Albemarle County Planning Commission

September 8, 2009

 

The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing, work session and meeting on Tuesday, September 8, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia.

 

Members attending were Marcia Joseph, Don Franco, Calvin Morris, Bill Edgerton, Linda Porterfield, Thomas Loach, Vice Chairman and Eric Strucko, Chairman.   Don Franco arrived at 7:24 p.m. Julia Monteith, AICP, non-voting representative for the University of Virginia was absent. 

 

Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Elaine Echols, Principal Planner; Amy Pflaum, Senior Engineer; Gerald Gatobu, Principal Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Bill Fritz, Director of Current Development and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. 

 

Call to Order and Establish Quorum:

 

Mr. Strucko called the regular meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. and established a quorum.

 

The Planning Commission took a break at 7:16 p.m.

 

The meeting reconvened at 7:24 p.m.

 

Mr. Franco arrived at 7:24 p.m.

 

Gerald Gatobu presented a PowerPoint presentation and summarized the staff report.  (See Staff Report)

 

The request, SDP-2009-00009, Arden Place is for preliminary site plan approval for a 212 unit multifamily residential apartment complex with a club house on the R15 residential zoned portion of Tax Map 61 Parcel 124 which consists of 11.35 acres. Associated waivers include section 4.2 (critical slopes) and section 21.7.c (disturbance of a buffer zone adjacent to a residential district) The property, described as Tax Map 61, Parcel 124 is 11.35 acres in size, is located in the Rio magisterial district and is zoned R15 Residential and EC entrance corridor.

 

·There are four items before the Planning Commission tonight for the following: Critical Slopes Waiver, Requested Buffer Disturbance, Preliminary Site Plan and a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors for open space.  Four actions are being requested. 

 

The proposed changes to the site plan include the following:

·There is now a second point of access that meets ordinance Section 32.7.2.4 for a second point to a public street.  It goes down towards Rio Road.  For the most part that is the biggest change. 

·There is also a path that connects and goes down all the way to the Woodbrook Lagoon project.  That is something that has been added.  It is kind of a pedestrian path that will be going towards the Conway property. 

·There is a potential for a future connection to the Conway property that staff added to the staff report as a point of discussion. 

·There is also a revised traffic analysis that was also present in the staff report.  Joel DeNunzio as well as the representative for the applicant is present to answer questions about the traffic impacts to this.

·The critical slopes waiver and the buffer disturbance waiver really has not changed apart from the fact that the road will now be going downhill disturbing some critical slopes that are basically man-made. 

 

 

There is a connection over to the County of Albemarle Lagoon Project. Concept plan had already been prepared.  This is going to be a point of discussion and emphasis for a lot of the public present.  There is a proposed bike rake at the intersection.  There are four parking spaces, benches and a meadow overlook.  Staff is proposing that the path come in and connect to this public space so that people can take advantage of this public open space.  That is something staff is proposing and would be more than happy to talk about. 

 

The applicant has made the two points of connection based on that.  Staff recommends approval of the critical slopes waiver and the buffer disturbance waiver.

 

Mr. Strucko asked if the critical slopes were man made.

 

Mr. Gatobu replied yes. There are some areas of critical slopes within the C-1 parcel.  There is no site plan.  Staff can approve the critical slopes administratively if there is a site plan that showed the critical slopes and how they were made in that property.  Staff agrees that most of the fill came from the shopping center site and was dumped onto this property.  Since there is no site plan that shows that staff has to bring the request before the Planning Commission for a critical slopes waiver.

Mr. Strucko asked if the two points of connection are Forest Court and Rio. 

 

Mr. Gatobu replied that is correct. 

 

Mr. Strucko asked if the buffer disturbance is because of the road.

 

Mr. Gatobu replied yes because there is a 20’ buffer between a commercial and a residential district. They have to come before the Planning Commission per Section 21.7.c for the buffer disturbance waiver in cases where staff cannot do that administratively. 

 

Mr. Strucko asked about the open space.

 

Mr. Gatobu pointed out the open space.  The green space is shown in the staff report as going all the way down the property.  There is wooded area that will be preserved for which the applicant gets a 10 percent density bonus. 

 

Mr. Strucko said that the pedestrian path connects to the Lagoon Project.

 

Mr. Gatobu replied yes, and that in the staff report it shows the pedestrian path going straight into the Lagoon project.

 

Mr. Strucko invited other questions for staff.

 

Ms. Porterfield said that with regard to the path she noticed that it is 10’ wide.  She asked if that so it is ADA compliant.

 

Mr. Gatobu replied yes, that it is one of the standards that they have.  He pointed out the trail standards in the Design Standards Manual.  What they have chosen is a Class A Type 2 low maintenance multi use shed path. It is the one that requires the least amount of maintenance in this case. They did not randomly pick, but chose the best available type of path or trail.

 

Mr. Strucko asked if it was an asphalt path impervious surface.

 

Mr. Gatobu replied yes that it was 10’ suffice and 2 cleared shoulder.  They chose the grades to be ADA accessible.

 

Mr. Edgerton said that the preliminary site plan shows the two connections going out to Rio Road and yet in the staff report at the very end on page 12 it states that the applicant is pursuing a connection from the Carmike which would become the secondary road.  Then the road to Rio would not.  He assumed that the Commission being asked to approve a plan that he really does not want to proceed with because if he goes to the Carmike he will not be doing the connection to Rio.  He asked if that was correct.

 

Mr. Fritz noted that there were two issues there.  One, that the plan before the Commission does not have the Carmike access.  The applicant is proposing that.  What they have done is provided that information to the Commission in the event that if the applicant is able to secure that access and decides that he wants to go through with that staff would consider that to be a major change to the site plan and the final site plan would come back before the Planning Commission.  Staff wanted to present that to the Commission at this meeting so that if the Commission had a strong feeling one way or the other that information could be provided to the applicant.  For example, if the Commission felt that the Carmike access is not a good access there is not much point in the applicant continuing to pursue it.  When the final comes through then the Commission would likely not approve that.  If they thought it was a better access than the Rio access, then they could theoretically allow staff to administratively approve the final site plan with the Carmike access and not having to bring it back to the Commission.  So the Carmike access is simply being provided for information right now.  The plan before the Commission does not have the Carmike access.  If the applicant gets the Carmike access staff will bring the final site plan back to the Commission for additional consideration unless they tell staff at this meeting it does not need to be.

 

Mr. Strucko asked how viable the Carmike access for vehicular travel or a throughway is.  It is a parking lot.

 

Mr. Fritz replied that it goes through the travel way and parking lots of the Garden Shopping Center.  In the staff report it is noted that there are some issues with that.  It is not an ideal situation by any stretch of the imagination.  But it does afford the opportunity to get into to the Gardens Shopping Center which then gets one to Route 29 either farther north of Albemarle Square or going south to use the light at Albemarle Square.

 

Mr. Strucko asked which connection that would be in lieu of, and Mr. Fritz replied the direct Rio connection and not the Putt Putt connection.

