Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 15 1999 PC Minutes9-15-92 1 SEPTEMBER 15, 1992 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, September 15, 1992, Meeting Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Phil Grimm, Chairman; Mr. Walter Johnson, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Mr. Tom Jenkins; Mr. Tom Blue; Ms. Ellen Andersen; and Ms. Babs Huckle. Other officials present were: Mr. Rich Tarbell, Senior Planner; Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; and Mr. Jim Bowling, Deputy County Attorney. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and established that a quorum was present. Mr. Cilimberg briefly reviewed actions taken at the September 2 and September 9 Board of Supervisors' meeting. CONSENT AGENDA Woodcreek Final Plat - Rural Preservation Development proposal to create thirteen development lots averaging 5.4 acres with a 57.72 acre rural preservation tract from a 132.9 acre site. The lots are proposed to be served by a public road. Property, described as Tax Map 47, Parcels 26 and 26A, is located on the east side of Stony Point Road (Rt. 20N) approximately 6/10 of a mile north of Proffit Road (Rt. 649). Zoned RA, Rural Areas and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This property is not located in a designated growth area. There was a brief discussion about the road plans. In response to Mr. Blue's question about the requirement for a decel lane, Mr. Buddy Edwards, representing the applicant, explained that a 100 foot taper lane is required. He also stated that VDOT has approved the road plans. Mr. Tarbell read the following condition which had been attached to the preliminary approval: "VDOT approval of right-of-way improvements to include commercial entrance and 100 foot right taper lane." It was explained that conditions on the preliminary plat must have been completely complied with before a final plat can be reviewed. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the conditions on the preliminary had to have already been satisfied or this item would not be before the Commission. There was also a discussion about the requirement for right-of-way width. It was determined that VDOT will accept a 40 foot right-of-way and 18 foot pavement but the County's 49 9-15-92 2 requirements are for 50 feet of right-of-way. (nr. Blue noted that this is an item which should be taken into consideration when addressing the issue of affordable housing.) Mr. Johnson felt it was important that developers are aware that a 40 foot right-of-way "is an option." Mr. Johnson asked if the Commission had the latitude to waive the requirement for a 50-foot right-of-way or if the applicant had the right to seek relief from the Board. Mr. Bowling addressed the question and explained that there are provisions in the Subdivisions to allow variations in the requirements, provided certain standards are met. Mr. Johnson concluded: "So they could go ahead and request a waiver." Mr. Bowling responded: "That is correct." Mr. Johnson felt that the Subdivision Ordinance should be amended so as to bring the requirements for right-of-way width in line with the VDOT requirements. Mr. Blue moved that the Consent Agenda be approved. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion which passed unanimously. Highlands at Mechums River Section 2A Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct 90 single family attached units on a 31.1 acre site in the Highlands at Mechum River Subdivision. Property, described as Tax Map 57A, Section 1, Parcel A, is located on the south side of Three Notch'd Road (Rt. 240) approximately 3/4 mile west of its intersection with Ivy Road (Rt. 250). Zoned R-4, Residential and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Community of Crozet) and is recommended for Low Density Residential. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Johnson asked why Section 416, related to recreational areas, was not applicable in this case. Mr. Tarbell explained that those regulations apply to townhouses and apartments, but not for single -family -attached. Mr. Johnson felt this was another issue which should be looked at, i.e. "why don't they need a recreational area if they are single -family -attached, and they do in the others?" Mr. Cilimberg explained that the yard areas are much smaller for townhouses and apartments (than for single family and duplexes) and therefore the common recreational areas are more important. The potential for individual, on -site recreation is greater with single family or duplex units. In response to Mr. Blue's question about the difference between condition 1 (g) and 1 (h), Mr. Tarbell explained that the Design Planner is the Architectural Review Board's coordinator and the two conditions referred to will serve as 9-15-92 3 a "double check", with the Design Planner checking the landscape plan for compliance with the final ARB actions. The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Muncaster. He offered to answer questions. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that SDP-92-053 Highlands at Mechums River Section 2A Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of road and associated drainage plans and calculations; C. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion control permit; d. Department of Engineering approval of a runoff control permit; e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and associated drainage plans and calculations; f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans; g. Design Planner approval of final landscape plan; h. Staff approval of final landscape plan. 2. Administrative approval of the final site plan and subdivision plats. 3. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following condition is met: a. Fire Official final approval. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Johnson again expressed his willingness to support any possible variation on road width. SDP-92-055 - Highlands Place Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct 28 townhouses and one duplex on a 11.01 acre site with 7.09 acres of open space. The site is proposed to be served by a private road extension off Highlands Drive in the southwest portion of Highlands at Mechums River subdivision. Property, described as Tax Map 9-15-92 4 57A Section 1, Parcel A, is located on the south side of Three Notch'd Road (Rt. 240) approximately 3/4 of a mile west of its intersection with Ivy Road (Rt. 250W). Zoned R-4, Residential in the White Hall Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Community of Crozet) and is recommended for Low Density Residential. