Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200400076 Minutes 2005-01-04Albemarle County Planning Commission January 04, 2005 Partial Set of Minutes for SDP - 2004 -076 Poplar Glenn Final The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, January 04, 2005 at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. Members attending were William Rieley, Rodney Thomas, Bill Edgerton, Calvin Morris, Jo Higgins, Marcia Joseph and Pete Craddock. Absent was David J. Neuman, FAIA, Architect for University of Virginia. Other officials present were Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning & Community Development; Frances MacCall, Senior Planner; Yadira Amarante, Senior Planner; Glenn Brooks, Senior Engineer; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development; and Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Consent Agenda: a) Approval of Planning Commission Minutes — August 31, 2004. b) ZTA 2004 -00010 Amendment to Fines for Zoning Civil Penalties: Resolution of Intent to amend Section 18.37.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to bring Albemarle County zoning civil penalty fines in line with the recently revised State Code Fines. (Louise Wyatt) C) SDP 2004 -076 Poplar Glenn Final (prior to preliminary) Site Plan - Critical Slopes Waiver: Request for approval of a critical slopes waiver which will allow the approval of a final site plan for a 27,694 square foot townhouse community with 26 dwelling units on 6.65 acres. ( Yadira Amarante) — (Tax Map 60, Parcels 31, 32, 33, and 34) d) SDP 2004 -00098 Hilton Garden Inn (ED Peter Jefferson Place: Critical Slopes Waiver request. (Stephen Waller) — (Tax Map 78, Parcels 20B and 31) Mr. Edgerton asked if any Commissioner would like to pull any of the items from the consent agenda. Ms. Joseph asked to pull SDP - 2004 -076 Poplar Glenn Final Site Plan — Critical Slopes Waiver from the consent agenda. She asked that the approval of the minutes for August 31, 2004 be deferred to the next meeting since they were not listed on the tentative agenda. Mr. Rieley asked that they be granted a one -week delay on the submission of comments for the minutes in the packet. Ms. Higgins made a motion that items a) and d) be approved on the consent agenda as submitted. Mr. Morris seconded the motion. The motion carried by a vote of (7:0). Mr. Edgerton stated that the consent agenda items a) ZTA- 2004 -00010 Amendment to Fines for Zoning Civil Penalties and d) SDP - 2004 -00098 Hilton Garden Inn @ Peter Jefferson Place passed. He stated that they would begin with staff providing the staff report on SDP - 2004 -076, Poplar Glenn Final Site Plan. Ms. Amarante summarized the staff report for SDP - 2004 -076, Poplar Glenn Final Site Plan. This is a request for a critical slope waiver to accompany the Poplar Glenn final site plan, which is a development of 26 dwelling units or townhomes off of Ivy Road. Staff did not do an analysis of the critical slope waiver because this time around it was included in the rezoning application that went before the Planning Commission. The Commission recommended denial of the rezoning. The rezoning application went forward to the Board of Supervisors. The Board approved the rezoning, but sent the critical slopes waiver request back to the Planning Commission. Staff is not sure why the Board did not act on the critical ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 04, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES — PARTIAL SET SDP - 2004 -76 POPLAR GLENN FINAL slopes waiver at that time. In order to get the final site plan approved the applicant has to go through this critical slopes waiver request. Staff basically took the language directly out of the staff report for the rezoning and put it in this request. Staff did not do any more analysis. Staff figured out that before the final site plan could be approved that there needs to be a modification of the private road standards as it relates to site plans. Engineering staff has reviewed the request for those modifications and has recommended approval of the modifications of the private road standards. Staff is not asking for approval of a private road at this time because it is just a modification of those standards as they appear in the Subdivision Ordinance. Ms. Higgins asked if it was a private road. Ms. Amarante stated that it was a private road standard, but it was not technically a private road. Private roads can only be approved through the subdivision process and the applicant is not asking for a subdivision at this time. Therefore, it is a standard for a private road. Mr. Edgerton asked if the Board addressed either of these issues in their discussion during their review of this project. Mr. Kamptner pointed out that the property was rezoned to Planned Residential Development (PRD), and therefore the review falls under the PRD regulations. He stated that upon the approval of the application plan it approved the critical slopes waiver. Ms. Amarante stated that what she read in the minutes was that the Board sent back the critical slopes waiver request to the Planning Commission. Mr. Kamptner stated that the applicant had requested the critical slopes waiver as part of the rezoning, which was part of the application plan. Under Section 8.2, it says that any waiver or modification to a regulation applicable to a Planned Development shall be reviewed and considered as part of the application plan. Ms. Amarante stated that possibly it was because the Board did not take specific action at that time on the critical slopes waiver, and therefore staff thought that it needed to come back. But, the critical slopes waiver was not addressed at that time. Mr. Kamptner stated that under the operation of the rules of the Ordinance that when the Board of Supervisors approved the application plan it