 

Mr. Edgerton noted that was shown clearly on Sheet 5 which is identified as Arden Place Preliminary Site Plan as is the one on the screen before us.  If nothing else they need to figure out which one if they take staff’s recommendation for approval

 

Mr. Gatobu said that it would be the one shown on the screen that has the connection to Rio.

 

Ms. Porterfield said if she understands correctly if the Commission is willing to go with the Carmike access in lieu of they could word the resolution such that staff would have the ability to do that.

 

Mr. Edgerton said what of the Commission would be telling staff essentially is that they did not view the Carmike connection to be a substantial change from the preliminary warranting the final coming back before the Planning Commission.  It would still have to go through all of the administrative review, engineering and so forth.

 

Mr. Strucko asked if the pedestrian pathway could be ADA compliant and have a pervious surface.

 

Mr. Gatobu replied yes. In this case it is actually shown in the Design Standard Manual.  For the most being that wide allows the path to be of a width of the Americans with Disability Act.  They want to try really hard to work with the grades to make sure that happens.  Staff talked to Parks and Rec, who are the experts on the trails, and they are very complimentary in what they want to do.    Staff reviewed the exhibit submitted by the applicant and asked if it something they would recommend in terms of the design and they said yes that they would highly recommend it.  Parks and Rec were very impressed that the applicant went with the 10’ wide path.  In terms of safety the wider path would allow one to see a little further making it safer.

 

Ms. Joseph asked if this pathway would become property of the County of Albemarle.

 

Mr. Gatobu replied yes.  The applicant has agreed to do maintenance because it will be part of the parcel of their development.   It is to their benefit to have it more than looking nice.  So the applicant has agreed to do that as well.  They are ready to work with the County in terms of maintaining it.

 

Ms. Joseph asked about the buffer disturbance.  In one paragraph staff states that the Architectural Review Board will be working to make sure that 50’ buffer is landscaped.  She asked if was in their purview to do that.

 

Mr. Gatobu replied yes.  The first site plan that came in had a traffic circle.  The ARB asked that the applicant change the intersection so that they can reduce the amount of buffer disturbance.  The applicant complied with that.  The ARB has reviewed the plan and has given some comments and direction in terms of the buffer as well.

 

Ms. Joseph asked if that does not have to be a condition of approval for the ARB to grant them.

 

Mr. Gatobu said that it is a condition that is included that they need to get Architectural Review Board approval. 

 

Mr. Strucko noted that one of the issues they discussed that last time they looked at this was the impact of traffic on Rio Road and the time element to get out of this development.  He asked if they have addressed that at all in the plan before the Commission that excludes the Carmike connection.  He asked if they are still faced with the same issues about the 20 minutes.

 

Mr. Gatobu said that the applicant has revised the traffic study.  He asked that Joel DeNunzio or Amy Pflaum address that issue.

 

Joel DeNunzio noted that they have received a revised traffic study from the applicant.  There were a couple of things in the first one that had around 1,100 seconds and 19 minutes delay on the left hand lane out of Putt Putt.  That was not accurate.  When they looked at the revised study they found that the revisions included accounting for the signal of Old Brook Way up the way, which allowed for some more gaps in the road that made it a little bit better.  But there was also the inclusion as one comes out of Putt Putt Place if taking a left there is actually a shared left turn lane on both sides. When including that left shared turning lane it actually allows a two stage gap procedure form Putt Putt Place out to Rio Road.  So it allows one to get the first gap that is created off to the left from Old Brook Road intersection, you get in the median and then the gaps that are created from the Albemarle Square signal you can proceed to go.  So it is basically like having a median in there.  When accounting for the median being in place the levels of service to get out of that are acceptable.

 

Mr. Strucko noted that in the letter it notes that the delay drops to roughly 30 seconds.

 

Mr. DeNunzio replied that was correct.  It was both the signal at Old Brook and the two way turn lane that made those two changes.

 

Mr. Strucko asked if he had looked at any of the traffic work that would result from the connection to the Carmike and the elimination of this road to Rio Road directly.

 

Mr. DeNunzio replied that they have reviewed that.  Really making that connection to Carmike does not have much affect on traffic coming from Putt Putt Place onto Rio Road making a left turn.  He felt that it had a little affect on the right turns from Rio Road to Route 29 North.  He felt that it was a little bit of an improvement in the movement right there. 

 

Mr. Strucko asked how VDOT views a connection through a parking lot.

 

Mr. DeNunzio said that this all private and internal.  They really did not consider it.  It really does not address the issues that they had with the levels of service movements coming out of Putt Putt.  As far as a second connection here it shows a little bit of an improvement at the signal over there, but it might be it is not really a travel way going through a parking lot. So making the connection has some benefit, but not as a true roadway.  As far as using that connection instead of the Rio Road connection, the additional right-in and right-out on Rio Road, as far as the traffic goes he did not think that there was much increased benefit for one or the other there.  The Putt Putt Place and the Rio Road connection are so close that having a second connection to Rio Road is acceptable.  Last time they considered this they said they were putting more conflict points on Rio Road, which is never a desirable thing.  It can work from a spacing perspective having a right turn lane going into the right-in for this new connection, but as far as the traffic he did not think that it addresses any of the issues.  The left turn movement was always the concern.  Having another right-in and right-out really does not address that.

 

Mr. Strucko noted that what he heard Mr. DeNunzio saying was having the connection directly to Rio and another connection through Putt Putt Place there is really no added benefit for the second connection.

 

Mr. DeNunzio replied traffic wise there would be no benefit until they get the commercial development in there, which is when they might see a benefit from that second connection.

 

Mr. Strucko said that there is some benefit to connecting to Carmike, but it is not really a through way.

 

Mr. DeNunzio noted that he did not mean that the second Rio Road connection is non desirable.  With or without it as far as VDOT is concerned that both are acceptable.

 

Ms. Joseph noted that in looking at a travel way as a parking area they have done this at least twice in the past.  In Albemarle Place a travel way connected through the parking area.  Also, it was done in Hollymead Town Center when they were looking at a travel way connecting through the commercial through the parking areas back out onto Route 29.   So it is not anything new and different.  It has been done before.

 

Mr. Strucko hoped that they could get more input on this from the applicant.  He opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to address the Commission.

 

Valerie Long, representative for the applicant, presented a PowerPoint presentation and explained the changes in the proposal.  (Attachment – PowerPoint Presentation)  She noted that other present included Andy Megentee, Principal of Coleway Development, LLC and Bill Wrench, of Renaissance Planning Group who is serving as traffic engineer for the project.  They appreciate being back before the Planning Commission.  Staff has covered the changes very well.  Therefore, she would skip through those changes in the interest of time.

 

·She asked to highlight at the beginning that this is an infill development project.  They pulled out a copy of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan that has a section in it that is often overlooked.  That policy in many ways was created precisely for this type of a project.  It specifically states that infill development is considered one of the key initiatives for implementing the growth management policy and is encouraged for the following reasons: to use the development area lands in the most efficient manner possible, to discourage sprawl development and to maximize use and support of community facilities and infrastructure such as roads, utilities and transit.  Then it mentions specifically that there are much higher costs involved with developing infill projects than there are compared with other sites and consideration of permitting more intensive uses and densities on some properties may be necessary to get development costs including measures necessary to minimize impacts of development.  When they looked at that policy this project really included a lot of those challenges.

