HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 22 1998 PC Minutes9-22-98
SEPTEMB€R 22, 1998
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
September 22, 1998, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. Rodney Thomas; Mr.
Wiliam Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice Chairman; Mr. Dennis Rooker;
and Mr. Will Rieley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of
Planning and Community Development; Ms. Elaine Echols, Planner; Mr. Juan Wade,
Planner; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney; and Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of
Engineering. Absent: Commissioner Finley.
A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The
minutes of September 8, 1998, were unanimously approved as amended.
Mr. Cilimberg summarized actions taken at the September 9th and September 16th
Board meetings.
CONSENT AGENDA
Monticello High School - Overflow Parking Waiver Request
No concerns were raised about the Consent Agenda.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the Consent Agenda
be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 98-42 Michie Tavern Motor Coach Parking - Request for a special use permit to
allow off -site parking in accordance with Section 5.1.38 of the Zoning Ordinance on
0.848 acres of land located approximately 400 feet from Route 53 on Michie Tavern
Lane. The property, described as Tax Map 77, Parcel 26E is located in the Scottsville
Magisterial District. It is zoned RA, Rural Area, and is shown as a rural area in the
Comprehensive Plan. Deferred from the September 15, 1998 Planning Commission
Meeting.
Mr. Rieley disqualified himself from both the discussion and action for this item. He
explained that he has consulted with the owner of this property on this proposal.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Brian Smith. His comments included the
following:
9-22-98 2
--The plan has received ARB approval.
--He said the Tavern is not on the National Register of Historic Places, as
stated in the staff report, but it is on the Registry of Virginia Landmarks.
--The applicant disagrees with recommended condition No. 1 which requires
that the parking lot be paved with "6 inches of 21A base stone and 2 inches of SM-
2A," and with recommended condition No.2 which requires "improvements of the
downstream channel across the road." The two are related in that the surface
treatment of the parking lot has an impact on the BMP facilities. The applicant feels
the proposed parking lot will not cause a "significant impact" to adjacent properties.
The parking area will be only 1 /3 acre with nearly level topography. The surface
treatment of the parking lot is a technical item and should be left up to the Engineering
Department. It should not be a condition of approval. He said he believes gravel lots
are allowed for lots serving up to 350 vehicle trips/week. During peak times Michie
Tavern averages 7-8 buses/day. During off-peak times the average is 2 buses/week
during the summer and 1-2 buses/week in the winter. The experience has been a
"maximum of 75-80/week, during the busiest weeks of April, May and October."
"Paving will create greater runoff and less infiltration, and greater runoff leads to larger
BMP facilities on the perimeter of the lot and larger BMP facilities lead to more tree
removal. " Paving is advisable on steeper grades and though it is easier to plow, the
Tavern receives very few buses during the winter. He said the "entrance apron" will
be asphalt. He called attention to a letter from Dan Jordan (Monticello Memorial
Foundation) wherein Mr. Jordan expressed support for a stone surface on the parking
lot. Mr. Jordan said "'stone will be more in keeping with the rural character of the road
and will be more permeable, thereby directing less runoff into adjacent ditches." (Mr.
Jordan's letter is made a part of these minutes as Attachment A.) Dust will not be a
problem with a gravel surface because the buses will be travelling at such a slow rate
of speed they will not create dust and any dust associated with the gravel will settle
after the first rain storm. He asked that condition No. 1 be changed with the "first
choice being to allow gravel and the second choice, if paving is required, to leave off
the specific requirements for depth of stone and pavement, which should be left to the
engineers."
--Regarding improvements to the downstream channel, he said the applicant
"proposes to install a storm pipe across the entrance to the FOP Lodge." The Lodge
has given approval for this pipe. The applicant does not feel improvements to the
downstream channel are justified because the repair of this ditch should be the
responsibility of VDOT and not Michie Tavern." Michie Tavern Lane is a State road
and "the road, its culverts and its ditches should be the responsibility of VDOT. The
erosion repair should not be assigned to Michie Tavern just because they are
proposing a project nearby." It would cost approximately $12,000 to make the repairs
to the ditch. Continuing the channel all the way to the stream would increase the cost
to approximately $28,800. The entire drainage basin into the ditch is 1.13 acres; the
area from the new parking lot is .08 acres (7% of the drainage area which goes to the
ditch). He recommended changing condition No. 2 to require just the installation of
the pipe across the entrance to the FOP lodge.