showed critical slopes being disturbed. Ms. Amarante stated that was absolutely correct. Mr. Kamptner stated that had the effect of approving the waiver at that time. Therefore, he did not think that the critical slopes waiver was now in front of the Planning Commission. Mr. Edgerton asked if that included the reduction in road standards waiver. Ms. Amarante asked if the reduction in road standards waiver request would also fall under that section of the Ordinance. Mr. Kamptner asked if that was a waiver under Section 4.0, 5.0 or 32.0. Ms. Amarante stated that it was a waiver under Section 14.0. She stated that the only thing that it says in the standards in Section 32.0 is that the private road standards shall be applied to site plans. Therefore, it was a waiver of Section 32.0. Mr. Kamptner asked if this was included as part of the application plan as well. Ms. Amarante stated that she was not sure. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 04, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES — PARTIAL SET SDP - 2004 -76 POPLAR GLENN FINAL Ms. Higgins stated that it was an existing alignment of a road and was currently at this grade now. She stated as she understood it that they were not changing the grade of the existing road. She suggested that the Commission ask Glenn Brooks to provide an explanation. She stated that it is an existing road, but it is not consistent with the Rolling Terrain Standards. It appears that they are just talking about a deviation for a short segment of that road to match what exists. Ms. Joseph stated that it was very important to know whether it was shown on the application plan. Ms. Higgins asked if the Planning Commission has to act on the request. Mr. Kamptner stated that if it was shown on the application plan then it should be deemed to be approved by operation of Section 8.6. If it was not identified anywhere in the process, then it raises a little bit of concern. But, he assumed that staff looked at it and evaluated it. Ms. Amarante stated that the reductions were not identified as specific waivers during the time of the rezoning, but the road was shown on the application plan. Mr. Kamptner asked if the road was recommended for approval. Ms. Amarante stated that the application plan was recommended for approval. Mr. Kamptner advised the Commission to go ahead and consider that if the applicant did not specifically request that the provision of Section 32.0 be waived. Section 8.2 does state that the applicant should be requesting a waiver of a particular provision. He stated that it may be a formality, but he felt that the Commission should go ahead and act on that part of the request. Ms. Joseph stated that in the staff report it says that there will be a site plan to look at. Ms. Amarante stated that she did not have a copy of that because Glenn Brooks is waiting for a revised plan reflecting what is in the applicant's letter. Therefore, the plan will have to match what is in the letter. Ms. Joseph stated that this was a little difficult because staff's recommendation of approval is that the construction of the road shall be in accord with the display presented to the Planning Commission on 1/4/05 initialed GEB and it does not exist. Therefore, she did not know what action the Commission could take if they don't have a plan to review. Mr. Rieley stated that he had the same concern as Ms. Joseph. Also, he has a general concern about approving the request without having the supporting information for a reduction in the rolling to mountainous terrain standards. He stated that he does not have a concern with this kind of density when talking about the horizontal alignment. But, he is very concerned in having a 16 percent vertical gradient for this kind of density. To put that into some perspective, he pointed out that across the street where High Street comes down the hill that they have to put saw horses at the top and the bottom of that hill when it snows, which is 14 percent. He pointed out that this request is for 16 percent. But with not having a plan to review, he did not know if the plan is 16 percent because they don't know what is on the plan. He stated that without the supporting information that he could not make that determination. Ms. Amarante stated that the Commission does have a copy of the site plan or the application plan that went before the Board. She pointed out that she was just informed that the only thing that has changed in that road is an entrance. Mr. Rieley pointed out that the Planning Commission did not vote in favor of this request previously. Ms. Amarante acknowledged that the Commission denied the rezoning request, but noted that she did not get the impression from the minutes that there were any conditions. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 04, 2005 3 DRAFT MINUTES — PARTIAL SET SDP - 2004 -76 POPLAR GLENN FINAL Mr. Rieley stated that there were concerns raised at the previous meeting. Ms. Higgins pointed out that the way she read this that they were talking about a short 20 foot section of a road that could go as steep as 16 percent. She asked if the applicant or Mr. Brooks could point out the 20 foot section on the plan where this would be occurring. She stated that from the applicant's letter, she understood that this is an existing road. Mr. Rieley pointed out that the existing road was not serving all of these town houses. He felt that it was irrelevant whether there was a road out there now that is 16 percent because the request has to be evaluated within the context of what the level and type of traffic is that it is going to serve. Ms. Higgins asked if Glenn Brooks could come forward and explain if he had any concerns. Ms. Amarante stated that she would post the plan on the board. Glenn Brooks, Senior Engineer, pointed out that the applicant's