, 1993, letter from Jack Hodge (VDOT): "It would be ironic, indeed, if VDOT, at the County's request, spends millions in taxpayer dollars buying hardship property and, on the other hand, additional residential development occurs in the same corridor." Mr. Blue concluded: "If that's the way it has to be done, I'm prepared to vote for it, because I think the plan is fine, but somewhere along the line the taxpayers of the State of Virginia are getting mistreated if we have to do this_" Mr. Nitchmann asked if there were more current comments from VDOT. Ms. Hipski explained that comments had been sought, but no other information was received. Given VDOT's comments as quoted by Mr. Blue, Mr. Nitchmann asked if the County would still incur no liability to acquire the property (vs. VDOT acquiring the property) if it proceeds to approve this subdivision. Mr. Davis responded: "I think Mr. St. John's letter to VDOT states the law exactly correct. The ironic thing is that it is going to end up costing us more money. The problem is that we haven't nailed down an exact right-of-way and until an exact right -of way is located there is no way, in a by -right subdivision approval process, for us to, in effect, take their property before we are ready to pay for it." Mr. Blue asked why the County had encouraged VDOT to purchase developed lots in Squirrel Ridge if the right-of-way had not been finalized. Mr. Davis was not familiar with the Iqf 3-8-94 5 specifics, but explained that VDOT has "hardship" money which is pre -allocated for such instances. It was Mr. Dotson's understanding that as long as the proposal meets the letter of the ,Subdivision Ordinance requirements, it should be an approvable project. Mr. Davis confirmed his understanding was accurate. Mr. Davis explained that the Commission has "very little legislative discretion within the subdivision process." He pointed out that the staffs review finds that this subdivision meets the requirements of the Ordinance "even though it may not be a well advised plat for the developer to put to record given that a road may be going through there." He added that if the Commission does not act on the proposal within a 90- day period, it can be taken to Court and the Court can approve it. Mr. Dotson asked about the possibility of deferral to see if there might be an alternative layout for the property which would not be impacted by Alternative 10. (Mr. Blue felt there was "really no other way" without the purchase of additional property and the construction of an expensive frontage road.) Mr. Dotson felt it was "conceivable if VDOT owns one of those homes they would tear down the home and put a road through to this property." Mr. Blue asked why the proposal was before the Commission since it was by -right. Ms. Hipski explained that a waiver was needed to allow private roads. The applicant was represented by Mr. Dave Walsh. He offered to answer questions. (Mr. Wendall Wood, the developer was present but offered no comment.) There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Davis if the Commission could require that a note be placed on the plat alerting prospective purchasers to the potential impact of Alternative 10. Mr. Davis responded: "The Attorney General has looked at this issue in the past and has said it is not within your ability, unless you have a specific provision in your ordinance which allows it, you can't require such verbage to be put on the plat. From a practical standpoint, it also may be unfair to do that because, if, in fact, the roadway is not designed and located there it would create a title problem for this property in perpetuity because it would appear on the plat and cause the landowner to be at a disadvantage in obtaining financing and other things on this property when, in fact, it may never be built." He added that some localities mandate that "approved" rights -of -way be noted on plats but he was not aware of any such requirements for "proposed" rights -of -way. He pointed out that there is a significant difference between "proposed" and "approved." Ms. Imhoff suggested that the Commission should urge staff to draft appropriate language which would allow notes to be placed on plats as suggested by Mr. Dotson. Mr. Davis confirmed that Virginia has recently tightened up disclosure laws which require that real estate agents must disclose any material fact, a 3-8-94 6 Regarding the question of private roads, Ms. Huckle expressed the opinion that private roads will be an improvement because they would require less cut and fill. She expressed concern about the reservoir ax1 stated that she felt most degradation occurs with the construction of the road, rather than the construction of the houses. Mr. Blue noted that he felt the record was clear as to the Commission's feelings about the proposal, but he could see no way to deny it. MOTION: Mr. Blue moved that the Rivanna Ridge Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions. 1. The final plat shall not be submitted for signature nor shall it be signed until the following conditions are met- a. Department of Engineering approval of Road and Drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of Erosion Control Plan; c. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) approval of the entrance and improvements within the right-of-way including, but not limited to, widening the entrance to Rio Road to 30 feet at the right-of-way line and increasing standard commercial entrance taper lane to 100 feet; d. Health Department final approval; e. Staff approval of road maintenance agreement; f. Staff approval of lot renumbering; g. Staff approval of note stating that part of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 on Parcel 30 are subject to acquisition for a greenway as proffered in ZMA-89-23 River Heights Associates; h. Both sheets of the preliminary plat shall show the intermittent tributary on Lot 4 of parcel 25 and on Lot 1 of Parcel 30 and its related setbacks. 2. Administrative approval of fina plat. Mr. Nitchmann seconded the motion which passed (5:0:2) with Commissioners Huckle and Vaughan abstaining. MISCELLANEOUS Ms. Imhoff reminded the Commission of the 5:00, March 15 "informal" work session. Ms. Imhoff asked for the following: --To have a representative from TJPDC present at the March 15 work session to update the Commission on present projects which might have some effect on Comp Plan review. g3 --Old reports on Towers and UREF proposals which are coming back to the Commission. Also, that the same VEC representative who appeared at the Board hearing be present at the next Commission hearing. --A list of studies currently underway and the status of each (in relation to Comp Plan review). There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8.10 p.m. i' 0. (LMI�'4/� - V. Wayne ilimberg ec gy