05-01-2007 Special Joint MeetingSPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS HELD THE FTRST DAY OF MAY IN THE YEAR
TWO TI-IOUSAND AND SEVEN
PRESENT: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Thomas R. Ivy, Chairman
Stan D. Clark, Vice-Chairman
Phillip A. Bradshaw
James B. Brown, Jr.
Thomas J. Wright, llI
PRESENT: PLANNING COMMISSTON
Lars S. Gordon, Vice-Chairman
Peter B. Munsell
Lee Winslett, Jr.
R. L. Walker
Don G. Rosie
Wesley Ray Holland
Nancy Guill
Rex W. Alpllin
ABSENT: James P. O'Briant, III, Chairman
Leah Dempsey
Also Attending: A. Paul Burton, Interim County Attorney
W. Douglas Caskey, County Administrator
E. Wayne Rountree, P.E., Assistant County
Administrator
Patrick J. Small, Assistant County Administrator
Steven C. Wright, Director of Economic
Development
Beverly H. Walkup, Director of Planning and Zoning
Carey Mills Storm, Clerk
Chairman ivy called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. for the purpose
of conducting a special joint meeting with the Planning Commission to
discuss the Route 17 Master Plan and the proposed Benns Grant
development.
//
Chairman ivy delivered the invocation.
//
The Pledge of Allegiance was conducted.
/1
Supervisor Brown moved that the Board approve the agenda. The
motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown,
Clark, Wright and Ivy voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors
voting against the motion.
//
Beverly H. Walkup, Director of Planning and Zoning, briefed the
Board on the background research for the Master Plan which began in April,
2006 and was designed to guide growth and development along the Route 17
corridor. A Charette involving the public was held in June, 2006 and a draft
design was presented to staff in October, 2006, followed by a final plan in
January, 2007. Both public and staff comments were received and included
by Raybould and Associates, LLC and the final draft was received by staff in
March, 2007. It was the Planning Commission's sentiment that the Board
receive the initial presentation by Raybould and Associates, LLC at the same
time it does so that the Board has an opportunity to participate in the
discussions before the Plan is sent back to the Planning Commission for fnal
recommendation to the Board.
Warren Raybould, Raybould Associates, LLC, stated that Route 17 is a
regional road whose primary purpose is to move traffic through the area. It
also serves as the only access into much of the land that is adjacent to the
corridor. A requirement is to balance the regional purpose of the road, along
with the local access. This portion of the County is also impacted by growth
occurring in Hanlpton Roads and while the County is experiencing pressure
to grow, it also has a unique rural character and maintaining it is important.
The primary focus was on the southern portion of the Route 17 corridor from
the Bartlett Activity Center to the Chuckatuck Bridge and north of the
Bartlett Activity Center to the James River Bridge is already well defined. A
Concept Plan was developed as a result of public meetings held and input
sought from citizens as to what they would like to see happen along the
corridor. With respect to land uses along the corridor, from the Bartlett
Activity Center to the Chuckatuck Bridge, physical and market conditions
were reviewed and a full commercial economic study is recommended due to
the mis-match between the amount of land that has been approved for
commercial and employment in relation to what the growth is most likely to
be. County citizens like the rural character along Route 17, but they also
want additional services. The County's Comprehensive Plan supports the
traditional neighborhood development, which clusters developments in a
scale and size appropriate for growth in the community and allows a certain
area to be less developed. This is a typical development pattern and approach
to development that is being done elsewhere around the country. Raybould
and Associates, LLC is not recommending that ihe corridor allow commercial
uses to run completely up and down the corridor and that two (2) areas were
selected for commercial and employment uses with the rest dedicated for
residential. The major commercial use is located at the Bartlett Activity
2
Center and focus was specifically placed on the right-hand side of the
roadway. There are two (2) neighborhood centers proposed for Route 17 and
it was noted that the area north of the Chuckatuck Bridge contains numerous
driveways connecting onto Route 17. A Town Center is proposed to the east
of the Bartlett intersection where Brewer's Neck and Route 17 come
together, allowing for a strong pedestrian orientation. A range of housing
uses is being recommended to the east of the commercial center and several
pedestrian friendly neighborhood centers are recommended for use by
residents in the area as opposed to them having to drive to the Town Center.