representative was present. He stated that the first plan is the existing sketch and the next one is the proposed plan. There is a driveway, as seen on the existing plan, which does follow the same general alignment and grade. When they did the rezoning the proposal was to follow the existing driveway and grade with a private road, which was approved by the Board. He stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires that it meet a rolling terrain standard, which is a ten percent grade with slightly larger curves. The applicant could not quite do that and follow the existing driveway because the existing driveway is about 16 percent. Mr. Rieley asked why the applicant had to follow the existing driveway. He stated that this was a huge multi - million dollar project and they were talking about having to be driven by the existing driveway. He felt that did not make any sense at all. Mr. Brooks stated that staff took the approach that this was an oversight when it went to the Board and it was approved in concept this way. He pointed out that was why staff put this item on the consent agenda because they want to correct the oversight so that the applicant can actually build it as it is shown on the application plan. Mr. Rieley stated that his difficulty with this is that he felt that there was a principle or a recurring theme here that they have been talking about. The first would be if they are relaxing a reasonable standard so that the property can be developed at a higher density than it might otherwise be. When the Commission reviewed this request one of the reasons that they recommended denial was that they thought that it was putting too much pressure on this steep use of land. One of the ramifications of that is the roads have to be steeper than they would otherwise. Therefore, he did not think that this is just a routine housekeeping matter because he believed that there are implications for this that are important. Mr. Brooks stated that the applicant can barely meet this layout for the rolling terrain standard. But the implication is that the existing house located on the bottom of the plan and the two driveways which serve it will be severely affected because the road gets lower than this. He pointed that this plan had about 100 feet of 16 percent grade, but the actual plan was very similar and only had 20 feet of 16 percent grade. Ms. Amarante pointed out that the Commission had the plan in their packet that the Board reviewed. Mr. Brooks pointed out that building C's entrance has moved slightly to the left. Ms. Higgins asked if the Commission should ask the applicant if they want to defer in order to submit the requested information. Mr. Edgerton stated that it would be appropriate for the applicant to address the Commission. Mark Keeler asked to refocus the Commission's attention on the fact that they were asking for a waiver in accordance with Section 14.2.3.3.d of the Subdivision Ordinance. The word oversight was brought up ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 04, 2005 4 DRAFT MINUTES — PARTIAL SET SDP - 2004 -76 POPLAR GLENN FINAL earlier in the discussion. He stated that he did not want the Commission to think that it was an oversight on Glenn Brook's part. As stated in the letter, they knew that the mountain terrain standards could be applied when private roads were involved. But, they have no choice but to do a private road because the older road, which the Commission was looking at on their site plan, attaches to Stillfried Lane, which was a private road. A public road can not be put beyond the private road that they have to connect to. Their oversight was not appreciating the ability to be able to by right apply mountain terrain standards to a private road design, which was limited to single - family detached homes. It was Mr. Brooks, after appreciating their situation and knowing that they had gone so far down the pike with these plans, who pointed out after consultation with others that this section 14.2.3.3.d was the avenue through which they would come to the Commission tonight for some sort of consideration on this matter. He pointed out that once you depart Stillfried Lane and go along Boulder Road that it is a driveway. It is platted as a road and has its own right -of -way. It serves three lots, one of which has a dwelling on it currently. This plat goes way back to the 1940's and Boulder Road was created at that time. It was only built as one would describe as a driveway. It was paved, but much of it has deteriorated. But, the first stretch of the road is there. The right -of -way is only 30 feet wide at the very beginning of the first stretch of it after you depart Stillfried Lane. They have adjacent properties on both sides and would prefer to limit the impact on those properties. In terms of grading, they don't have a problem with the width of the road. That is not an issue here at all. But, they would like to be able to respond to the existing topography on the site much in the same way that the current road does. He stated that the 30 foot right -of -way exists after you go down and hit that first intersection and turn and go up where the 16 percent section is located. That right -of -way abuts up against that property that is immediately on the other side of that road. That property is owned by the University of Virginia, which includes all of the Kluge property. Therefore, they were compelled to try to keep that roadway and the right -of -way right adjacent to that property not just because it is platted there, but because that parcel also has a commercial venture on it. There are two driveways from that commercial venture that enter onto the roadway of that steeper section or the middle section of the road. It is important to the applicant that they impact their property as little as possible and that the