Notes from North Pointe Facilitated Session
The following notes reflect discussion at a meeting on Tuesday, June 15, involving Chuck Rotgin, Ron Keeney, Don Wagner, Mark Graham, Elaine Echols, Wayne Cilimberg, Larry Davis, Greg Kamptner, with Lee Catlin facilitating.
Points of Discussion:
Rt. 29 ROW – Applicant may consider removing the conditions related to the existing ROW. Applicant will obtain VDOT verification of adequate existing right-of-way before additional discussion can take place on this issue – this item is tabled until such information is obtained
Status: Unresolved, however, once ROW information is obtained from VDOT, resolution may be possible
Regional Transportation Study Contribution – Applicant stands by its existing proffer of $25,000 based on what it feels are offsetting contributions being made already along Route 29 and Proffit Road. Staff stands by their position that Applicant should contribute $100,000 to be consistent with similar projects.
Status: Agree to disagree
Park and Ride – Applicant and staff agreed to eliminate this proffer and to discuss the issue during the site plan process.
Interparcel Access – Applicant and staff agreed that the Applicant should reserve the ROW for dedication to the County upon request, which the county would not request until adjacent property is upzoned.
Phasing of Transportation Improvements – Applicant and staff agreed upon need to tie the Leake Road improvements and the “right in, right out” access at the main commercial entrance to the approval of the subdivision plats to show a road design including an urban cross section (on at least one side) that can be constructed (including construction access) within the 50 ft. Leake Road ROW, and to add language that dedicates Leake Road to the County. No agreement was reached on the phasing of other elements of the transportation improvements pending resolution of the Community Development Authority issues. The Applicant suggested that the phasing issues may “go away” under the special assessment CDA being requested.
Status: Leake Road construction elements, dedication and phasing resolved. Other transportation phasing not resolved but dependent on CDA.
Landscaping and Buffering – The Applicant has proffered a 50’ buffer consisting of a 30 foot heavily-vegetated Conservation Area strip to be owned and maintained by the homeowners’ association, and an additional 20 foot rear building setback that would be part of the residential lot. Applicant stated that the lots, which are expected to be single family detached, are only +/- 120 feed in depth in some areas. Staff desired that the entire 50 foot buffer be owned and maintained by the homeowners’ association, but acknowledged that they could recommend a variation in the depth of the buffer to be less than 50 feet if they felt it was appropriate for certain sections along Pritchett based on geographical and topographical considerations. Applicant and staff agreed that staff would research the exact nature of the Planning Commission discussion regarding the need for a 50 foot buffer along Prichett Lane.
Status: Applicant and staff to review opportunities for 50’ and 30’ buffer on plan, resolution possible.
Layout Modification of Library Block – Applicant and staff agreed that staff would meet with Ron to discuss staff’s idea for a slightly different layout. The Applicant is concerned about topography and the need to “kill” 30+ feet of grade across the buildings and center square and the need to maintain sufficient parking in front of the retail shops. Staff remains concerned that the library site is shown as surrounded by parking lots which keep it from being friendly to pedestrians, and the adjoining open space is undersized and unusable. Additionally staff believes the entire area surrounding the library can provide the same uses in a design that better incorporated the Neighborhood Model principles.
Status: Staff to provide design possibilities to applicant, resolution possible.
ARB Comments – Staff acknowledges that the BOS may be willing to consider “big box” options not in line with the ARB recommendations, applicant is not willing to accept the other ARB recommendations on a “blanket” basis, but does acknowledge the need to comply with ARB guidelines at the time of plan approval.
Status: Agree to disagree, Board direction required.
Affordable Housing – Applicant has submitted an affordable housing proffer that the Board will need to evaluate. As the County is still working on an implementation policy for affordable housing, staff is unable to determine if the applicant’s proffer satisfies the Board’s expectations.
Status: Staff is unable to evaluate, Board direction required.
Community Development Authority – Applicant and staff were unable to get to agreement on the nature and timing of the CDA and feel that direct guidance from the BOS is necessary to proceed any further with this issue.
Status: Direction from the BOS required for any resolution of this issue
Return to executive summary