Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 23 1994 PC Minutes5-23-94 AUGUST 23, 1994 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 23, 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: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; and Mr_ Ken Baker, Senior Planner. Absent: Commissioner Jenkins and County Attorney. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of August 9, 1994 were unanimously approved as amended. Mr. Benish briefly summarized actions taken at the August 17, 1994 Board of Supervisors meeting. WORK SESSION CPA-94-02 Kessler Gr__ oun South Forest L&Ss - Review request to add approximately 126 acres to the Hollymead Growth Area Mr_ Baker presented the staff report which included a history of the property. Commission questions and requests: -- (Imhoff) What is the role of this area of the County in providing it's "fair share" of housing? Ms. Imhoff felt this question should be addressed by staff with any Comprehensive Plan Amendment request. --(Imhoff) Will the area adjacent to Powell Creek be preserved as a walking path which could connect to a future path north of this development (as indicated in the Master Plan)? Has this been proffered? Is it part of the rezoning package? ANSWER: Mr. Benish replied: "It's my understanding that it is part of the rezoning package, but it is not dedicated to public use." He explained further: (He pointed out a segment which goes to Lake Hollymead which would allow for the connection of a pathway system to North Forest Lakes.) He also noted that if the Rivanna Greenway is ever developed, possible expansions of that Greenway could be up Powell Creek. Mr. Kessler, later in the meeting, confirmed that the pathways will be built. --For future reviews of this type, Ms. Imhoff felt it would be helpful if the Commission received a copy of any existing proffers on the subject property. She stated it was difficult for her to distinguish a Comp Plan Amendment from a rezoning when the Amendment is at the request of an individual developer (or developers). She qualified that she well understood that proffers are not required at the Comp Plan Amendment stage. 8-23-94 2 --(Blue) Were the adjacent neighborhoods notified of this work session? ANSWER: Mr. Benish responded that because this is a work session, no notification was required. He expressed a willingness to provide such notification for future work sessions if that was the desire of the Commission_ (Mr. Runkle later explained that he had notified the President of the Forest Lakes Homeowner's Association.) --(Imhoff) Does staff plan to expand the staff report on some of the sub -connector segments? She felt it would be helpful to know how some of the other internal connectors might work. Most Commission comments were related to the Meadow Creek Parkway alignment issue. Mr. Baker explained that VDOT is presently reviewing the various alignments and it is anticipated that the "numbers" will be available in two to three weeks. Mr. Baker explained the alignments which are being considered. It was Ms. Imhoff s understanding that the recommended alignment would not impact this proposal, but the 2 alternatives might. (Mr. Runkle interjected that the preferred CATS alignment is closely represented by "B to C to D" on the applicant's plan. The applicant is suggesting that it be moved over slightly.) Mr. Benish explained that the consultant's recommended alignment is "T-1, which follows the existing Timberwood Parkway, crossing the dam at Lake Hollymead, using the existing roadway system at Hollymead and new construction of a connector (he pointed to the connector location)." (Mr. Blue disagreed, saying "I thought the final recommendation was to cut out to 29, without the T's being recommended." ) Mr. Benish was reasonably confident his description was accurate. The applicant was represented by Mr. Frank Kessler and Mr. Steve Runkle. Mr. Kessler described the history of the property and how the boundaries had been determined. He explained that the growth area boundary had been the riverAwhich resulted in 80% of this property being in the growth area and 20% being outside the growth area. He could not think of another similar situation in the County where "once development was finally done, and most of the property was in the growth area, they were unable to bring the property together to complete the project." He stressed that this property has been a part of the project from the beginning --it is not a piece of property which was bought recently and added on. He cited examples where the Kessler Group, in the development of Forest Lakes, went beyond County requirements in order to provide for the possible future alignment of Meadow Creek Parkway along Timberwood Parkway and also other improvements which resulted in better traffic situations for the County. He explained that the developer has offered to build the road to connect the two Forest Lakes neighborhoods (over the Hotlymead Lake dam) provided the issue of maintenance of the dam can be resolved by the County. The road has not been pursued because the existing neighborhoods are adamantly opposed to the connection. Mr. Runkle explained the Meadow Creek Parkway alignments shown on the plan. He preceived the problem with VDOT, (related to this property being added to the growth area), is that the "old" CATS alignment more closely resembles the "B-to-C-to-D" alignment than anything else shown on this present plan. His conversations with Dan Roosevelt A41 MOT) *it is believed. that Mr. Kessler was referring to Pounell Creek. 