The Board may wish to take into consideration, as land becomes available for
redevelopment, a long-term solution to eliminate driveways connecting to
Route 17, and combine them with an access along Route 17 connecting onto
Route 17 along the Chuckatuck Bridge area.
Mr. Raybould stated Route 17 is a principal arterial road whose
purpose is high speed and high volume. Maintaining safe and efficient travel
can be accomplished by highway widening and access and land use
management. Regarding street connectivity, it is recommended that as land
develops adjacent to Route 17, an intereonnecting road system be developed
to allow a limited amount of access to parcels on Route 17. There is a need
to interconnect parking lots to make it pedestrian friendly. The P1an
recommends that the County review the Brewer's Neck and Route 17
intersection and consider studying a round-about as opposed to a signalized
intersection, which forces traffic to slow down as it comes through the
intersection as opposed to stopping conlpletely. There will be a substantial
need to widen the road and put multi-turn lanes in as traffic increases over
time if the intersection is goulg to be signalized. While there is no funding in
place, Route 17 is on VDOT's 2025 traffic plan of roads to be widened
between Brewer's Neck and the James River Bridge and the Chuckatuck
Bridge is on the plan to be widened to four (4) lanes. He stated that as
growth occurs, the County has an opportunity to grow in a way that allows
for the character to be maintained, while also meeting the services of the
individuals moving into the area, many of them with higher than average
incomes and who tend to expect more services. Open space was reviewed in
the Plan and that as more dense housing comes into the County, thou~ht
should be given to parks and greenways. With respect to Town Centers,
Neighborhood Centers or residential areas, transportation other than cars
needs to be promoted, such as pedestrian paths and bicycles and an active
greenway system is also important. The new draft Bicycle and Pedestrian
Plan has been incorporated and it is recommended that the 70-foot buffer in
the Pedestrian Plan be kept and planted with natural vegetation from the area
and a greenway placed on both sides of the road throughout the 70-foot
buffer.
Ms. Walkup commented that staff will begin to reference the Route 17
Plan in the Board Reports for all future applications. She noted that the Plan
is a guide for developers which contains basic design guidelines and it
provides additional information to staff and the developer on all preliminary
3
plans. She noted the Plan will assist future applicants and the Planning
Commission because it will define the County's expectations.
Supervisor Bradshaw commented that the Board meets annually with
the Planning Commission and the status of the Plan could be included as part
of the agenda.
iVls. Walkup commented that the Plan's status would be included in the
Planning Commission's Annual Report.
Supervisor Bradshaw recommended following the formulation of a
design plan, a time schedule be developed, followed by resources. He
commented that there is not sufficient staff to implement the proposed Plan.
Ms. Walkup noted that the implementation schedule includes aspects of
the various departments, coupled with shared resources. She noted a timeline
will be developed when staff reaches the point of addressing open space
plans.
Mr. Raybould recommended establishing an Oversight Committee to
begin addressing the items that the Board wants to accomplish first, followed
by a combination of staff, Planning Commission members or Board of
Supervisors' members, followed by some community individuals.
Supervisor Bradshaw noted that the proposed Plan needs to be
incorporated into the County's Strategic Plan.
C'hairman ivy commented that the proposed Plan, when adopted by the
Board, would become part of the County's Comprehensive Plan, but that he
did not want it to conflict with anything in the Board's Strategic Plan.
Ms. Walkup commented that a Route 17 Revitalization Committee was
~asked with detern~ining whether or not they wanted to be a part of the
process and they took a secondary role. She noted that that committee could
be reestablished for the purpose of being an advisory committee to the Board
before being returned to the Planning Commission as portions are completed.
She noted that key staff could work with the advisory board to establish
timefraTnes and include them with the recommendation of the Planning
Commission on the overall study.
Ms. Walkup commented that she would bring the matter back to the
Planning Commission for discussion.
//
Chairman ivy moved the Board take a recess. The motion was adopted
by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Clark, Wright and Ivy
voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
4
Supervisor Bradshaw moved the Boacd return to open session. The
motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0) with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown,
Clark, Wright and Ivy voting in favor of the motion and no Supervisors
voting against the motion.