·This is obviously an infill project surrounded by property that has already been developed on all sides at a relatively intense stage.  It is in the development area and is zoned for 226 units by right, which includes the R-15 density plus the automatic bonus densities that could be granted depending on the type of project.  It is pedestrian oriented.  It is a good example of how development in the designated development area when coordinated with surrounding development can really create a project that is very harmonious with the Neighborhood Model Principles.  Because of the way the property around this property has development there are a variety of housing types with a mixture of uses with the retail and public spaces nearby.  It is walkable to a variety of destinations, which includes retail, office, professional and medical offices, recreational facilities and the public library, etc. 

·It is proposed as a market rate apartment community.  They are preserving 10 percent of the woodlands.  They are proposing to dedicate a sense of area of open space and the trails for public use.  There will be a swimming pool and clubhouse amenities on site.  They are requesting the Commission to grant two waivers to approve the site plan and also to weigh in on to the Board of Supervisors with regard to the open space dedication.  The pedestrian path connecting to the Lagoon Project is on the site plan.  Regardless if the Carmike connection is ultimately developed they will develop the pedestrian path to connect to the Carmike. 

·The darker green area is the tree preservation area that provides for some automatic bonus densities, which is equivalent to 17 units.  The applicant asks the Commission to grant the critical slopes waiver.  The disturbance for the road is exempt from the waiver requirements.  But the disturbance for the clubhouse and some of the parking lot is not exempt.   At the last meeting she went through the critical slopes analysis in late June. 

·The buffer waiver is a little more complicated because it is an unique situation.  It is a single parcel with split zoning of C-1 and R-15.  There is a 20’ buffer required to be maintained on the commercial side of the line.  They are not allowed to do any grading on the commercial side of the line where it is adjacent to the residential unless they get a waiver from the Commission.  In order to develop the residential it is necessary to do a little bit of disturbance on that buffer area in order to create the road.  Obviously, this is the only place for the access at this point.  The area is entirely on the commercial side of the line, but because it is adjacent to the residential they have to obtain the Commission’s consent for that disturbance.  It is a buffer in name only.  It is not a wooded vegetative area that is actually providing any type of a real buffer from anyone.  It is storage facilities and is a gravel parking lot.  It is not like they are disturbing an actual buffer.  It is a line on a map.

·There are 212 units being proposed.  They get the 107 base units, which is based on the R-15 density.  They get another 17 units by preserving 10 percent of the woodlands and an additional 25 units for the dedication of open space or the trail dedication.   The woodlands preservation is an automatic bonus density.  The open space trail dedication is discretionary.  Ultimately the Board of Supervisors has to act on that.  They are asking the Commission to recommend approval for those additional units.  They could get to 226 units with all automatic bonus density credits.  Through affordable units they could do 221 units or through a variety of options they could get to 226 units.  They are not doing that, but asking for 212 which they feel is appropriate for the area and for the market rate product they are trying to provide.

·The access points are noted.  She noted the pedestrian connection to Rio Road.  It makes that full connection.  There is a full sidewalk along Rio Road in both directions so it connects the pedestrians to that public sidewalk network that already exists.

·They are working very closely with the owners of the Carmike Shopping Center.  It is actually the Gardens Shopping Center, which are out of town owners.  They have been quite cooperative.  But it is a long process to work out all of the details of the connections.  This is the preferred location if and when they could ever work out all of the details to get there.  They are far from there yet.  They wanted to, as Mr. Fritz noted, to at least provide the Commission with information since it was something they were working on in the interest of full disclosure.   The owners of the shopping center have noted that one of the conditions would be that they have to gate that connection so that it is only the Arden Place residents that would be coming through.  It is not in any way going to be a public cut through.  Nobody wants that. One of the other issues to work out is how do they route the cars to ensure that there is no conflict with the pedestrians and other patrons of the shopping center.  Obviously they are not going to grant the necessary easements and approvals to make that connection if they are not very convinced that they can do that in a way that ensures the safety of their owners, tenants, guests and the general public.  Obviously, they would not want to do that either.  There are those issues to work out.  They are moving forward, but it is taking time.

·The traffic study has been pretty well explained. Their traffic engineer is present if there are any questions.  They have engaged a second traffic engineer to provide an audit of the first traffic study.  The first traffic study for the June meeting has been revised as Mr. DeNunzio described to include another intersection and take a few other factors into consideration, which lowered the delay time substantially.  VDOT has thoroughly reviewed the information as well.

 

Mr. Strucko invited questions for the applicant.

 

Mr. Morris asked for a run down on the applicant’s actions in regards to the path connecting to Woodbrook.

 

Ms. Long replied that right now there was no path to Woodbrook directly.  The path connects to the County’s Lagoon Project that is adjacent to Woodbrook, but does not connect to Woodbrook.  At the last meeting they had a path connecting directly to Woodbrook, which had been the request of staff and others.  In working with staff they recognized the public benefit of it.  They think it is more appropriate for it to connect to the County Lagoon’s Project than into Woodbrook.  They are happy to do it recognizing that there are some members of the Woodbrook community that don’t support the path into Woodbrook. They are just doing what the County has asked them to do, which is to connect it to the Lagoon Project.  It will provide some public benefit connecting that public land, the Lagoon Project, which will be a little bit more inviting perhaps once the Lagoon Project is fully implemented to the public spaces on Rio Road.  That will then lead one to a number of other places.  In addition it will connect into the Carmike and Gardens Shopping Center, which ultimately provides a pedestrian access to Albemarle Square Shopping Center and Route 29.  This really opens up a lot of possibilities when making those two connection points.  They feel that it would be quite a benefit to the public and would ask the Commission to support that dedication.

 

Mr. Strucko invited public comment. 

 

Mr. Fritz noted that staff today received two written correspondence that they did not have time to put in the packet.   He passed around the two letters.

 

John Gallenger supported luxury apartments being built on the site. He would prefer trees and a meadow on the project, but felt that luxury apartments would be a good fit on that property.  He was frustrated that they need to appear again this evening.  Since the last time he thought that they had decided that a Woodbrook connection was a bad item. Due to the one way in and out of Woodbrook he questioned why they would want to put a hole in one of their boundaries and jeopardize their security by providing access to the Lagoon Project since it is a not a park.  He questioned what would be the purpose of someone walking from Rio Road to look at a sandy berm.  Just past the bike rack on the picture there were bike racks and benches.  It is a small creek reconfiguration project and not a real park project or a Chris Green Lake.   He questioned if it was a real park there would be more than four parking spots and some benches.  More traffic in Woodbrook would threaten the community’s safety.  The footpath would be sending more people into Woodbrook where they don’t have sidewalks or street lights, which would be more safety issues. They are hearing different opinions from their neighbors tonight. The Woodbrook Community. Association cannot argue both for and against the Woodbrook connector.  They have chose to side with the neighbors that live closest and agree that there are valid safety issues that have not been addressed at these meetings.  In closing please let the applicant build his apartments because luxury apartments is what they should all hope for in this location.  That way they could permit the green space he is applying for so it would not impact their neighborhood.  , which is what they hope for in this location.  Please tell the County that the Woodbrook connection causes far too many security and safety issues and should be dropped from the plans.