improvements that they do can be accomplished in a very short period of time because it may cause interruption in the service to that site. Their goal was to try to have their road at those two points, as well as the back property corner, meet the existing grades as much as possible. The road width itself is nearly the entire width of the right -of -way through that area. From a technical standpoint they thought it was very prudent to try to keep it at the current grades. He stated that the reason the Commission does not have a plan showing that is because they are here asking for permission to do it. They have already drawn the plans up and are ready to submit them, but Mr. Brooks is not compelled to review plans that he does not have permission to review and approve. He felt that was why Mr. Brooks was directing them to the Commission at this point before they submit plans that are designed to mountainous terrain standards. What the Commission has before them tonight is the older plans. The older plans were plans where the roads were designed much like a site plan in that it was fitting the terrain, but it really did not respect all of the vertical curvature that a private road really should. He pointed out that they have been able to apply broader curves and better landing areas. If the Commission asked Mr. Brooks he would say that they have done everything that they can do to meet the quality standards that he is looking for. But, in order to accept, review and approve their plans, Mr. Brooks needs some indication from the Commission that applying this standard in this particular situation would be an acceptable thing. Mr. Edgerton asked if the applicant would consider asking for a deferral so that they could see a plan before they are asked to approve it. He stated that he did not know how long that would take, but he had made a good point that Mr. Brooks is very uncomfortable approving something that he has not been given any authority to approve. He pointed out that he was very uncomfortable approving anything that he could not even see. It is very hard to know what he would actually be approving. As Mr. Rieley has pointed out, the Commission did vote 6:0 with one member missing to deny this plat when it came to them last May. After reviewing those minutes this afternoon, he stated that quite frankly he did not see any reason why the Commission, as a group, would be inclined to change their opinion from the information that they have. He stated that he was expecting to see a plat at the meeting tonight. But, obviously they have not seen it. He asked if the applicant would be willing to request a deferral until they get the requested information. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 04, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES — PARTIAL SET SDP - 2004 -76 POPLAR GLENN FINAL Mr. Keeler stated that they would absolutely be agreeable to request a deferral. He asked that the Commission recommend what that period of time should be because their decision on that period of time may be a reflection of how soon they can turn that plan in to Mr. Brooks. He felt that there were two submittals that Mr. Brooks reviews in this situation, which would be the overall site plan and a set of road plans. That latter set of drawings is something that they could finish up in the next several days and present to Mr. Brooks for his review. Mr. Thomas stated that it was something that the applicant has to do anyway. Mr. Keeler stated that it was something that they have done already. They wanted to make sure that they can do it and that it would not make a great impact on the site plan before they came before the Commission. Therefore, they would be comfortable that it works. Mr. Edgerton asked Mr. Cilimberg when they would be able to put this back on the schedule. Mr. Cilimberg stated that staff could put this item back on the agenda at a week's notice. Therefore, staff would just work with the applicant on the current development and determine when they can have the analysis to put it back on the agenda provided that it is not an agenda that is overflowing. Mr. Rieley asked if staff was comfortable with an indefinite deferral with the caveat that the applicant was going to work with staff. He stated that staff would work to get it back to the Commission as soon as they can. Mr. Keeler stated that the applicant would be more comfortable to say that they were going to do it as timely as they possibly can instead of the word indefinite. Mr. Rieley stated that was not one of their options. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that this was a site plan, which was not like a special use permit or a rezoning. Therefore, if there was not a legislative act involved and the applicant is willing to provide additional information that it was really getting it rescheduled with the Commission. Mr. Keeler stated that the best that the Commission could do is what they will accept. Mr. Rieley asked if they needed a motion. Mr. Cilimberg stated that a motion was not needed because it would be considered not decided tonight and was coming back to them. In summary, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to accept the applicant's request for deferral of SDP - 2004 -076, Poplar Glenn Final (prior to preliminary) Site Plan due to lack of information. The applicant will submit additional information on the overall site plan and road plans, which will be reviewed and commented on by the Engineering staff prior to being placed back on the agenda. Upon receipt of this information, staff will reschedule review of this project in a timely manner. (Recorded and transcribed by Sharon Claytor Taylor, Recording Secretary.) ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — JANUARY 04, 2005 DRAFT MINUTES — PARTIAL SET SDP - 2004 -76 POPLAR GLENN FINAL