//
Supervisor Bradshaw inquired whether or not the meeting tonight was
legal, specifically whether citizens had been duly notified that the Board is
holding a meeting with applicants and would the Board be establishing a
precedent that the Board must adhere to in the future.
Interim County Attorney Burton advised that the meeting tonight has
been called in accordance with the process outlined for a special meeting of
the Board in the Code of Virginia and that that proper notification had been
provided to the Planning Commission and the Board. He stated that the
meeting, which was originally called to discuss the Route 17 Master Plan had
been amended to include a general discussion of the Benns Grant project
from its inception.
Supervisor Clark commented that he and Chairman ivy had received an
earlier call from Mr. Haydad requesting that they meet and hear some of his
concerns. Following that meeting, he became aware that Armada Hoffler or
its predecessars had been requested to hire specitic consultants. He stated
that they felt that information gleamed from that meeting needed to be shared
with the entire Board and that they had requested Interim County Attorney
Burton to amend the subject of this meeting according to the rules of the new
State C'ode and a notice was prepared and distributed to appropriate staff
accordingly.
Supervisor Bradshaw stated he continues to question the legality of the
meeting as it was originally approved by the entire Board as a joint meeting
with the Planning Commission only to discuss the Route 17 Master Plan. He
stated in the past, all five (5) I3oard members were required to sign and
certify a statement agreeing to a change in subject matter aild that he did not
believe the Board had met the requirements of the Constitution. He noted
that he did not want to be a part of an illegal meeting.
Interim County Attorney Burton cited Section 15.2-1417 of the Code of
Virginia which provides that the Chairman can call a meeting and that notice
can be provided to the Clerk of the Board who passes on the notice of the
time, date, place and purpose of the meeting, which had been done. He stated
that responsive to Chairman ivy's request yesterday to add an additional item
to the agenda and pursuant to the Code of Virginia, a notice was provided to
the individual Board and Planning Commission members. He stated that act,
in his judgment, meets the intent and spirit of the law. He stated the meeting
was also published at two (2) places on the Courthouse complex. He
5
reminded the Board and Planning Commission members that the purpose is
merely for discussion and not an action item and for the benefit of both
bodies to receive additional knowledge about the history and evolution of the
project He stated the fact that the Board chose to ask the developer to be
present and speak is the Board's prerogative. He stated the newspaper had
been informed about both topics of discussion and that notification of a
meeting or the adding of a topic of discussion should be given within the
timeframe available when the meeting is called, which had also been
accomplished.
Supervisor Bradsl~aw stated the only two (2) ways he is aware the
Board can call a meeting is for two (2) Board members to present a statement
to the Clerk of the Board calling such a meeting ar for all Board members to
agree on having a meeting.
Supervisor Clark explained that the meeting had already been called
and the only change to the agenda was the addition of an item. He noted the
difficulty in which it takes to assemble Board members together and that it
may have taken months before the Board could assemble again. He advised
that the meeting with Mr. Haydad had been very beneficial to him and that it
was the perfect time to add a subject matter to this meeting as it had already
been called.
Supervisor Bradshaw stated once an application is filed with the
County, it becomes a public application. He stated that he has never met with
a developer and discussed privately issues of concern. He stated that while
he did not believe it was their intent to do business behind closed doors, a
meeting had been held with a developer who is trying to bring a major project
into the County without the knowledge of the citizens.
Supervisor Clark stated receiving information is always better than
turning a blind eye to it. He noted his only intent was to receive information,
not discuss the application.
Interim County Attorney Burton advised that the official approval
process has ~IOt yet begun and the meeting today is not a part of the official
review process.