 

Jerry Bettentif, resident of Woodbrook, pointed out through a show of hands that only one person in the audience living in the Woodbrook had asked for a trail in their neighborhood.  The trail was being requested from persons outside the community.  In asking how many would consider a 10’ paved asphalt strip to be a road there was a show of hands of over 10 to 15 person.  Therefore, the 10’ strip sounds like a roadway to the people in Woodbrook.  That leads to a creditability problem with the county.  A few months ago they were told that the Woodbrook Lagoon was a storm water enhancement project.  Most persons viewed it as an environmental improvement project and did not object to their tax dollar being spent for that.   He now wondered if it was a runoff project for the benefit of Arden Place with the cost being shifted from the developer to the public.  He would study the maps further and perhaps it is not.  The storm water enhancement project is not being presented more like a park to justify the need for a 10’ road or trail in the area.  From the discussions he heard that it was an ADA requirement for the path to be 10’ wide and paved.   From goggling he found that the ADA trail requirements call for a 3’ wide path with a stabilized surface that can be gravel or packed soil.  They are mostly concerned about the slope of a trail in terms of wheelchair suitability for the trail.  There is even an exception depending on terrain and area for a 32” trail.  The implication he had read and heard this evening did not indicate this.  There is not need for a 10’ wide trail or path in this area.  If the county wants to build a 3’ wide ADA compliant trail in this area he would ask that they do a survey to determine the potential users and to get some kind of idea of the costs benefit ratios.  

 

Kathy Welch, an 18 year resident of Woodbrook, reemphasized what had just been said about the ADA requirements.  There is no requirement that the so call trail has to be 10’ wide. It only needs to be 3’ to 4’ wide and composed of crushed stone or gravel and be a firm and stable surface. She took a tape measure and measured her car, which was 5 ˝ feet.  Her car could drive along the 10’ foot path as suggested with a 2’ space on each side.  If the Carmike entrance is approved it would go across this footpath and she feared that there would be possible vehicular traffic.  She questioned if there would be any traffic signals considered by VDOT for safety purposes particularly for children on bicycles.  She questioned why they would want the path to end up in the swamps or wetlands.  She questioned the motive behind this to put in a paved surface to end up in wetlands.

 

Lee Floydburg, resident of Woodbrook, spoke in opposition to any sort of path connecting into Woodbrook.  This is a complex bio-filter to protect the wetlands where pollutants will be building up behind the berms to prevent runoff of pollutants into the Chesapeake Bay Watershed area.  He questioned how this Lagoon area can be described as a park.  He questioned if the paved area would increase the paved hardscape runoff from the development to further stress this bio-filter system which protects the Chesapeake Bay.  The children will be pulled to this area.  The path will provide a direct link for the children from the Arden Place development and the Carmike Theatre for them to go down and find a place to get themselves hurt.  It is an attracted nuisance and not a park for children.  This is supposed to be dedicated to the county which will create maintenance costs for all taxpayers when no one sees this as a reasonable preferable project.  This can also pose some safety risks and concerns at the intersection of the roadway and they will have to install guards to get in the way of vehicles getting on the path.

 

Ann Hobson, 39 year resident of Woodbrook, said that her property faces part of the Lagoon property.  She was not familiar with the term footpath and therefore went to Webster’s Dictionary, which indicated it was a narrow path for pedestrians only.  She decided to go out and measure some of our familiar landmark.  She measured two sidewalks in two area 4’ and 4.5r”.  She measured bike paths that measured 4’ 41/2”.  The average trail in Penn Park is between 71/2’ and 8’.  At Albemarle High School it was 19’, which did not include the curbing.  That corresponds very closely to one-half the road way the County is asking us to use to call a footpath.  She did not think that the choice of words was common and saying they need it is not correct.  They need to remember the end of the lagoon project was where there is a joint gate with no fencing around the property.  She votes against the path since it is not something that they want.  It seems to be just what was originally proposed for access to our road. 

 

Terry Gallanger, wife of John the current President of Woodbrook and 19 year resident, noted that John has been part of this process since March.  Living in the back of the neighborhood this proposal does not affect them directly.  But they want to support the Powells since they are their neighbors.  The majority of the neighborhood came forward at the last meeting and said that they did not want the path connection and gave good reasons.  Mr. Fritz at the last meeting said that it was an unfair representative of Woodbrook and that most of the neighbors wanted the path. She did not know where that came from when they showed up in mass last time and strongly opposed a connection.  Also why a blacktop pathway next to a stream that is not a nature path.  They have a lot of deer and other animals visiting their yard.  She asked if the environment needs a blacktop pathway.   She noted that at the last meeting they were told that as a roadway it was private property and they would not be able to use it.  She asked if it was a pathway would it still be private property also and not be able to be used by Woodbrook residents.  She proposed that they support Mr. Powell and the surrounding neighborhood to say no pathway and if the Woodbrook residents want a nature way and not a blacktop then that is something the next President can look at.  Possibly it is something that a Boy Scout troop could work on.

 

Charlie Tractra, resident of Woodbrook, noted that at the last meeting he found that he was wrong that the applicant was an evil entity trying to destroy his community.  He also found that the applicant was under the impression that his community was against him for no particular reason.  That night he found out that they both were wrong.  At the end of the meeting he offered him the opportunity to try to work together.  Since that time he has come to see that the applicant was actually more the victim than Woodbrook was.  They have worked together with staff to address the problems, particularly the traffic problems, so that everybody could win.  Because of this tonight he can state that he has not objections to building this apartment complex and actually supports the additional units he needs.  His only objection is the proposed pathway.  On June 23 over 90 percent of the people who spoke supported the option that there is no connection to Woodbrook from any other development.  He supported the 90 percent and did not understand why the board would demand that the 10’ paved footpath be built.  His pickup truck is 6’ wide and could use this footpath as a road way.  Supposedly this footpath will be part of a park to be used by county residents.  It would also be useful to the neighborhood so they can walk to Fashion Square Mall.  Remember there will be a fence keeping them out of the Dumbarton Property.  While this may sound beneficial these ideas have not been thought out.  He asked that they please ask the planners how the residents, particular the children, will cross Rio Road.  Also where will county people find a place to park their cars?  Existing parking areas are private, there is no parking on Rio Road and the parking is very limited in Woodbrook.  There will be a lot of security issues.  While drawing a colored line on a map is easy actually building this footpath should take more thought and responsibility from you. .  But until all questions are answered why not just accept a right-of-way for a path that can be built in the future.  This will give the county time to solve the aforementioned problems and also the new community of Arden Place will be able to voice their opinion on something that will directly affect them.

 

Mr. Eugene Powell, resident of 2701 Brookmere Road for 34 years, said that a lot of activity takes place there. A pathway would be a disaster because many people walk across his property all the time.  He decided to build a path around behind the creek.  But the people continue to walk across the field through his yard to get to the theater parking lot even though he tells them to go around this way. He was opposed to any kind of path through Woodbrook with a connection to the theater. It would be a road through there and keep on going.  He hoped the Commission would disapprove this request. 

