Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA199800012 Minutes 1998-10-27 PC_ f ZMA 98-12 Forest L?kes South—Minor Amendment (Sign #4, 5, 19 & 92 Request by Forest Lakes South Associates to modify the application plan to permit construction of a road in the area designated for a pedestrian train near Powell Creek Drive. The property is comprised of the residue of Tax Map 46, Parcel 97-A-1 and Tax Map 46B5, Parcel 1. It is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District, and is currently zoned Forest Lakes South PUD. The Land Use Plan shows this area to be in the Hollymead Community and designated for neighborhood density residential development (3-6 dwelling units per acre). SP 98-46 Springridge Stream Crossing Request to allow a stream crossing over Powell Creek to provide access to a parcel described as TMP 46-35. The property is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District, approximately 200 feet from the end of Powell Creek Drive near Hollymead Dam. It is currently zoned R-1. The Land Use Plan shows this property for neighborhood density in the Hollymead community with a density of 3-6 dwelling units per acre. ZMA 98-13 Springridge PRD Request by Forest Lakes Associates to rezone 75 acres from R-1 and RA to PRD for either 135 dwelling units of mixed types or 100 single family detached units. The property, described as TMP 46-35, is in the Rivanna Magisterial District, located approximately 200 feet from the end of Powell Creek Drive near Hollymead Dam. Existing use of the property is vacant; the Comprehensive Plan shows the density to be 3-6 dwelling units per acre in the area shown for neighborhood density. Proposed density is 2.0-2.7 dwelling units per acre in the area shown for neighborhood density. No dwellings are proposed in the area shown as rural area. Mr. Loewenstein requested that the staff report and public hearing for all three items be considered together. He requested that all speakers sign up prior to addressing the Commission, and said that each speaker would be allowed three minutes. Elaine Echols presented the staff report, which included a general overview of the three requests: - ZMA 98-12 is for a modification to Forest Lakes South plan to provide for access into the site. Access would involve construction of a road and reconstruction of a path for about 300 feet where a path currently exists. Forest Lakes Associates, the applicant, owns this property, and have not yet conveyed it to the Homeowners Association. It is Forest Lakes Associates who are requesting this rezoning. Ms. Echols said is the Forest Lakes South amendment which many audience members received notification on because all residents of Forest Lakes South were notified of the rezoning request. - SP 98-46 is a special use permit for a stream crossing over Powell Creek at generally the same location. Approval of ZMA 98-12 and SP 98-46 are both required for access into the property, regardless of what happens to Springridge. Ms. Echols stated that while all three actions are related, it is possible to take an affirmative action on ZMA 98-12 and SP 98-46 and not take affirmative action on ZMA 98-13; the reverse is not possible. - ZMA 98-13 is the actual zoning request to change the zoning on the Brown parcel from R-1 and RA to PRD; she referenced the Brown parcel on the map. Mr. Cilimberg provided assistance in pointing out Forest Lakes South, Forest Lakes North, Hollymead and Powell Creek. Ms. Echols stated that PRD rezonings have a required master plan and conditions for development. - The master plan indicated the type of development that is proposed. In this case it is neotraditional—characterized by neighborhood type streets (narrow with curb and gutter), sidewalks on both sides of the streets, central green and two other greens, shallow front setbacks, street trees, and alley access for a portion of the development. Ms. Echols said that all of these characteristics are recommended for new developments in designated development areas in the Comprehensive Plan. - The development is proposed on the development areas side of Powell Creek. Twenty-five (25) acres of undeveloped land is proposed on the rural side of Powell Creek; this acreage is intended to be retained in permanent open space or used by the homeowners for passive or active recreation. Ms. Echols explained to the audience the seven designated urban neighborhoods surrounding the City of Charlottesville and three designated communities in the county as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan; development is proposed in those areas in favor of leaving the rural areas rural. - A maximum of 135 dwelling units on the remaining 50 acres is proposed. At 135 it could be a combination of houses, attached homes, or townhouses. If the developer decides to develop the property with detached homes only, the number would be no more than 100 dwellings or 2 dwellings per acre. At 135 units, the density would be 2.7 dwellings per acre. - The density proposed is slightly higher than what is currently in Forest Lakes and Hollymead, which contain approximately 2 dwelling units per acre. The density is slightly lower than what the Comprehensive Plan recommends on the low end (3-6 dwelling units per acre). - The development meets recommendations for development and design in almost all ways. It provides for unified development with an internal focus and central areas of open space. It 3 provides for interconnected streets within the neighborhoods and to adjoining neighborhoods. It provides for pedestrian access throughout the development and with adjoining pedestrian systems. It emphasizes building orientation to the street and landscaping with street trees. - The design of the development has raised little concern with the public; it is the potential mix of uses and potential traffic that seems to be causing the greatest concern. Ms. Echols told the Commission that traffic is the greatest concern of the staff as well. As proposed, the main entrance to Springridge would be from Powell Creek Drive. To help disburse traffic from the development, in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for interconnecting neighborhoods, the applicant has included in his plan a road over the Hollymead Lake Dam. - The anticipated effects of the addition of the road over the dam have been studied extensively by the staff. Ms. Echols referenced traffic figures (Attachment A) indicating the anticipated impacts. She noted that this analysis differs from the Wilbur Smith & Associates analysis presented in July, and stated that these results were taken back to the applicant and the neighborhood to further refine. Ms. Echols stated the traffic figures were agreed upon by the applicant, the Forest Lakes Homeowners Association, and Hollymead. - Ms. Echols reported that the existing traffic figures are lower than the by-right development figures (Attachment A); those figures include some additional units of undeveloped property in the general area. - With the road over the dam, the redistribution would occur with the most marked effects being a decrease in traffic along Hollymead Drive, but an increase in traffic in front of the schools. - The developer has proffered $100,000 in traffic calming near