//
Patrick J. Small, Assistant County Administrator, briefed the Board on
the Benns Grant project, noting ihat it initially began in the Planning and
Zoning and Economic Development Departments and was an outgrowth of
early strategic directives given by the Board to the Economic Development
Department relative to office park development in the northern part of the
County. lt was also responsive to what the Planning and Z,oning and
Economic Development Departments recognized as a significant leakage of
retail commercial dollars out of the co~nmunity. Approximately six and a
6
half years ago, these departments began looking for office park properties in
the northern part of the County. $3,000,000 was allocated in the budget and
staff began the process of identifying parcels. Meanwhile, the Department of
Economic Development had several lean years, resulting in the funds being
cut for the office park and resulting in staff seeking partners. At that time,
Mr. Gerald LaBoone, Smithfeld Downs Golf Course, approached staff with
a proposal to sell the golf course to the County for its use as a public golf
course. The Department of Economic Development was tasked by the Board
with reviewing the property for its feasibility as an office park project. Staff
worked with Mr. LaBoone for approximately eight (8) months before Mr.
LaBoone determined that he would be better off going with a private
development firm. Staff then began seeking out other parcels and
approached the owners of this piece of property with a proposal for them to
do approxiinately 100 acres coinmercial development, primarily with the
intent of getting some "big box" retailers in the County, as well as a medical
office. During that period, the County was undergoing a Comprehensive
Plan update and because part of the property was not located in the
Comprehensive Plan, the property owners successfully requested the
inclusion of all of their property in the Development Service District.
Subsequently, staff was approached by the Frank family about the
development of hotel properties, mini storage and apartments. Staff caused
the three (3) property owners to step back from their current plans and
collaborate with the County on a roadmap for growth, which had a cost of
approximately $50,000 and involved extensive public process and was the
precursor to the plan seen on Route 17 today. T)le County paid for $25,000
of the $54,000 cost of the plan from the Economic Development
Department's marketing budget. Brandon Currence, the architect for the
property owner at St. Luke's Village, was the principal architect and Urban
Design Associates was a collaborative partner in the development of the plan.
The Franks, Gerald LaBoone, Mr. Morgan and Mr. Turner split the property
owner's share with the County. The design won both State and National
awards. Once the plan was adopted, St. Luke's Village worked its way
through the Planning Commission process and staff began working more
closely with the property owners in an effort to develop a Master Plan that
would address the County's need for office use and address the leakage issue
with the retail/commercial. Baseball was not a part of the project at that time
and the compromise getting those uses was residential development, whic(1 at
the time the County had a lot of units on the books and now the County has
considerably less. Staff knew having residential would be a long process, but
ultimately it would have been the residential development that made the rest
of the elements of this project pay of£ It became apparent within the first
twelve (12) months that this was a viable opportunity. There were many
skeptics about the amount of office space needed in the County in the future,
about the County's viability as a medical office community and about the
absorption for the commercial development. Throughout the past four (4)
years, tlie Breeden Conlpany and Armada Hoffler have been the two (2)
principal developers. Numerous studies that have been developed along the
way, to include numerous iterations of WQIA's, TIA's, fiscal impact
7
analyses and community impact analyses. The County's Ordinance, at that
time, required that the developer pay far the fiscal impact analysis, but the
name of the firm was strongly recommended to the property owners by
County staf£ A review of the Master Plan with respect to the residential
component was performed two (2) years ago by Randal Art who was charged
with increasing the density of the residential without increasing the quantity.
Supervisor Clark inquired how the access points to Route 10 and the
thoroughfare through the back park, which were included in earlier plans,
were deleted.
Mr. Small stated the developers would prefer to have curb cuts at each
of the property lines serving each of the individual parcels and the number of
access points to the project has fluctuated over the years. He recalled that
some pre-conditions set for this project initially were 100 acres of office
space; 100 acres of commercial space; proffers; residential housing units
should be kept under 1,000; and a sunset provision be in place regarding how
many homes could be built in each given year.
Supervisor Clark inquired if a rendering is available illustrating a main
entrance past the big boxes.
Ms. Walkup offered to show Supervisor Clark a rendering of the
Walmart.
Supervisar Wright inquired if staff accepted the location of the
navigational areas.
Mr. Sinall advised that he had sent several memos to the Department of
Planning and Zoning in his capacity as the Director of Economic
Development advising against the navigational areas. He advised that the
County would not be accepting liability for that area.
Mr. Small advised fhat as changes to the project have occurred, the
number of residential units and the ]ayout of the commercial development
have remained constant.