 

Beatrice Powell agreed with her husband Eugene in opposing the path.  They now have many people coming through their yard and approving this pathway would only increase the numbers.  Their property adjourns the proposed road path.  She strongly opposed the request and asked that the Commission disapprove the request because it was a problem for many residents of Woodbrook.

 

Stephanie Max, a resident of Woodbrook for 11 years, said that they access Albemarle Square.  They walk through the front of the properties across Woodbrook Shopping Center and Gardens Shopping Center to Albemarle Square and ACAC.  Their children walk to ACAC.  She asked if they put in the 10’ path how they would keep the cars off it.  She was concerned if they put in signs the cars would still use the path.

 

Kenneth Hoy, resident of 204 Woodbrook Drive, said that he attended the last meeting and thought the consensus was that there would be no type of walkway or a roadway coming into or going close to the Woodbrook area.  He respectfully requested that the Commission vote against this.

 

Laurie Campbell, an area resident of Woodbrook for 13 years, opposed the path and to allow people to come into their neighborhood.  She was appalled at the presentation of the 10’ path. At the last meeting there was no mention to use the ADA regulations.  She felt it was wrong to use people with disabilities to make them look good.  She supports people with disabilities, but does not use them to make herself look better.  She was appalled that the ADA Disabilities Act was brought into the 10’ path.  She opposed the request and asked the Commission to remember what was said at the last meeting.

 

Steve Huck, an 8 year resident of Woodbrook, opposed the 10’ wide path with the 2’ clearing on each side.  It would give benefit to see people jumping out at walkers for potential crime. It would be making a marvelous place for crime.  He asked that the Commission disapprove this request.

 

Mike Allure opposed the path because it leads to an area that will create a hazard to little children.  It does not matter whether the children come from Woodbrook or other communities because the path would lead them into an unattended area, which is not a park, creating an access from a public parking lot.  He sees right now that there are businesses closing down and more vacancies.  He did not know what kind of businesses or people that area will drawn.  But he was concerning about drawing children into an unattended area that is not a park and encouraging them to go there.  That is why he did not think a 10’ path is a good idea for kids.

 

Eric Baker, resident of Woodbrook for 8 years, opposed the request because the area is very quiet and safe at present and did not need any connection.  . 

 

Robert Manica, area resident, opposed the connection to the Carmike Theater.  At the road connection at Rio Road onto Garden Boulevard there is a right turn in and right turn out only on Route 29 with no deceleration lane.  Therefore he feared that the back way through Arden Place would be used frequently. He feared that they would move the problem from Rio to 29.

 

Ty Ellen, a resident of Woodbrook for 30 years, opposed the connection into Woodbrook and did not see any benefit to the Woodbrook residents at all.  The children are required to ride the bus to school.  The pathway is not needed for the children to get to school.  The one way into Woodbrook has worked for years and she asked that the Commission disapprove this request.  She requested that no connection into Woodbrook from any other communities be denied in the future.

 

There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko closed the public hearing to bring the matter before the Planning Commission. 

 

Mr. Strucko asked if the Lagoon Project is in the CIP or any of the County park plans

 

Mr. Gatobu noted that this project will be funded through a grant.  It was not being funded by the county.  As a planner, professional and someone that is trained in LEED he heard the neighbors and had talked to them.  As a professional they look at what the circumstances are and consider all of the factors including the crime.  If this was not opened to anybody else it would not be a problem to the community.  He talked with Greg Harper today and asked what he thought about it since he was in charge of it.  He said that he spoken with a Woodbrook resident and was told that if only Woodbrook was allowed to use the path into the Lagoon Project that they would be fine with it.  He found something to be terribly wrong with that.  That was his professional opinion.  It was not against anybody in the neighborhood regarding their recommendation for a 10’ path.  He felt bad that someone felt they would take advantage of ADA and that they don’t.  It is in the Design Standard Guidebook and why would they do that.  He apologized to the Chairman, but noted at some point they have to get in some rational on why they do what they do.

 

Mr. Strucko thanked staff because that was a hard accusation to make and he appreciated him commenting on it. 

 

Ms. Joseph noted that the goals of the Lagoon on the County website says are to provide water quality, preserve and enhance on site wetlands and create educational opportunities and  facilitate  access. This is not something that was made up by Planning Department per say, but were the goals set up when the grant was received for creating this area.  She understands what people are talking about.  As a landscape architect she feels very sad that people worry about pathways. It is one of the most important things that came from a Parks and Rec survey.  In the survey 80 to 90 percent said they wanted to see natural walking paths.  This is something that did not come from nowhere.   Consequently that is what they have looked for since the majority said they wanted to see linear paths.  She acknowledged this is not a park with playing fields.  But when doing intense activity in the development area a little piece of green space for people who live in the dense area is appreciated.

 

Mr. Strucko noted that it was recreational park space and passive park space.  He would categorize this as a passive park space.

 

Ms. Joseph asked Ms. Pflaum if this is used specificity for storm water for Arden Place.  She asked what is this being used for.

 

Amy Pflaum, Engineer, replied that it is providing a benefit to a development area that includes portions to the west side of Route 29.  It encompasses the area and parts of the Gardens area.  It has been around much longer than the Arden Place project.  Arden Place will have to meet the requirements of the Water Protection Ordinance.  It will have to provide on site storm water management.  They are already proposing in the preliminary plan a bio-filter and underground detention.  They will have to take care of all of their own storm water management.  They will not be given any storm water credit for the Woodland Lagoon Project.  She asked to clarify a few points.  The 10’ wide asphalt requirement is a County requirement for the Class A Type 2 trail.  Another part of the Class A requirement is that it meet the ADA standards for grades.  The ADA standards the width is less than 10’.  There are two criteria that the applicant has meet with the proposed trail – the County criteria of a Class A Type 2 trail and the ADA standards for grading.  The ADA standard from the Virginia greenways toolbox has 2 different levels of an ADA accessible trail.  One would be a 48” wide with a hard non skid asphalt surface, which would be an easy trail.  A moderate access trail would be 36” wide with a hard packed surface.  Those are the 2 different things or criteria being looked at for this trail.  It is the County criteria and the ADA criteria.  There was concern about the trail crossing or the vehicular connection at Carmike.  That will not be a public road and VDOT will not be maintaining it or putting up a cross walk.  As Ms. Long said Carmike would request that there be a gate at that connection where it meets the parking lot.  It will only be used by Arden Place residents.  It will be a low volume of traffic and no resident pedestrian conflict because of it being a low usage road.  Our trail standards also require that some kind signage or cross walks at a location of where a trail is crossing a roadway.  So they could require that on the final site plan if that Carmike connection is utilized

 

Mr. Morris asked would it still be in compliance if the pathway was 4 ˝ wide with a hard surface and be an easy pathway.

 

Ms. Pflaum replied that it was her understanding if it was asphalt and reduced it would meet the ADA in the Greenways Manual but not meet the Class A Type 2 trail for the County.