the schools; the County has already allocated $150,000 in traffic calming in the neighborhoods. - Ms. Echols stated that safety near the school complex must be the first consideration. Modifications to the traffic circulation pattern at the school are needed now; the major recommendation to increase safety would be a realignment of the intersection of Hollymead Drive and Powell Creek to make it a"T" intersection. Ms. Echols said that staff believes that these improvements, plus raised crosswalks and other intersection and traffic management devices will help to mitigate the impacts of additional traffic near the schools. The most significant improvement would be a less direct connection—one which did not cross the dam at all. This connection has been unofficially referred to as the "V" connection. - The "V" connection is one which has been proffered as an alternate connection by the applicant, if the right-of-way is made available by the Forest Lakes Homeowners Association. Ms. Echols referenced the map to show where the "V" connection would be made. - The "V" connection would connect Timberwood Parkway to the development through open space. It would not disrupt the existing path and open space over the dam. It would provide 4 the benefits of neighborhood interconnections without having the County take over responsibility for the dam. - The two significant barriers to having the "V" connection are that the right-of-way is not owned by the applicant, and would have to be obtained from the Forest Lakes Homeowners' Association. Secondly, the cost of the crossing is more than previously thought. - Since sending their report, staff has determined that the cost of the "V" connection would be approximately $320,000 more than the road over the dam. If the $100,000 proffered for traffic calming were to be used for the road "V" connection, there would be a difference of $220,000 to be made up. - The applicant has only agreed to pay the cost for the road over the dam and the $100,000 in off-site improvements. - If the "V" is pursued, the County won't get the additional money for traffic calming. - The County would likely be called upon to make up the difference of$220,000. Ms. Echols said that while there are modifications to the design and roads that could be made to reduce the amount the developer has planned to spend, it is the design components that give the proposal its recommendation for approval. Ms. Echols concluded her report by stating that the proposal meets the Comprehensive Plan Recommendations for infill development in almost always ways, and because staff believes safety can be improved near the schools with the CIP money for traffic calming, staff recommends approval of the rezoning. The Commission asked questions of staff. In response to Mr. Rooker's question, Ms. Echols stated that the general conditions and proffers were separated for clarity of understanding; she said the general conditions are things that "govern the development itself," but are a part of the proffers. Mr. Rooker asked about the wording of General Condition#16 regarding tree buffers along Powell Creek. Ms. Echols responded that the point of that condition was to establish a stream buffer along Powell Creek, but the applicant wanted to be able to have a lot depth to 100 feet for the housing uses in that particular area. She explained that the applicant wanted to retain the stream buffer, but"there might be an intrusion of a lot into some of that stream buffer" where a lot could not get 100 feet. Ms. Echols said it is a condition that staff is working on with the applicant. Mr. Rooker stated his concern over the wording "not to the exclusion of those uses allowed by right or provided for in this application," and wanted clarification as to whether this meant by- right uses in a stream buffer area. Ms. Echols suggested that the applicant address this directly. In response to Mr. Rooker's question about clarification of one of the proffers, Ms. Echols replied that some clarifications regarding the escrow payments have been worked out, and more language needs to be "cleared up." In response to Mr. Finley's question about a 50' x 300' modification and a 1500 square foot disturbed area, Ms. Echols clarified that it should read "15,000 square foot." Mr. Finely asked if a waiver would be required for the 28-foot road width. Mr. Glenn Brooks of county engineering responded that VDOT makes the road width determination with recommendations from the 5 county, and said that VDOT's subdivision street standards for a 30' width ordinarily require a waiver for traffic counts over 400 vehicles per day. Mr. Brooks added "A 28-foot width would be up to them with the county's recommendation to support that smaller road width." In response to Mr. Finley's question, Mr. Brooks confirmed the waiver is not something the Commission needs to vote on. Mr. Finley asked who would pay for the alternative "V"road. Ms. Echols responded that the applicant has only proffered the cost of the road over the dam, and the $220,000 extra dollars needed for the alternate route has not yet been accounted for, but perhaps the county would be asked to pay for the difference. Ms. Echols confirmed that the applicant would apply the cost of the Dam Road to construction of the "V" connection. In response to Mr. Loewenstein's question, the cost of the Dam Road is road construction costs only, not the county's insurance and liability costs. Ms. Echols explained that the cost of the dam road and "V" Road are significantly different because there is very little grading needed for the road over the dam, and a significant amount of fill needed for the "V" connection. Mr. Finley asked about the "bumping" of students from one school to another mentioned in the staff report. Ms. Echols stated that they don't really know yet what those effects are going to be, because school redistricting calls upon an entirely different set of criteria than what is being used for the rezoning recommendation. In response to Mr. Finley's question, the "V" connection would require a second stream crossing. Ms. Echols said that no analysis has been done on the road closest to Forest Lakes North, and if that road were viewed as preferable, than another special use permit would be required for that stream crossing. "The creek is a significant barrier in the development," Ms. Echols added, "it goes all the way around the property practically." Ms. Echols said there is an emergency route which would be gated or chained planned for cars or vehicles, but not fire trucks, to be able to get into or out of the development at a place that is not right at Powell Creek. Mr. Loewenstein asked if signed proffer forms had been secured. Ms. Echols responded that an original set of signatures is on the first set of proffer forms, but they have been modified. She assured the Commission that signatures would be on the proffers on the application that goes to the Board of Supervisors. The applicant, Mr. Steve Runkle, a partner with Forest Lakes Associates, addressed the Commission. He stated that the Kessler Group would be managing this property. Mr. Runkle stated that he and his staff have worked hard for two years to ensure that their development plan meets the goals of the county