M~s. Walkup reviewed with the Board an iteration illustrating a change
in the orientation of the Riverside site due to the location of a previous
landfill. She advised that Riverside became concerned about liability from
contaminants from the methane gas and had requested that their site be
realigned to avoid the area of contamination.
Ms. Walkup reviewed a proposal submitted in September of 2006 as a
result of staff's comments, missing an updated fiscal impact analysis and an
updated traffic impact analysis. Staff and the developer were working
closely with VDOT in order to get through an initial level of service that
would be unacceptable to VDOT as a new intersection, which is a major
8
issue unresolved by staff to date. The developer wants some assurance that
once he begins to build the development that he can get fhrough full build-
out without his plans being denied by VDOT. It is VDOT's expectation that
all of the turning movements at key intersections will not fall below a level of
service "C".
Ms. Walkup advised that the developer, in November, 2006 discussed
going through an analysis to re-evaluate the feasibility of the project due to
the traffic issue and having to build an elevated water tower, as required by
the County's Master Utility Plan. In December, 2006 the developer returned
with a proposal that involved the creation of a Community Development
Authority, which could pay for some of the sliared improvements such as the
relocation of Route 258, the elevated water tower and the baseball field.
Proffers were changed at that time and another application was received that
included baseball fields on site, additional land to meet the 100 acre threshold
that was being requested by staff and the mainstreet, which serves to
accommodate additional stormwater controls; however, an official proposal
was su~bmitted on January 31, 2007, which included additional land for office
in an attempt to meet the threshold of 100 acres and removed the main street,
but included a 100-room hotel and ctlanged the layout and design of the
1,087 lots. Discussion began relative to a Community Development
Authority and the hiring of outside consultants and staff is seeking legal
advice regarding the wording to ensure that the County is covered through
proffers. The Board lias instructed staff to request planning assistance
relative to traffic issues and to ensure that the uses being proposed are viable.
The consulting firm of Davenport & Associates has been hired concerning
the establishment of a CDA; McGuire Woods relative to legal issues; and
UDA relative to the proposal of additional alternatives. There has been an
amendment to the Traffic Impact Analysis, which was not submitted with the
last proposal which expanded outside of the Benns Church intersection and
does not take into consideration the Bartlett intersection and some of the
other major intersections along the corridor, but does address the traffic that
will be associated witih St. Lukes and the Grey properties. An additional
60,000 vehicle trips to the existing 30,000 vehicle trips at the Benns Church
intersection is anticipated. Staff recommends that the County acce(erate its
transportation plan in order to begin planning for transportation
improvements.
Supervisor Clark requested Interim County Attorney Burton to contact
UDA and inquire if its information could be accelerated to the Board.
Chairman ivy explained that the meeting he and Supervisor Clark had
attended with Armada Hoffler staff was held only to obtain information with
respect to the history of the project.
Supervisor Bradshaw recommended that the Planning Commission
develop expected criteria for this project for presentation to the Board.
9
Ms. Walkup advised that UDA is reviewing ihe project at this point in
time. She noted that a development review team has been established
consisting of two (2) Board members, two (2) Planning Commissioners, all
of the stakeholders and staff. Following review and comments by UDA, the
project will be considered by the Planning Commission and forwarded on to
the Board. She offered to send it forward as a discussion point for the
Planning Commission's May meeting.
Supervisor Bradshaw clarified the Board's direction to staff stating that
staff is to begin supplying information on this project to all Planning
Commission members. All requested additional information is to be
provided to the Planning Commission. In the meantime, staff will work with
the Planning Commission to set up work sessions and the report from UDA is
to be supplied to them and the Board upon its receipt for evaluation and
move forward with a public hearing.
//
At 9:00 p.m., Chairman ivy moved the Board adjourn its joint meeting
with the Planning Commission. The motion was adopted by a vote of (5-0)
with Supervisors Bradshaw, Brown, Clark, Wright and Ivy voting in favor of
the motion and no Supervisors voting against the motion.
~ ~-~1?Q!1 c~"~ ~' ~ y~-Y~
Carey Mi ls Storm, Clerk
,..~'~ , ~'.~'`
~~.~ .~s~
Thomas R. Ivy, (~~a'airman
10