8-23-94 3 have led him to believe that VDOT now feels it is up to the County to adopt an alignment and " VDOT will then endorse that location." He concluded: "From our perspective; if an agreement could be reached that would move the alignment --essentially adjacent to the railroad --to the far eastern boundary of our property, then we could proceed. What would have to happen to technically make this work when I go to start filing road plans and site plans, is that the County is going to have to say 'We will reserve that F-G corridor, if it (the Meadow Creek Parkway) goes north, but not the B-C corridor."' He explained that the approximate difference between the B-C alignment and the F-G alignment is 500-600 feet. (Mr. Blue indicated he felt it was time for a decision to be made and he did "not see how we could do anything but F-G.") Mr. Runkle felt it would also make sense, if F-G is reserved, to also reserve the C-H connection to Ashwood Boulevard.. Addressing the issue of density, Mr. Runkle explained that the reservation for the Meadow Creek Parkway would reduce the number of planned lots by approximately 50 (from 185). Other comments by Mr. Runkle: --A walking trail is planned from the "the end of the dam, down along Powell Creek, up around Aspen Woods neighborhood, up along Ashwood Blvd." Commission questions to the applicant: --(Blue) Were people who bought in Forest Lakes made aware of the fact that Timberwood Parkway had extra base and right-of-way provided because of the possibility that it would someday be a major highway? ANSWER: Mr. Kessler replied: "I showed it on everything. Anytime anybody asked us we talked about it. Did I put a sign out and say 'This is going to be a 4-lane road'? No." Mr. Kessler stressed that there was no certainty, either then or now, that the road (Meadow Creek Parkway) would ever actually follow that alignment. Mr. Runkle later added that this issue had been discussed by the directors of the Homeowner's Association and also at the annual meetings of the Association. --(Dotson) What is the buildout time frame anticipated? ANSWER: Mr. Runkle explained, section by section, the sales, to date, in Forest Lakes South. --(Imhoff) Will the loss of lots for the F-G alignment result in a higher density in other sections, to make up for those lots lost? ANSWER: Mr. Runkle explained that the area referred to by Ms. Imhoff would not be feasible for high density because of the increased road requirements which would result. --(Nitchmann) What price range homes are planned? ANSWER: The least expensive will be comparable to existing townhouse units in Forest Lakes North which presently range from $115,000 to $125,000_ Duplex units which are planned for Forest Lakes South will range from $140,000 to $160,000. --(Nitchmann) Is it possible that any units could be in the mid-80's to mid 90's? ANSWER: Mr. Runkle responded by explaining how land, development, and infrastructure costs would make this price range extremely difficult. He felt that only stacked, condominium type units might be achievable in the 80 to 90 price range, unless the County provides the infrastructure_ He felt that just the infrastructure, "under the best of conditions," /Da 8-23-94 4 is costing $10,000/10t. He did not see how an $80,000 house could be built anywhere in the County, given the cost of land, the cost of infrastructure, and the design requirements. Ms. Imhoff hoped the Housing Committee would be able to offer the Commission guidance on areas which might be appropriate for affordable housing, or guidance on what the Commission might be able to do to make it easier for developers to provide affordable housing. In response to Ms. Imhoffs question as to what is the most expensive design requirement, Mr. Runkle felt it was roads. He felt it would be helpful to relax the road design requirements and also the critical slope requirements. There was a brief discussion as to the next step in the review process for this request. Regarding the Meadow Creek Parkway issue, Mr. Benish explained that, for the consultant's findings, "all the numbers will be validated for the alternatives by the middle of September." Given the fact that this is such a small part of the whole Meadow Creek Parkway issue, Mr. Blue felt it would be a shame to hold this item up. Mr. Benish was of the impression that the F-G alignment could substantially replace either alignment A-B or A-D and "still allow one of the alternative concepts to be provided in this corridor." He said if the Commission would authorize staff to do so, then "we can offer that (F-g) as a reasonable alternative for reservation and move forward." Mr. Nitchmann asked if any consideration was being given to the Meadow Creek Parkwav following the railroad. Mr. Benish replied: "At this point in time, no." He, noted, however, that the T-4 alternative was "close, particularly along this section." He pointed out that one of the major stumbling blocks with following the railroad is "what do you do when you get to Proffit?" Mr. Benish continued his explanation of the remainder of the review process for this item. He stated one other work session would be scheduled and then the item will be scheduled for public hearing, towards the end of September. In response to Mr. Blue's question, neither the applicant nor the star expressed any opposition to notifiying the Forest Lakes Homeowners of the work session. Mr. Kessler felt the notification should go to the Homeowners' Association. It was Ms. Huckle's understanding that Forest Lakes North would have no opposition if no connection was made over the dam. Mr. BIue noted that they probably wouldn't be "as concerned," but if the Parkway goes all the way to 649, they will have concerns about traffic cutting through their neighborhoods. No action was required of the Commission ---------------------------------------- MISCELLANEOUS /D/ 5-23.94 5 Ms. Imhoff asked if the Commission could receive copies of the site plan for the Blue Ridge Builders request (scheduled for August 30th). Ms. Imhoff asked that any new format for notification letters be presented to the Commission prior to finalization. Mr. Nitchmann commented briefly on the progress of the CIP Committee and the review process. He asked that the Commission give consideration to a change in the process which would eliminate the public hearing at the Commission level. fit was noted that a Commission public hearing is not mandated.) Mr. Nitchmann confirmed that the Commission would receive a copy of the requests, as it has in the past. It was decided the suggested change would be discussed at the joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors to be held August 24th. Mr. Nitchmann reported that the Committee is trying to put together a "better picture of where the money runs out." Ms. Imhoff suggested that perhaps a shortened review (where agencies would have a very brief opportunity to appear before the Commission) could be accomplished at a work session. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m. WE /D;2