Loading...
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