 

Mr. Strucko noted that there were different classes of County trails.

 

Ms. Pflaum said what the applicant has proposed is the highest class of trail or the best case scenario.  They met with County Parks and Rec and they felt it was beneficial to have that type of trail.  It is a higher cost to the developer, but it is a very nice wide accessible trail.

 

Ms. Porterfield asked if they could get the Class A Type 1 low maintenance pedestrian path would that be acceptable with staff who has worked with the developer.

 

Ms. Pflaum noted that the idea is that this open space and path in combination will be going to the Board of Supervisors for the acceptance of the open space.  Staff and the applicant were working together to come up with the best possible proposal.  If it is determined that the 10’ path is not the best proposal then she believed there would be room to lessen it.

 

Mr. Loach asked if the 5’ path would be an acceptable path.

 

Ms. Long thanked Ms. Pflaum for the clarifications. The applicant would be fine with building a narrower trail.  It would be a considerable cost savings to build a narrower trail.  They want to build what the County is requiring in order to obtain the bonus densities they are proposing. If the Board of Supervisors does not accept the dedication of the trail for width then they wouldn’t to get the bonus density which would throw the project into a black hole. They have been asked to build a 10’ trail ever since she has been involved in the project.  They will do whatever is required. To address one comment there is no desire from anyone that vehicles are on this trail.  They would be willing to use whatever safety measures are deemed appropriate.  The County does not want vehicles driving on the trail.  They are will to work with the County on the width of the trail, whatever signage or crossroads if the Carmike connection is ultimately implemented to take whatever measures are deemed appropriate.  The Arden Place developer has incentives to ensure that it is a safe trail.  There is a mutual incentive to make sure the trail is safe for everyone. 

 

Mr. Loach asked if they would consider building the path to a certain point and waiting for input from the Arden Place residents.

 

Ms. Long replied that they are happy to carry out the willingness of the County as long as the Board of Supervisors will accept the open space and grant the bonus density. 

 

Mr. Strucko questioned how the nature of this path affects bonus density.

 

Ms. Long replied that part of the bonus density is automatic. There are 24 to 25 units that are discretionary to the County. The Board of Supervisors can accept and give a certain amount of credit.  The 25 units if it they give all the requested credit in exchange for dedicating land for the public.  In working with staff for months they have indicated they will recommend that the Board accept this dedication of open space and public land if they find a public benefit.  After careful analysis they say trails already are there and people are using them.  By connecting the trail to public space staff thinks the open space meets public benefit.  And if do it this in the way suggested staff will recommend that the Board accept it and agreed to the bonus density. 

 

Mr. Fritz noted that one action the Planning Commission needs to take was to provide a recommendation to the Board whether to accept the open space and what bonus density level.  One thing to talk about is where the path goes and whether it is to the County Lagoon project or not.

 

Mr. Strucko noted in looking at the proposed open space there is a significant piece of land directly adjacent to the County Lagoon project. It adds on to what the County owns on the Lagoon project.  He asked how much land was there.

 

 

Ms. Long replied that it is over one acre of land in total that is for sale plus along the trail as shown on Attachment F of staff report.

 

Mr. Fritz said that not only is the dedication a question, but where the trail goes, should the dedication be accepted and the standard of the trail to be constructed.    The proposed standard is the highest standard and is the one that provides the lowest cost of maintenance to the County and the maximum flexibility of usage.  If this body felt that the Class A Type 1 was more appropriate then that is what the Commission could recommend to the Board.

 

Ms. Joseph noted that Attachment F was saying that the woodland will remain undisturbed.

 

Mr. Fritz noted that was correct that the woods would remain undisturbed but there was not transfer of the property.

 

Mr. Strucko noted that the property behind Building 6 attached into the lagoon area.  So they don’t have to extend the trail all the way to the existing lagoon.

 

Mr. Gatobu replied that the trail would only go to the boundary line.

 

Mr. Edgerton noted what Mr. Strucko was suggesting is if the applicant was willing to commit to not disturbing the one acre plus that is behind Building 6 then the County could get an extra one acre plus and the applicant gets the density bonus.  It would be a win/win situation.  He asked why the trail couldn’t stop at the woodlands.  The current Lagoon project did not consider a connection at all.

 

Mr. Fritz noted that the connection to the Lagoon project staff sees it as an educational opportunity and offers the same connection as Woodbrook has to the Arden Place residents.  There are four parking spaces on the Woodbrook side and bike racks. That is why staff is recommending the connection to go all the way to Lagoon project.

 

Mr. Edgerton said that if the applicant were not able to disturb the wooded area and they were able to add an extra one and a half acre to the Lagoon project to make it more effective why wouldn’t they do that.  He did not think the applicant would be losing anything since they would be getting their density bonus.

 

Ms. Porterfield asked if the applicant has agreed to dedicate and maintain the path.

 

Ms. Long replied that those are some issues they have not gotten to yet.  But they would be happy to maintain the trail if that is the preference of the County.  Arden Place will have their own maintenance crew on site anyway and are willing to pick up trash on the trail if that is the desire of the Board.   

 

Ms. Porterfield noted that could be part of the trade off to lessen the width of the path so it does not look like someone’s driveway.

 

Ms. Joseph asked if she understood from a speaker that the County staff met with some residents of Woodbrook to talk about the Lagoon project and if they offered to help out Mr. Powell by putting in some additional screening trees so people would not be straying through his yard.

 

Ms. Pflaum replied that General Services met with the Woodbrook residents, but she did not think they made an offer to Mr. Powell.

 

Mr. Franco pointed out that he met with General Services after that meeting.  He did not think that they made that offer.  One thing he talked about was how important they felt a connection through the park was and if they felt it was important to have that path if they could design it to design it so it focused people to the right-of-way as opposed to people’s yards.  He did not know where that project stands.  He asked if there was a requirement for a site plan for the park because it does have parking.

 

Mr. Fritz replied that it does not meet the threshold for a site plan.

 

Ms. Joseph asked if they can require some screening or something for Mr. Powell.

 

Mr. Kamptner noted that if it was going to be somewhere it would have to be part of the County’s Lagoon Project since it was off-site and not part of this site plan.  The Commission could ask General Services to consider the installation of these screening trees. 

 

Ms. Joseph asked if they could make a stronger recommendation, and Mr. Kamptner replied that it was out of their authority.

 

Ms. Joseph asked if the Commission could ask the Board to do something for Mr. Powell, and Mr. Kamptner replied yes.

 

Mr. Strucko said that it sounds like the Commission is coming closer to a solution regarding the path.  He was hearing that the community’s anxiety’s is about a throughway of some sort.  It sounds like anything that is of significance like asphalt is going to cause anxiety.  He would love to see a pedestrian walkway through this area to serve if no one else but the Arden Place residents.  So to ease the concerns of the Woodbrook community and to continue to provide this amenity to Arden Place he thought that they could pick a path standard that is still open to folks with people with disapblities but is less substantial than 10’ with 2’ wide shoulders.  Also they could potentially end the path behind Building 6 and consider that is roughly of one acre of untouched space in view of the Lagoon project.  He asked if that was something the Commissioners and applicant can agree to.