Comprehensive Plan. He said that although the proposed density is lower than recommended, given the infrastructure and existing surrounding development, it is appropriate for the area. Mr. Runkle emphasized the positive aspects of the plan—the parks, buffers to existing neighborhoods, buffers to the rural areas, and pedestrian access through a network of paved paths, sidewalks and nature trails. He said the network is not only internal to this project, but connects to the existing neighborhoods. Mr. Runkle estimated that the special features of this development would add $500,000 to the cost of the development when compared to a development of similar size and conventional pattern. He said they have tried to "remain flexible and be sensitive"to the concerns of existing residents by holding public meetings, soliciting comments on various development plans, and trying to integrate those comments into the plan ultimately settled on. Mr. Runkle stated that the work session held with the Commission led specifically to meetings with representatives from the two neighborhoods regarding traffic issues, in which they arrived at agreement on traffic numbers. 6 Mr. Runkle mentioned they have proffered $100,000 primarily for off-site road improvements, with the emphasis placed on traffic calming devices, and said that they have numerous meeting with VDOT. He said they have agreed to pay for the road across the dam at a cost of$270,000, and would "continue to be flexible in terms of these off-site improvements." Mr. Runkle added "If you feel that the $270,000 would be better spent in alternative ways, then we're happy to spend it in alternative ways." He said that their rough analysis presented to staff shows that an additional $320,000 would be required for the"V" connection, primarily because of the amount of grading and excavation needed. He stated that Powell Creek Drive would also need to be extended north into the cul-de-sac and the entrance road just south of Hollymead Dam to make an intersection; the entrance road coming from that direction as well as Timberwood Parkway would both have to be redesigned to accommodate the increased volume of traffic. Mr. Runkle said they are happy to continue to evaluate that if it's a better alternative and one that could be accomplished with no significant difference in cost. In response to Mr. Rooker's question and previously stated concern, Mr. Runkle stated they would be willing to clarify the language in Condition#16. He said their concern is the sewer line on the inside of the stream buffer, and they want to have the ability to do things like put laterals in. He said there may be some fill or erosion control devices that would require mitigation under that stream buffer ordinance, but"we want to have the ability in this language to say we will....mitigate it.....but we need to get in there for these kinds of reasons." Don Franco of the Kessler Group addressed the Commission and said that he has discussed the issue with Water Resources Manager Dave Hirschmann. Mr. Franco said they have rewritten the proffer so that an average 200-foot wide buffer plus the width of Powell Creek are protected, with common area under enforceable easement or deed restrictions. He then explained that instead of a rigid 100-foot requirement on each side, but whatever is compromised on one side would be added to the other to attain the 200-foot requirement. In response to Mr. Rooker's concern, he clarified the reason for the "by-right" language in the condition. Mr. Franco said, "Most of the time when you set up a buffer, they prefer that you stay out of it, in total, so the issues of hooking the laterals to it [or] if erosion control is required for development of the site, putting that in there....that was the idea...to allow those uses in there. So we've excluded that language and just allowed the buffer to shift." Mr. Finley asked if the construction costs of the "V"road included design. Mr. Runkle responded that if a"V" connection is chosen instead of a dam road, both the entrance road into Springridge and the road that"replaces"the road over the dam will have to be redesigned to meet the structural and width requirements to accommodate the total through traffic. "Not only have you got more grading and clearing involved....you've got different pavement depths, different pavement widths because the entrance roads are not just serving Springridge, they're serving the entire community....The big element of that cost is the segment from Timberwood Parkway and Forest Lakes North into the Springridge Development." Mr. Runkle said the estimated costs presented do not consider any acquisition costs for right-of-way. In response to Mr. Finley's question, Mr. Runkle said the dam would be suitable to withstand a road, "As far as we know,there's no indication that there's any structural issue with the dam." Mr. Rieley asked what volume of fill would be required for the section of the "V"proposal that hooks up Timberwood. Mr. Franco replied that an estimated 90—95,000 yards of fill "concentrated in the area from the point where it drops off the side near the dam to the hill that is Springridge itself." In response to Mr. Finley's question about whether a road that was build over the dam would be a public road, Mr. Runkle responded that the way the rezoning is submitted, a condition of the proffer relative to the road over the dam would be that the county guarantee the structure of the dam in order for VDOT to accept it as a public road. Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Runkle if he wished to speak about the conceptual aspects of the plan, stating it is "something relatively new in this community." Mr. Runkle replied that the development is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, and in keeping with the Commission's attitude toward better utilizing growth areas. "It provides for a tighter mix of various product types....the only way to get the density to change appreciably in the growth areas is to change the product types." He also commented on the placement of garages and driveways behind the homes, and the central green as a public space. Mr. Runkle said they are suggesting a"post office" instead of individual mailboxes; there's less than a 1000-foot walk from any home to the proposed post office area. In response to Mr. Rieley's question about what the overall mix of product types might be, Mr. Runkle replied that the plan will probably include 124 units, which would consist of 28 townhomes on the Central Green, 20 attached large lots to hold either single family dwellings or townhomes on the outside loop adjacent to the post office area; the balance would be single family detached homes. Mr. Loewenstein opened the public hearing, referencing the sign-up sheet, and reminded speakers of the three-minute time limit. Twenty-seven (27) individuals (Attachment B), mostly residents of Forest Lakes or Hollymead, addressed the Commission. The first speaker, Bill Sibert, introduced himself as a member of the group that worked with the developer and the community to establish the agreed-upon traffic figures presented in the staff report. He said the traffic impact would be the result of population growth if construction continues as