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Blue asked why there was no condition requiring a road maintenance agreement. Mr. Tarbell explained that it has already been approved for previous sections of the development. He added: "It's already in their agreements. When we put this section to record, there was provision made for maintenance of open space and future private roads." Ms. Huckle asked if the deed would include provision for road maintenance. Mr. Tarbell explained that each deed will reference the covenants which have been recorded for this development. Ms. Huckle concluded: "So the people who buy (the lots) will have plenty of notice that they are going to have to pay for the maintenance of the road." Mr. Tarbell responded affirmatively. Mr. Bowling explained that each purchaser will be given a disclosure packet, "but they still have to read the document." Mr. Blue wondered if it was normal practice for staff to require a statement on the plat which notifies a perspective buyer that the roads are private. Mr. Tarbell stated that is not a typical checklist item. Mr. Blue felt the concern was caused by the fact a public road leads to the private roads which might lead people to believe that all the roads are public. Mr. Tarbell was uncertain how to address that concern. He stated: "We can put it on the plat but if they don't read the deed that's given to them, they're not going to read the plat." Mr. Johnson asked about recreational areas. Mr. Tarbell pointed out the location of a tot lot. He stated there was no deadline for installation of the tot lot. Mr. Johnson felt a bond was worthless unless it had a deadline. Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Commission that the recently adopted zoning text amendments had included a limitation on bonds of one year, "and they would be subject to renewal." Ms. Huckle asked who would be building the units. Mr. Tarbell was under the impression that Craig Builders would be doing some of the building, but he did not know if they would build all the units. The applicant was represented by Mr. Tom Muncaster. He offered to answer questions. Regarding the builder, he stated it was his understanding that Republic Homes would be building all the buildings. 9-15-92 5 There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Jenkins moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that Highlands Place Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained. The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: a. Department of Engineering approval of grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of road and associated drainage plans and calculations; c. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion control plan; d. Department of Engineering issuance of a runoff control permit; e. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of entrance design on Highlands Drive; f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans; g. Staff approval of final landscape plan. 2. Administrative approval of the final site plan and subdivision plats. 3. A Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until the following condition is met: a. Fire Official final approval. The motion passed unanimously. Forest Lakes South - Section 1 Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 118 lots averaging 13,033 square feet to be served by public roads. The total area of Phase I is 87.16 acres including 26.50 acres in open space with a residue of 140.66 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 46, parcels 26E (pt) 26F (pt), 27 and 110, is located on the east side of Rt. 29 approximately 1/2 mile south of South Hollymead Drive. Zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in a designated growth area (Hollymead) and is recommended for Low and Medium Density Residential. (Please note administrative approval of future plats may be authorized with this review.) Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. 6'3 9-15-92 6 Ms. Huckle asked if staff was requesting administrative approval of "everything that was going to be on the spine road." Mr. Tarbell responded: "That's right." He noted that the applicant has been "up front in showing everything they are going to do there." Mr. Blue expressed an awareness of Hollymead residents" concern about current school traffic and he felt the concern would be even greater after the new school is built. He asked if staff felt the access would be adequate to handle the school traffic (from Forest Lakes South). Mr. Tarbell described the anticipated traffic pattern. Mr. Blue expressed concern about "developing a series of peninsula -type developments without much thought of thru traffic." He noted this would pull the traffic onto Rt. 29, which is probably what the Hollymead residents want. Mr. Cilimberg explained that the connection would be a public road and would be designed to handle the traffic internally. Mr. Cilimberg recalled that there had been concern about the timing of the construction of the connector road because of concerns about construction traffic. Staff has not required that it be constructed with this phase of development, but "it will need to be made at the next phase when the development works up to that road." That connection will then serve the purpose of providing a more immediate route to the school. Mr. Johnson asked if any of the Meadowcreek alignments effect this proposal. Mr. Tarbell recalled "the conclusion was, because there is no chosen alignment, the decision was to take it off this plat and not make it a part of the traffic study." Mr. Cilimberg added: "Meadowcreek, as it has been shown to this point, would not effect this property. One of the connectors that is one of several alternatives could effect this property, but that is not something that has been decided at this point." Mr. Blue noted: 9195% of the