 

Mr. Franco said that he was on the same page, but wanted to understand what is being deeded to the County. Is it the path or is it acreage?

 

Mr. Strucko replied that in Attachment G of the packet it is everything colored in green that is the open space dedication that does not include acreage.

 

Mr. Fritz noted that it was 1.08 acres which includes the path and some of the area adjacent to it.

 

Ms. Long asked to provide one point of clarification on Exhibit G the portion of the path that goes behind Building 6 and goes from roughly where the Carmike connection is if made to the Woodbrook Lagoon.  It is not colored green on the exhibit, but it is part of it.  The land around trail back there is not part of the dedication, but just the path itself is.  They will defer to their guidance.

 

Mr. Morris noted that area around it is part of the preservation area.

 

Ms. Long said that was correct it was untouchable and they could not touch those trees.  The preservation plan was part of the conservation plan and part of the preservation of those woods.  They have to have a tree preservation plan.  There are actually some notes on the site plan.  It is small type and hard to see. But the detailed requirements of the conservation plan are spelled out on the site plan. Essentially it is to leave the trees as they are and to take measures to protect during construction.

 

Mr. Edgerton asked if the applicant was willing to consider dedicating that piece of land that he is willing to commit to not touching to the County.

 

Ms. Long replied that land was not part of the dedication and she would have to confer with her client and come back up.  She did not know the answer to that question.

 

Mr. Edgerton noted that would give him reason to be enthusiastic about the project.

 

Ms. Long noted that there is an underground sewer that has to go in one area.  That area is not counted as part of the woodlands preservation area.

 

Mr. Franco asked if that property is amended to include that area and deeded to the County can it be deeded such that the County can’t build a road through it at some future point and it is really just for a trail or path just to the Lagoon Project. 

 

Mr. Kamptner replied that they have accepted deeds of dedication in the past.  In this case since the dedication is for a specific purpose that could be reflected in the deed so it is clear that it is dedicated to a public use for a pedestrian connection. 

 

Mr. Franco asked if they could allay the concerns of a vehicular connection, and Mr. Kamptner replied yes that he thought that they can do that.

 

Mr. Strucko noted that another issue is the proposed connection to the Carmike parking lot.  What bothered him the most was when the applicant through Ms. Long said that the Carmike folks wanted to gate that. That sealed the deal for him and thought that was not the kind of connection they wanted.

 

Mr. Morris said that he could understand why they would want to gate it to prevent it from becoming as a thoroughfare.  That is the exact case they had in Carriage Hill. 

 

Mr. Strucko said if the connection is not done in Carmike then they need the two connection points on Rio and eventually Putt Putt Place.  He asked won’t that connection to Rio have to happen if the commercial happens in front the property.

 

Ms. Porterfield said not necessarily y might use the connection to Putt Putt Place. If they do that will they get the warrants to put the light in?

 

Mr. DeNunzio said that it depends on the type of commercial and the intersection would have to warrant the light.  He noted that it depends on the volume of traffic, but it would help the chances.  At that time the traffic signal light would require a design access management exception.  He thought that they would have a spacing issue with the upstream signals.  They would still like to see with commercial development possibly looking at connecting back through the existing signal there going back through Albemarle Square.

 

Mr. Fritz noted that was assuming there were no changes to the current ordinance.   

 

Mr. Strucko asked how they feel about the two connection points.

 

Mr. Franco agreed with Mr. Morris in that gated or not it works to have the connection at Carmike.  The extra entrance onto Rio is something that can be dealt with at site plan when that future front piece connects. He felt that access management might tell us in the future that connecting to either the Albemarle Square light or back to Putt Putt makes more sense from the conflict management perspective.  So he would rather go with pursuing the Carmike and see if it happens. If it does not happen he was contend with just Putt Putt, but he was happy to go with the second point as shown.

 

Ms. Porterfield said that the Carmike exit-entrance would be useful and it does take the people off the back end of Arden Place.  She was a little concerned just for emergency vehicles.  If they don’t get the Carmike connections she was concerned with not having two entrances because there are a lot of units and a lot of people back there.

 

Mr. Strucko said that he was concerned with an arrangement between two private owners.  He was not sure that connecting to a parking lot is an effective throughway. 

 

Ms. Joseph supported the Carmike connection even thought it was gated.  She assumed it would be accessible to emergency vehicles.  If the path was gated it would alleviate the concerns about the conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians.

 

Mr. Edgerton supported a connection at both ends even with a gate.  He would be comfortable if they could eliminate the path to the preservation area if the applicant would consider making that area part of the dedication. He would be willing to recommend to the Board that to be in lieu of the pathway.

 

Mr. Strucko asked Ms. Long to come forward with her response to the Commission’s question.

 

Ms. Long noted that this part of the path has always been part of the open space dedication.  If she understood the request the Commission was asking that they add to the dedication in this area.  The engineer says it is roughly about an acre of space.  What they need to do is work with County staff to establish the boundaries of the additional area.  They need to maintain a buffer around this building.  They think they can commit to an additional half acre. They need to reserve space because there is a water line easement and sewer line easement.  They need to reserve rights for the space for the utility easements and for the necessary buffer.  But they can do a half acre at least and perhaps more.  They need to work with staff on the boundaries. There are critical slopes right behind Building 6 which is part of the preservation area. 

 

Mr. Strucko asked if they would stop the path where the proposed connection with Carmike is.

 

Ms Long said that was acceptable to the applicant because they ultimately need the Board to support it.  They would expect if that was the recommendation of the County’s professional staff and Commission that it would be approved by the Board. They will have to take the Board’s ultimate direction.  But, that is acceptable to the applicant.

 

Mr. Fritz noted that staff will have to go to the Board to explain along with the minutes what the Commission is looking for.  The Commission is looking to add some of the wooded area that is behind Building 6 which would just be preserved as a natural wooded area to enhance the area that the County has as part of the Lagoon Project, but not part of the Lagoon Project.  The topography does not lend itself to be part of the Lagoon Project.  This area would be part of a natural area.  The path would stop at the point of connection to the Carmike of the pedestrian connection.  They would have to work with the applicant to identify what those boundaries are before they go to the Board of Supervisors because they need to draw a line on the plan.

 

Ms. Porterfield noted that the path would shrink down to the 5’ path. 

 

Mr. Fritz noted that he had not gotten there yet. He asked if that was the consensus of the Planning Commission.

 

Mr. Edgerton said that he thought that the path had disappeared.

 

Ms. Porterfield said she was talking about the path from Rio Road all the way through and bringing it down to 5’ and the applicant will maintain that path.

 

Mr. Fritz noted that it would bring the standard down to 1A.

 

Mr. Franco noted that he received a phone call from one of the officials of ACAC today that suggested that this was a good project and liked the idea of the path for use by its members. Right now they run around the parking lot.  He felt the path would be useful to his business and the community.

 

Mr. Morris asked if staff needs to bring it back if in fact the Carmike connection works out.

 

Mr. Fritz replied if the Commission decides that it is not a substantial change warranting coming back staff will process to the final site plan administratively.

 

Mr. Morris recommended that.