projected, with an additional 700 units (135 of which will be Springridge, the remainder would be Forest Lakes South construction) added to the 1500 existing units in the whole area. Mr. Sibert added that regardless of whether or not the new road is placed over the dam, "there will be substantial traffic increases within the community simply from the construction," and estimated the traffic increase on the section of Powell Creek Drive that goes by the school and the section between Hollymead Drive and Ashwood Boulevard at approximately 50%. Mr. Sibert emphasized that building the dam road would create "new opportunities for drivers in the community to make different decisions," possibly doubling traffic on those sections. In response to Mr. Rieley's question, Mr. Sibert said that none of these figures reflect the "V" scheme. Mr. Jack McDonald, a member of the Forest Lakes Transportation Committee, addressed the Commission, and informed them that he spoke with the fire chiefs Smithers and Huxstead, who stated they would not need a road over the dam for their emergency purposes. Mr. McDonald said he also met with police chief Miller, who also said the road over the dam was not needed for their emergency purposes, and that"for crime prevention and a sense of safety and security we 8 were far better off by having controlled access and by not interconnecting the three large communities....you would.....have a better sense of neighborhood and community by not having a road over the dam." Many remaining speakers spoke specifically against opening the road over Hollymead dam, citing concerns over increased traffic in front of Southerland and Hollymead schools. Mr. Roger Wilson addressed the Commission, and presented photos of the school area, emphasizing the difficulty drivers experience in seeing children because of the sun's glare and shadows that fall on the area(Attachment C). Mr. Jose Gomez, President of the Hollymead Citizens Association, read from a petition, and stated that at least 90% of Hollymead homeowners oppose the proposed Hollymead Drive access route to the Brown property development and want serious consideration given to alternative accesses. Mr. John MacDonald, Chairman of the Forest Lakes Transportation Committee, presented a petition (Attachment D) signed by 657 residents of Forest Lakes (North and South) opposing the construction of a road over the Hollymead Lake dam. Steve Ashby, President of the Jefferson Village Neighborhood Association, told the Commission that the real emphasis should be placed on creation of mass transit systems, bike lanes and sidewalks, not roadways. Many speakers addressed the problems of increased traffic if the neighborhoods were connected, and specifically the problem of additional traffic around the schools. Other speakers expressed concern about the possibility that rezoning might force children to change schools several times. Others stated that opening access to the neighborhoods might make them more susceptible to crime. Mr. Runkle readdressed the Commission, emphasizing that the road across the dam could be removed as a proffer, and the money for that could be assigned to road improvements elsewhere. He said that if the Commission and the Board of Supervisors feel that 135 units is too many, that number could be reduced. Mr. Runkle reminded the Commission that there is just one point of access to the property and it is where the road is proposed; he originally offered to buy a common area that has been deeded to the Forest Lakes Association, and the Association voted negatively to that offer. "I don't have the ability to come from Proffit Road [or] Forest Lakes South....We've got one point of access, which is a piece of property in a development area that's been designated as a development parcel that's been in the Comp. Plan since before Forest Lakes began...." Mr. Runkle added that the traffic numbers presented include not only Springridge, but include development of all undeveloped parcels in Forest Lakes North, Forest Lakes South and Hollymead areas. He further stated that the Springridge component comprises only 5-6% of the increased traffic volume estimated in front of the school; the traffic problems there are still going to exist. A brief recess was taken. There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Rooker asked staff to clarify the plans for emergency access into the property, recognizing that the plans may differ depending on where the new road is placed. Ms. Echols responded that the zoning and subdivision ordinances require that any development serving 50 or more parcels must have at least two public street connections; one of those may be an emergency access connection, which is what the developer has proposed. Mr. Rooker asked where the emergency 9 access would be in this case, and Ms. Echols said the access is proposed to be where the "V" connection would be, and illustrated this on the map. Mr. Finley asked if neither the road over the dam or "V" road were built, what the traffic counts would be at the various points. Ms. Echols replied that the figures presented (Attachment A) show all the build-out (by right), and the additional units that the PRD would generate, and that would be with Powell Creek access only and the emergency access. In response to Mr. Finley's question regarding traffic analysis available for the "V"road scenario, Ms. Echols replied "In the traffic figures from September 22nd, we had three additional figures that talked about the "V" road, and they were based upon different sets of assumptions on how much reduction in traffic would occur with the offset. Each of those three numbers was less near the school than with...just the dam connection." Mr. Rooker asked for quantification of that, and Ms. Echols reported "The 'V' connection with assumed reduction of 25% of internal traffic for all areas except Area 5 would have by the schools (instead of 5733) 5194; Condition 7—the connection with assumed reduction of 25% of internal through traffic for all areas is 5109; the 'V' connection with assumed reduction of 50% of internal through traffic for all areas except Area 5 ends up being 4711. The figures that we have that were worked out through the community show with a"V" connection a potential of 4711 as opposed to 5733." In response to Mr. Rooker's question regarding sharing of facilities, Ms. Echols responded that the recreation facilities at Forest Lakes North and Forest Lakes South are proposed to be made available to the residents of Springridge. Mr. Rooker asked if this were the case and neither the 'V' connection nor road over the dam were built, how residents of Springridge would get to those facilities. Ms. Echols stated if residents were going to the clubhouse at Forest Lakes South,they would get on Powell Creek Drive; but if they wanted to go to Forest Lakes North, they would take Powell Creek either up Hollymead or over to Ashwood and then take 29 to the Forest Lakes North Development. In response to Mr. Rooker's question about road capacity, Ms. Echols replied that the "level of service analysis"has been submitted to VDOT, but they have not yet responded with their evaluation. Mr. Rooker then asked if county engineering had examined the dam to determine its