people living in the area are on record as being opposed to that connector." Mr. Johnson asked about the dimensions of the internal roads. Mr. Tarbell explained: "They are all 50 feet except for Ashwood Blvd which is the spine road." He confirmed they are 50 feet of right-of-way and he assumed they were 20 feet of pavement. Mr. Blue noted that the right-of-way width of "the main drive, the spine road to Hollymead, coming into the school" is much less than the right-of-way width of Ashwood Blvd (120 feet). He concluded that there was no potential for widening the existing road within the right-of-way. Mr. Johnson asked if approval of the preliminary plat meant the Commission was "putting our blessings on the dimensions of the internal roads." Mr. Tarbell explained that the Subdivision Ordinance currently requires 50 feet of T� 9-15-92 7 right-of-way. Mr. Johnson noted: "But the applicant could appeal." Mr. Bowling responded: "Right, but it is a pretty narrow standard for requesting a variation from the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance." Mr. Cilimberg explained that variations and exceptions are usually based on "unusual size, topography, shape of property, location of property, or other unusual conditions." Mr. Cilimberg felt that Mr. Johnson's concern as to whether the requirements are too excessive should be dealth with within the Ordinance. Mr. Johnson agreed but noted: "But until we get that done, the applicant should know that this is an option, whether he wants to exercise it or not, and whether or not it would be approved (is unknown)." Mr. Cilimberg quoted from the Ordinance: "The requirement may be varied by the Commission subject to the approval of the Board or its agent." Mr. Nitchmann felt it would be interesting to know how this type of requirement (i.e. the 10 feet of right-of-way beyond the VDOT requirement) effects the affordable housing issue. Mr. Blue noted that the proposed layout precluded any possible future connection of Forest Lakes South and Hollymead with Rt. 643. Mr. Cilimberg recalled that the decision had been made not to make that connection, one of the reasons being because of the question as to whether or not Rt. 643 was adequate to handle the traffic. Mr. Nitchmann asked if the 26 acres in open space was required. Staff explained that this was primarily areas that were undevelopable, e.g. RPA areas and critical slopes. The applicant was represented by Mr. Bill Roudabush and Mr. Steve Runkle. Mr. Roudabush explained the design of the roads and stated that the width, curb -to -curb, is a function of the number of vehicles. Each street will have a minimum width of 30 to 36 feet from curb -to -curb. Each lot will have two off-street parking spaces. An urban cross section is being followed rather than a rural cross section (with just pavement and ditches). He explained that a 20 foot pavement is not an approved design for this type of urban development because of the need for curb and gutter. Mr. Johnson questioned the reasonableness of allowing an 18 foot pavement in rural areas with a 55 mph speed limit but requiring 20 feet of pavement in this type of development where the speed is much less. Mr. Johnson encouraged "somebody to take the bull by the horns," to get this changed. Mr. Roudabush pointed out that where curb and gutter exists, there is no road shoulder for emergency purposes. Regarding the connection to Rt. 643, Mr. Roudabush explained that "there is (a section) at the end of the 120 foot 9-15-92 8 right-of-way (Ashwood Blvd.) that would connect to the rest of this property." He stated that the reason that the road does not extend further is because the Board did not rezone the property further than Powell Creek. He confirmed that the extension of that road is not precluded. Mr. Steve Runkle addressed the issue of how development requirements effect housing affordability. It was his feeling that VDOT is "diametrically opposed to good planning." He explained that VDOT requirements for a road design to serve a maximum "theoretical density," with a bond set based on the plans for that design, leaves no flexibility for a change in design if later it is found that the actual density is far less than the theoretical density. He also explained that the roads cannot be accepted into the State system until the completion of development and the roads are then subject to the design standards in effect at that time, and the standards change frequently. (In response to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Runkle confirmed that the builder will build two lanes of the potential four lane spine road [Ashwood Blvd.) and it is doubtful that the other two lanes will ever be built.] This effects affordability because it involves the expense of designing and bonding a road which may never be required and the developer must bear this cost. He felt the major affordability issues were curb and gutter design. He felt that costs could be reduced by addressing the issue of road design and drainage design as related to lot widths and setback requirements as opposed to fire requirements. Mr. Johnson invited Mr. Runkle to submit his recommendations on this issue to the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann noted that 18 months is a long time "to have something on the drawing board" because interest is being paid with nothing returned. The Chairman invited public comment. Ms. Anne Martin, a Hollymnead resident, addressed the Commission. She asked for confirmation of the developer's committment to construct the connector road between Hollymead and Forest Lakes South "secondary to the entrance off Rt. 29." She confirmed that her concerns had been satisfied by the discussion which had taken place. Mr. Tarbell confirmed that this concern was addressed through a condition of approval enforceable through the zoning: Proffer No. 8: "The owner agrees to re -construct and extend Powell Creek Drive from Hollymead Drive to the Forest Lakes spine road provided the necessary right-of-way exists or can be obtained at no cost to Forest Lakes Associates." He noted this was shown on the preliminary plan "to be done." Mr. Blue interpreted that Ms. Martin wanted "a connection but you don't want it to be the main connection off Rt. 29 9-15-92 Gi for Forest Lakes South." was not overly concerned sidewalks were proposed Cilimberg explained that being considered. Regarding the school traffic, she about that issue. She asked if for the connector road. Mr. the issue of pedestrian access was There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. The Commission expressed no opposition to granting staff administrative approval of future phases. Ms. Andersen moved, seconded by Mr. Nitchmann, that Forest Lakes South - Section I 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 grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of road and associated drainage plans and calculations; C. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion control plan; d. Department of Engineering approval of stormwater detention plans and calculations; e. Department of Engineering approval of on -site and off -site drainage plat(s) to be recorded within six months of plan approval. f. Department of Engineering approval of a standard County maintenance agreement for stormwater management/BMP facilities; g. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and associated drainage plans and calculations; h. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of right-of-way improvements to include a commercial entrance and northbound and sorthbound 200' x 200' turn and taper lanes; i. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans; j. Water Resource Manager final approval. 2. Administrative approval of Phase I and plats for future phases. The motion passed unanimously. _(SUB-91-1.54 Pantops Redivision_Preliminary_ Plat - Proposal to create fourteen lots with a 22.137 acre residue on the east side of South Pantops Drive from four existing parcels totalling 98.6 acres. Proposed access to the property consists of two private road cul-de-sacs off Richmond Road 9-15-92 10 (Rt. 250 East), a public road cul-de sac off of State Farm Blvd., and a private road cul-de-sac off of South Pantops Drive to serve the residentially zoned portion of the property. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcels 20, 72, 73, and 73A, is located in the southwest quadrant of the Rt. 250/State Farm Blvd. intersection. Zoned PD-MC, Planned Development -Mixed Commercial, R-15, Residential and EC, Entrance Corridor Overlay District in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This property is located in a designated growth area (Urban Neighborhood 3) and is recommended for Regional Service and High Density Residential. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Mr. Tarbell explained the history of the proposed development. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Mr. Blue asked staff to comment on the fact that VDOT apparently "drove" the final layout of this development. He noted that commercial areas are not connected in this proposal which results in more entrances onto Rt. 250. Mr. Cilimberg explained that two of the biggest problems with this development were: (1) The number of vehicle trips at the crossover; [This was an "untouchable" for staff because it was an agreement between VDOT and the property owners.] and (2) The traffic impact on South Pantops Drive. Mr. Cilimberg noted that the design of South Pantops Drive had been determined by the Highway Department and staff, at that time, had expressed a concern that it was being under -designed. Mr. Blue concluded that though this was not a good design, there was nothing that could be done about it. Mr. Johnson agreed that it was not a good design. He felt a better solution might be a "front road" to serve these sites. He expressed concern about the distance between the entrances and site distance problems. (It was determined that the entrances meet spacing requirements--1,000 feet between State Farm and the first and 850 feet between the first and second.) Mr. Cilimberg noted that parcels are being consolidated and will be jointly accessing two entrance points. He also noted that the spacing is "not a bad spacing for an urban section of road." Mr. Cilimberg noted: "What you have here, in terms of separation and opportunity, is not as bad as it first appears by just looking at what appear to be four cul-de-sacs. For safe and convenient access, we have the opportunity to deal with that." There was a brief discussion about sight distance. Mr. Cilimberg stated that the entrances were established at places where adequate sight distance was present, both in 5'8 9-15-92 11 the intersection and in the crossover. He also pointed out the location of left -turn lanes. The applicant was represented by Mr. Arthur Edwards. He offered no significant additional comment. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Pantops Redivision 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 grading and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering approval of private road and associated drainage plans and calculations. c. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit; d. VDOT approval of right-of-way improvements to include commercial entrances; e. VDOT approval of public road and associated drainage plans and calculations; f. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of final water and sewer plans; g. Staff approval of maintenance agreements for shared entrances and private roads; h. Revise residue acreage note from 23.994 acres to 22.137 acres. 2. Administrative approval of the final subdivision plat. The motion passed unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS Se tember 22 Work Session - It was decided the work session would be held even though Commissioners Johnson and Grimm would not be present. Mr. Jenkins was appointed to serve as Acting Chairman for the September 22nd meeting. Berkmar Drive/Rio Rd Site - Ms. Huckle asked staff to check on safety measures on this project in relation to the erosion control structure. 5q 9-15-92 12 Mr. Nitchmann asked staff for a list of all potential historic sites (along with names of property owners) for his district. Mr. Johnson suggested that Commissioners visit the Sam's site on Rt. 29 to view the result of the additional 90 parking spaces. ------------------------- There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:10 P.M. 9 - -A - - K: 40