 

Mr. Strucko said that if the Carmike connection does not work what would they tell staff to fall back on.

 

Ms. Porterfield replied that they would go with the two on the other side.

 

Mr. Fritz noted that the potential condition he had written was:  No access directly to Rio Road if access to Carmike is provided.

 

Mr. Strucko said that if access to Carmike is not provided then the Commission would want the access to Rio Road and through Putt Putt.

 

Mr. Franco noted that he was not sure that no access so much as no access is required. He asked if they are saying that they would prohibit access in the future.

 

Mr. Fritz said that because this is a ministerial action that a future ministerial action could undo the condition to allow the commercial property to develop.  He asked if that was what he was referring to.

 

Mr. Franco replied yes.

 

Mr. Fritz said that when that commercial property came in it would be looked at anew and the same process they are placing the condition on could be used to remove the condition in the future.

 

Mr. Strucko asked if they still need the buffer disturbance waiver with the direct access.  He noted that the Commission was okay with the critical slopes.

 

Mr. Fritz replied yes.

 

Ms. Porterfield suggested that something be done to avoid an applicant from coming in with a request for man-made critical slopes and letting staff administratively approve it.

 

Mr. Fritz noted that staff is working on that.

 

Mr. Franco asked as part of the final recommendation that goes forth he would also like to say that the path stuff and the acreage behind building 6 that they have been talking about is a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.  If the Board chooses to do something different, he was happy to approve this site plan as recommended or with the conditions associated with that land that the Board sees fit to place on it without having to come back to the Commission.

 

Mr. Morris agreed.

 

Mr. Franco said that the Commission is recommending the bonus density for dedication of land for public use; that dedication includes building a path from Rio Road to basically the Carmike entrance area as discussed and dedication of additional land for addition to the lagoon project, but not with a path that the applicant is building.  That is the recommendation to move forward to the Board.  If that is amended somehow at the Board as part of their process he did not want particularly to see this come back to the Commission for another round.

 

Ms. Long agreed.

 

Mr. Strucko asked that a motion be crafted.

 

Motion for Critical Slopes Waiver Request:

 

Motion:    Mr. Franco moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded for approval of the critical slopes waiver request per Section 4.2 for SDP-2009-00009, Arden Place based on the findings in the staff report that it met the minimum criteria.

 

The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.

 

Motion for Buffer Disturbance Waiver Request:

 

Motion:  Mr. Franco moved and Ms. Porterfield seconded for approval of the waiver request for disturbance of a buffer zone adjacent to a residential district from Section 21.7.c of the County Code for SDP-2009-00009, Arden Place for the reasons stated by staff.

 

The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.

 

Motion for SDP:

 

Motion:   Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded for approval of the preliminary site plan SDP-2009-00009, Arden Place with the conditions recommended in staff report, with amendment of condition F to reflect the discussions of tonight to eliminate the applicant building a path from the potential Carmike entrance to the Lagoon Project and to include the dedication of land between those two points. 

 

Mr. Fritz noted that condition G needed to be amended, which will change the trail type from a Class A Type 2 to a Class A Type 1.  The new condition would be no access directly to Rio if access to Carmike is provided. 

 

Mr. Strucko asked what the dimension of the trail would be with the new classification.

 

Mr. Gatobu replied the trail would be 5’.

 

Mr. Fritz noted the condition to be included should read:  The Path shall not extend north of Carmike pedestrian connection.

 

Mr. Franco agreed for acceptance of the two conditions as stated by Mr. Fritz.

 

Mr. Morris seconded the amendment.

 

Mr. Franco said that the trail standard would be Class A Type that would have a 5’ width surface.

 

Mr. Fritz asked if there was any further discussion.

 

Mr. Franco said that one last amendment was that they were still considering that to be the width but they were trying to design the trail to ADA standards.

 

Mr. Fritz said that it would be the design alignment which has a 10’ maximum and the 2’ upgrade.

 

Mr. Franco said that the one underneath said ADA accessible.

 

Mr. Fritz suggested the condition say with design alignment with a Class A Type 2, and Mr. Franco agreed that was what he wanted to say.

 

Mr. Morris seconded the amendment.

 

Mr. Strucko asked that the roll be called.

 

The motion passed by a vote of 7:0 with the following conditions.

 

    1. Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Approval is subject to field inspection and verification. [Fire and Rescue]
    2. RWSA capacity certification is required before final site plan approval can be granted.
    3. Proposed wooded area must meet the definition of “wooded area” found in section 3. [Albemarle County zoning ordinance]. An arborist report and a tree preservation plan must be submitted with the final site plan.
    4. A conservation plan checklist must be shown on the final site plan. The conservation plan checklist will have to be checked and signed [Albemarle County Code section 32.7.9.4.b.]
    5. Applicant must obtain VDOT approval before final site plan approval can be granted.
    6. Albemarle County Current Development Engineering approval must be obtained.
    7. Add the following 2 notes to the Arden Place ADA Trail Feasibility Exhibit dated 8-5-09, and include the exhibit in the final site plan. The first should go above the part that begins, "Trail width...”  It should say, "ADA Standards Listed in the Virginia Trail ways Toolbox".  The second note should say, "The trails shall have ADA-accessible grade and conform to standards for Class A, Type 1 Trails as described in the Albemarle County Design Standards Manual."  The 5-foot wide path shall not extend north of the Carmike pedestrian connection. 
    8. There will be no vehicular access to Rio Road from Arden Place other than from Putt Putt Place if vehicular access to Carmike is provided.
    9. Applicant must address all outstanding ARB conditions before final site plan approval can be granted.

 

Motion for Approval of proposed dedication to County of Open Space of Dedication of path:

 

Motion:    Mr. Franco moved and Mr. Morris seconded to recommend approval to the County of the open space of the proposed pedestrian path running from Rio Road to the potential Carmike entrance with the additional dedication to be defined by staff before it goes to the Board. 

 

Mr. Fritz noted that the dedication would be in the area behind Building 6 adjacent to the Lagoon project.

 

Ms. Porterfield added that the applicant is going to do maintenance of the path. 

 

Mr. Franco amended the motion to include Mr. Fritz’s statement with the understanding that the applicant is doing maintenance of that path and that if this condition changes at the Board as part of their acceptance that it does not affect the preliminary site plan approval.

 

Mr. Morris seconded the amended motion.

 

The motion passed by a vote of 7:0.

 

Mr. Strucko said that SDP-2009-00009, Arden Place was approved and would go to the Board of Supervisors on a date to be determined just for the open space review with the following recommendation:

 

The Planning Commission recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors of an open space dedication including a proposed pedestrian path running from Rio Road to the potential Carmike entrance and an additional land dedication to be defined by staff before it goes to the Board as follows: 

  1. The dedication would be in the area behind Building 6 adjacent to the Lagoon project. 
  2. The path shall be designed as a 5-foot wide Class A, Type 1 path with ADA-compliant grades.  The applicant will provide maintenance of that path.
  3. If either of the Commission’s recommended conditions change as part of the Board’s acceptance, the changes do not affect the Commission’s preliminary site plan approval.

 

 Return to exec summary