ability to withstand a road. Mr. Brooks responded that engineering has not conducted any specific measurements or studies, but said, "it is our understanding that it is wide enough to accommodate the road." Mr. Rooker asked whether it was capable of handling the road, to which Mr. Brooks replied, "We haven't done any studies in that regard; it's our assumption that it is." Mr. Finley asked if that guarantee would be made before the road was built. Mr. Brooks informed him that VDOT would require an agreement with the county guaranteeing the physical integrity of the dam. Mr. Rooker asked for further clarification, "If this development were contingent upon the dam road....the dam would have to be thoroughly examined to determine for certain whether or not from an engineering standpoint it could bear the load." Mr. Brooks confirmed this. Staff added that this issue was addressed in the early 1980's when it was first proposed to go into the state system, and the LaRue Geotech Engineering firm conducted a study and it was accepted by their resident engineer on structural stability. Mr. Cilimberg added that a review was done approximately six years ago when the dam was a Capital Improvements Project, but said an updated analysis and BMP would be needed. 10 Mr. Rooker asked "When was this property included in the Comprehensive Plan as part of the designated growth area, and what is that date in relationship to the opening of Forest Lakes and the opening of Hollymead." Staff responded that the growth area boundaries for Hollymead since the 1980 Comprehensive Plan have been Powell Creek (eastern boundary), and may have been even further east in the first (1971) Comprehensive Plan. Staff said that Forest Lakes has been open since late 1988. Mr. Finley asked Ms. Echols to clarify whether staff feels the "V"road is most advantageous to the project, because it is mentioned in the staff report but is not specified as a condition of recommendation. Ms. Echols responded that the applicant does not have control over the area in which the right-of-way would be placed, and while staff could recommend it be there, "it's owned by someone else." She added, "We would recommend that would be the best alternative but given the application as it is, all we can do is encourage it; that's why we didn't want to include that as a condition of recommendation." Mr. Rieley asked Ms. Echols if there was any detail forthcoming about the new location of the relocated pedestrian/bike trail. Ms. Echols replied there is no additional detail available, but said there would be a bike path, and "we think it would be appropriate to have it as far away from the road as possible....there's a 120-foot right-of-way in through there, so there should be enough distance to get a separation. But the actual location has not been determined." Mr. Rieley asked how far the edge of the pavement of the roadway would be to the waterline. Mr. Franco calculated an estimated approximate 60' distance. Mr. Rieley asked for specific traffic calming measures that would be used, given the level of concern about fast-moving traffic. Ms. Echols said that raised crosswalks near the school, a roundabout at two intersections (which VDOT may not favor), realignment of Hollymead Drive and Powell Creek intersection into a "T", additional stop signs. Mr. Benish said multiple stop situations might be placed at other intersections, and said there are more options available, but VDOT has been reluctant to endorse them. In response to Mr. Rooker's questions, Ms. Echols said the $100,000 in off-site improvements is the money being proffered for the traffic calming, and said there is additional traffic calming proposed within the development itself which is not included in the $100,000. In response to Mr. Finley's question about the proffer which states the road over the dam will be built before approval of the 100t lot, Ms. Echols responded that that proffer has been modified to state before the 50th lot. "We've been trying to get the offsite proffer money to coincide with knowledge of when we could spend that for traffic calming." She added that the build-out of this particular development would take place over a 5-year period. Ms. Echols said the 90-day period referenced in the proffer is the critical time period in which the applicant and the county (if this were approved) would go to the Homeowner's Association and discuss the possibility of getting the alternative right-of-way. Mr. Rooker asked if it was clear in the proffer language that the applicant would have to "fail" in his efforts to put in the "V"road in order to put in the dam road. "When I read them, I don't really come away with a strong feeling that...it's clear that he's suggesting that he would attempt to do the 'V' road as the first option." Mr. Rooker asked if the applicant has obligated himself to exercise a good faith effort to negotiate the necessary components for the "V" road before he would go forth with the potential road over the dam. Ms. Echols responded, "That's our 11 impression, but if it isn't that clearly stated to you all, then we could ask for that to be more clearly stated in the proffer." Mr. Nitchmann raised the cost issue pursuant to the "V"road proposal. Mr. Rooker referenced the proffer language that states if the cost of this alternative access exceeds this amount [the cost of the road over the dam] this proffer will be exercised on the discretion of the owner. Mr. Rooker said he's not satisfied that in this proffer the owner is obligated to exercise a good faith effort to consummate the things necessary to construct the "V"road before he moves on to construct the road over the dam. He added, "I would like to get the applicant on record if he agrees that is his intent here...." Ms. Echols said that it is staff's impression that is what the applicant will be pursuing, "but they have pointed out to us as of yesterday that there is a significantly different cost that will have to be accommodated...they are not committing to making up the $220,000 difference, and that will need to be accommodated in order for them to proceed forward with that way." Commissioners recalled the applicant's earlier statement to apply traffic calming monies to the alternate route, but also recalled the statements made that the county would be asked to make up the difference. Mr. Nitchmann mentioned that the alternate route is predicated on the applicant getting the piece of land from the Homeowner's Association, and under his proffer would then have the option to build the road over the dam. In response to Ms. Washington's question, Ms. Echols clarified there is money allocated for the road over the dam; if the "V" connection is pursued, the county or someone else would be asked to make up the cost difference. Mr. Nitchmann observed that "one of the reasons we're in this predicament is because there are a lot of people moving here because of the way of life we have. We can't stop that, and I think we as a Commission and we as a local government have a need to try and make sure that everybody leads the life that that would like to live, and also have the security and safety for their children...." He further stated that"most of this traffic generated in this area appears to me [to be] generated by the people who live there, so I have to ask...aren't there school buses that go around and pick the kids up and drop the kids off at school? Right now it's kind of a dead end road coming into those schools, so I have to kind of assume that most of the traffic coming in there is either parents dropping their kids off or picking them up....Second, why is it not possible, if the traffic goes by so fast, is it not within our authority to put stopsigns up on both sides of every school so that the cars have to stop?" Mr. Nitchmann added, "I don't have a fear of this being a Route 29 bypass...maybe for local people, but certainly not for people coming out of town." He also said, "I don't particularly like the idea of busloads of kids going out on 29 and coming back in, when you've got semi-trailer trucks coming down 29....until we get the bypass built and force the trucks to go over to the western bypass you're going to have that potential danger of some big vehicle running into a school bus....I think there are some ways the safety issue can be mitigated if everybody got together and we as a county decided to stop these things....somebody has to stick their neck out a 12 little bet here and try to get VDOT to go along with what the neighborhood requires in order to keep some level of safety.... "I do know one thing," he continued, "you like living there. You like living there because the developer did a fine job of building a community that everybody can be proud of. In looking at what the developer is trying to do now in expanding this area, he's expanding it because there's a need in the community....because people are moving here, like many of you moved here, into this community for a way of life." Mr. Nitchmann added that the developer is trying to do what the county is asking by building in a growth area, not in a rural area or open space, and is trying to put some mixed housing in to have an area where people with mixed income levels can live in harmony. "I think it's time right now for the county to step up to the board. If the developer is willing to put $100,000 for traffic calming, we've got traffic calming money in the CIP program..." Mr. Nitchmann suggested that there may be ways to reduce costs, such as having sidewalks on just one side of the road instead of two, to use the cost savings toward the "V"road. "If we put in some, the developer puts in some, and maybe the Forest Lakes people might see that it's a lot better alternative to have a "V" connection than the road across the dam, maybe they would like to chip in a little bit, and I think we need to go to the Board of Supervisors and ask them in the CIP where can they get $100,000. If you're talking about $200,000 difference here, in the scheme of things you're not talking about a lot of money." He told fellow Commissioners, "I think we ought to support ZMA 98-12 tonight; I think we ought to support SP 98-46 because the person who owns that property deserves the right to go forward to utilizing his property in any way he sees fit because he does own it.....I don't think we have the right to prevent someone from utilizing his property to the best advantage that he or she feels that they can. Regarding Springridge, I think it's a good design, and I think everybody needs to sit down and give a little and come to some type of consensus....the developer in the past has always built a first-class community, and I think he'll do that here." Mr. Nitchmann concluded, "I think this is a time when we all need to give—the county needs to give something, Forest Lakes needs to give something, the developer needs to give something, Hollymead needs to give something, and we need to go to VDOT and do what's necessary regarding stopsigns, traffic calming measures and so forth on the roads coming around to the schools." Mr. Rieley congratulated the staff on "a particularly clear report of a complicated issue" and said he appreciated the overheads that showed the topography and the neighborhoods surrounding the project area. "I think, frankly, that this is the best development proposal I've seen since I've been on the Planning Commission. As Mr. Nitchmann said, I think it's a good design; I think it's a combination of good design, entrepreneurial caution and vision blended in an intelligent way." Mr. Rieley continued, "This is the kind of development I think we want to support for its organization, its potential to build community and to achieve higher density in a civilized way. So I think this offers us an awful lot; that's not to say it's without its problems, and the problems focus around traffic...but I do think that this goes into a problematic existing condition. We're infilling within a problematic pattern of dead-end neighborhoods....l really think we must begin to build places to live in that share traffic more equitably." He added, "I agree with Mr. 13 Nitchmann that they don't necessarily have to be deathtraps. There are lots of schools in our neighborhoods that are on through streets." Mr. Rieley continued, "So the bottom line seems to be everyone in Hollymead wants the traffic to go through Forest Lakes; everyone in Forest Lakes wants it to go through Hollymead, and either one of them would be happy to have it go on Proffit [Road], and nobody on Proffit wants it to go there. I think Mr. Nitchmann is exactly right—everybody is going to have to make some accommodation here; we cannot, should not deny this developer the right to execute this plan....the bottom line is what is the most intelligent way to make it connect up to the other neighborhoods in the area. I came in with the same point of view as Mr. Nitchmann—that the road across the dam is the most direct, reasonable way to do that." But Mr. Rieley commented that the one common concern expressed by all speakers is that no one wants the road over the dam, and added, "I do think there is some room there to explore alternatives. I'm not sure the "V"road is exactly the right way to achieve that...but I think we ought to leave the door open for that, and I think these proffers, the way they're written, leave the door open for negotiation." Mr. Rieley emphasized that if the Commission does not pass the plan than the developer has absolutely no negotiating position regarding the road placement; if the alternative to the "V" road is the connection over the dam, than he does have some negotiating room. "I think it's worth spending some money to achieve a connection that satisfies the concerns of the neighbors, but I sure hope it doesn't come out of the sidewalks on both sides of the streets." Mr. Rooker said he agreed with many of Mr. Rieley's comments, and stated "This property is going to be developed. The question is whether or not it's developed according to a PRD such as what's been presented to us, or developed as a matter of right. Whereas it might be developed by right in a somewhat less dense fashion, I think the plan that he's presented is far superior for the county and for the surrounding neighborhoods than what we would get in a typical by-right development. This property is in the growth area...and this plan presents actually significantly less density than the density to that property that's recommended by the Comprehensive Plan." Mr. Rooker described the plan as "one of the more imaginative plans for use of the property that we've seen in a long time, and it brings out....many of the concepts that the Land Use Plan recommends: clustering of homes, use of open space, park areas, mix of housing types, more than adequate stream buffers, a multitude of sidewalks and pedestrian accesses within the community, and substantial recreation areas." He added, "The issue here is access, and how the access is going to be achieved for the community, and all the options that are presented...present some burdens, and unfortunately the burdens of additional people are inevitable. It's unfair to attempt to impose all of those burdens on any one party." Mr. Rooker said it's important to have some interconnectivity between the communities, and emphasized that 90% or more expected on these roads is generated by the existing developments when built-out. He mentioned that in terms of capacity, many county roads operate at an "F" level of service. The roads within the Springridge proposal, even with the additional proposed traffic, would operate at an "A" or"B" level of service. Mr. Rooker used Georgetown Road and Hydraulic for comparison, citing their traffic counts at approximately 20,000 vehicles per day. Mr. Rooker concluded, "I think it's a good plan. I think we can find a way to spread the burden....I think perhaps pursuing the proffers as somewhat set forth by the applicant. I would 14 like to see a little more emphasis on the obligation of the applicant to pursue the "V"road before he moves on to the road over the dam. Whereas the road over the dam presents perhaps the most direct connection between these communities, I've heard enough tonight about the fear that people have....to feel that we should see that that option is pursued. I know we can't force the developer or force the association to provide the access to the developer to build that road, but I think if the association and people in Forest Lakes think that is a much better plan than the road over the dam, then they will be motivated to sit down and talk to the developer about pursuing that." Mr. Finley commented that the proffer leaves the decision in part up to the Homeowners Association whether they want to donate the land for the road, and up to the county to contribute to the cost of the road. He said that the total proffer of the developer is $300,000, while the total cost to the county is $253,000 per year, "That hits all of our pocketbooks, not just that community. Maybe then between the Homeowner's Association right-of-way, the developer, and the county that this thing could be approved." Ms. Washington said, "The overall design is great." She asked if the applicant would honestly commit to exploring the "V" connection instead of the dam road. Mr. Loewenstein asked if that question could be directed to staff. Ms. Washington replied, "The applicant didn't go on record at any time during this whole public hearing as saying, 'yes, I'm going to do that.' I heard the dam requires the least amount of work, it's the cheaper way to go...and we're talking about kids. The big picture of the Planned Residential Development is great. I commend the developers for the plan. I know this is what the Board of Supervisors and this Committee are looking for, but if there's a way to get around going over the dam...." Ms. Washington told Mr. Loewenstein she would like to hear directly from the applicant about his intent, "It can't hurt for him to say yes or no." Mr. Rooker elaborated to Mr. Loewenstein, "What we're talking about here is a modification to a proffer to include a statement by the applicant that the proffer would include a good faith effort on his part to pursue the 'V' road as the primary option." Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Runkle to readdress the Commission. Mr. Runkle said, "Our commitment is to aggressively pursue that option. These are the restraints that we've said: so far we think it's going to be $300,000 more; if the $100,000 is applied against that, it would make it roughly $200,000 more. We do not have a final design by any means, and that estimate may change either up or down. I hope it will change down as a result of further analysis. We might be able to get a break on road design requirements....The other aspect that we could get some help from....are some cost elements in the internal component of the development itself that could potentially provide funds toward that connection." Mr. Runkle said the sidewalks internally could be placed on just one side as suggested, but it would probably detract from the project. He also stressed that they would like to avoid major changes because "we don't want to have to come back and rezone the project again to amend the master plan to reflect those changes. We would like to have the flexibility in this negotiation to identify some things, if it takes those things, in order to make this connection work." Mr. Runkle added that he has no control over the attitude of the Forest Lakes Homeowner's Association relative to the land and its cost that would be needed for the "V" road right-of-way. 15 Mr. Runkle concluded, "I certainly can't make a promise...I think if the insistence was that that ["V" road] be the plan, I think we would prefer to modify the internal plan and go back to a reduced density, because the economics of the plan simply do not support an additional $300,000 for that connection." Ms. Washington stated her concern that people will use the roads within the development for running errands, and rushing from one place to another on Timberwood, Hollymead, Powell Creek Drive and Ashwood. "We as adults need to become more aware in that community and stop rushing. I see some potential....I'm not really [in favor] of opening that road over the dam; I'm more [in favor] of the "V" connector. I realize the property is going to be developed no matter what; the whole design of this project I definitely favor....this is what the Board of Supervisors is looking for..." She added, "I know the biggest issue to the residents is the serenity of the neighborhood and the safety of their kids, and that's really one of my concerns, too. I know that part of our traffic problem in front of the school was not created by this development—it was created by poor planning on all parts, where we have two schools with one entrance and one exit. So I know we need to do something to clean that up...I'm not sure what it is we can do, but we need to open it up, find a better way to circulate our buses....instead of riding the buses our kids—we bring them to school because it gives the kids a few more minutes....I understand driving the kids to school, but we have to come up with a full time crossing guard for Hollymead and for Southerland. We have to make sure we have a full-time nurse in both of those schools to make sure if[anything happens] to our kids on the way to school, they're going to be taken care of. So as the Hollymead and Forest Lakes communities, we have to become better advocates and better planners for that neighborhood and part of that is trying to correct some of these problems that we have already....and we do have to compromise, because the developer is going to develop the property no matter what." Ms. Washington concluded, "We as community members have to be a lot more courteous, and we have to slow down—that's the bottom line. So I guess I can support most of this action, I'm still at this particular point, however, having a very hard time, with the dam connection." Mr. Rooker said, "It seems to me that as the way the proffers are presented now, and with the applicant indicating that he will vigorously pursue the 'V' road, we're in somewhat of a posture where the people in Forest Lakes will have a lot to say about whether or not it's the road over the dam or the 'V' road because they control the right-of-way that the 'V' road would go on. If we don't have the road over the dam as a fallback option, in effect what we do is give the people in Forest Lakes a veto power over whether or not all of the traffic in this development should be imposed upon Hollymead. And to me, that's not fair. There are benefits that will flow from this development [to these communities], and they will need to share the burden." Ms. Washington responded, "I guess if we're going to open up the dam, we need to find some very serious traffic calming measures in there so there is no speeding, so that the new trails are still accessible to the kids and not right up by the road. I don't see if the dam is opened that any of that portion is nailed down, and I guess that's what I would like to see...if we're going to open the dam road, let's nail down where the paths are going to go, how these kids are still going to be able to travel through these neighborhoods safely, without always having adult....supervision." 16 Mr. Nitchmann asked, "Isn't the way the document is presented [right now] do exactly what we're saying....it's a pretty open option proposal that we're preparing to vote on. There's two or three weeks between now and the Board of Supervisors, and I'm sure there is something that could be done between that time, and this presentation is going to be done in front of the Board. So by that time, they'll have what we discussed here and what goes on between Forest Lakes Homeowners and the developers—if they end up saying we're not selling the property...then the Board of Supervisors can do what they fell is best -to approve the dam or approve it without it." Mr. Thomas said, "In favor of the developers, the integrity that Mr. Runkle has, I think he's proven that over the years throughout the whole area. I have a lot of sympathy for the Forest Lakes people about the dam. The dam is probably the best way to put it [the road] through, but it's taking away that nature trail that they love so dearly. I think whatever proffers that we would put on this development, that Mr. Runkle and the Kessler Group would do whatever they had to do to make it work for the whole area and the county, not just for themselves. I feel like they want to make the project be viable for the whole neighborhood, they don't want to put a thorn in the middle of the two Forest Lakes developments, which they have developed with their heart and their soul. I think they have their hearts in the right places." Mr. Loewenstein commented, "This has been a very difficult decision. I think this situation is a perfect example of how we as a county have often failed to grapple with and solve the infrastructure problems before the incurrent growth in any given area. This has happened to us in the past, and it's still happening to us, and I think it's really important to understand that. Given that this particular parcel and many others around there have been part of the designated growth area for many, many years...given that, we are also faced with a great deal of additional growth which is going to be extremely traffic productive at the North Fork development which is going to be a very close distance away, and the fact that we have utterly failed to come to grips with the whole transportation infrastructure in that area of the county going far beyond what the pros and cons of what this particular application might offer is a grave failure. And I hope that it is something that in the future we as a community are going to be able to address at the appropriate time and in the appropriate sequence. I hope that we take that very seriously to heart." Mr. Loewenstein added, "Certainly we have talked a lot tonight about impacts, because this is a property inside the designated growth area, it's been inside that growth area for a long time..., I think many of these impacts were to be expected. The question is how to organize the use of this land in such a way that the negative aspects of these impacts can be minimized. I've been very impressed by the neo-traditional concept that the plan itself offers. I think that it promotes a type of planning for development that we need more of in this community....at least a few speakers tonight have emphasized that point. One of the things that I like the best about the plan is that it does promote connectedness both internally and externally to surrounding neighborhoods, and this connectivity is also something recommended in our Comprehensive Plan, and I think that's important." Mr. Loewenstein concluded, "I'm not going to comment at any length on the merits of what's before us. I agree with my colleagues on the Commission, and I think that this is an excellent plan, and I think that the proffers and conditions do offer some flexibility, and I agree with Mr. Nitchmann and what others have said in that connection....but I think we do need to be aware that as long as we continue to promote growth without proper infrastructure planning way ahead of time, we're going to run into difficulty over and over and over again in the community, and 17 this is something that I hope we address - citizens of the community here, developers and residents; I hope members of the Board hear this as well." Mr. Loewenstein stated, "I support the plan as submitted." He pointed out that approval of ZMA 98-12 and SP 98-46 are required for approval of ZMA 98-13, and also approval of the first two are required for any by-right use of this property. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Ms. Washington seconded approval of ZMA 98-12. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of SP 98-46 with conditions as set forth by staff. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of ZMA 98-13 with conditions recommended by staff and accompanying proffers. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded approval of a critical slopes waiver associated with the Springridge development. The motion passed unanimously. Ali items will be considered by the Board of Supervisors on November 18th. Ms. Washington added a final comment, "I can't emphasize enough to the developers making the road safe in this development." There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. NOTES: (1) Ms. Echols complete staff report is included as Attachment F (2) The recording equipment used in the auditorium is not technically compatible with the microphones, according to the previous Planning Commission secretary. Therefore, the tapes produced are nearly inaudible. Any errors within this transcription can probably be attributed to the poor sound quality of the recorded meeting. 18