_m
9-22-98 3
--He addressed condition 3b which requires approval of a stormwater
management BMP plan. He said "the County should consider a minimum area to
exempt plans." He said stormwater detention is not required if less than 1 acre of area
is disturbed. This site is .8 acre so stormwater detention is not required. That should
be considered when requiring BMP's. Though erosion control plans are not required
for 10,000, or less, square feet, the applicant will develop an erosion control plan. "If
a BMP facility is required, it should be a technical item to be reviewed and approved
by the Engineering Department., not by the Planning Commission." He asked that the
requirement for a BMP plan be deleted, based on the small size of the lot, or, "as a
second choice" remove the technical language.
--He addressed condition 3f which requires additional vegetation at the entrance
to the site. He asked this requirement be deleted entirely. He said the buses will be
visible from Michie Tavern, "no matter what is done," but the surface of the lot has
been designed with Monticello in mind "so that it slopes away from the road as soon
as possible, minimizing the amount of gravel or pavement that will be seen." In
addition, two cedars, a dogwood and a redbud are proposed between the road and
the new lot. More trees and shrubs were originally planned but Monticello suggested
less to achieve a more natural, less commercial looking, landscaped frontage. The lot
will be surrounded by berms and most of the time the lot will be vacant. (Buses are
only present during the lunch period --I 1:30 - 3:00.)
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Smith if he could estimate the cost of complying with the
requirement for the visual buffer vs. what the applicant is proposing for plantings. Mr.
Smith said no plan has been prepared, but he guessed the difference would be
$3,000 to $4,000. He said the issue is not related to cost, rather it is a matter of rural
character.
Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Smith if he could estimate the amount of increased runoff from
a gravel lot. Mr. Smith said he did not make this calculation but he guessed the
existing runoff to be 1 or 2 cubic feet/sec. Asphalt might double that amount.
Public comment was invited. None was offered and the matter was placed before the
Commission.
Mr. Kamptner pointed out that conditions 3a and 3b, dealing with the E & S Plan and
the stormwater management BMP plan, would be required by the Water Protection
Ordinance regardless of whether they are specifically stated here or not.
Mr. Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering, explained how the plan had been reviewed.
Regarding the use of stone instead of pavement, he said the issues discussed had
been related to dust reduction and to how well a gravel surface will hold up given the
weight of buses. He said the runoff from gravel will be less (by approximately .2 cps),
"but the difference isn't all that great" given the fact that this is a small site. On a
large site there would be a more significant difference. Mr. Loewenstein asked if
9-22-98 4
runoff calculations consider the fact that the gravel will become more compacted over
time. Mr. Kelsey said he is sure compaction is figured into the calculations.
Mr. Rooker said it sounds as though a paved surface would be somewhat less
beneficial to water quality. Mr. Kelsey said there is a "multiplier" which takes into
account the fact that gravel is more impervious than asphalt. He had not done
calculations to compare the difference the two surfaces would have on water quality.
He repeated that the difference would not be significant because the site is so small.
Mr. Rooker asked if the stormwater channel which is recommended for improvements
is in the VDOT right-of-way. Mr. Kelsey responded: "It definitely goes outside the
right-of-way." Mr. Rooker asked: "How much is adjacent to the applicant's property?"
Mr. Kelsey responded: "As far as the release ditch that is of major concern for
erosion, none of it is on the property where the parking lot is going. It is actually down
the hill and on the opposite side of the road." Mr. Rooker asked if the parking lot will
contribute to the erosion. Mr. Kelsey said it will add some runoff--1 to 2 cfs--but he
said he does not believe it will make the condition worse that it presently is. He
added: "It's something that needs to be fixed but I don't necessarily think we should
hang this developer up for fixing a problem that is already there and they are only
contributing a small amount to." He said VDOT is aware of the problem.
Given the small size of the site, Mr. Nitchmann said he has more concern about
aesthetics than runoff. He noted that Mr. Kelsey believes the impact to the
downstream channel will not be significant. He said the applicant should not bear the
cost of fixing a problem that has needed to be fixed for 30 years. He said he could
support a gravel surface for the parking lot. He was not concerned about dust
because he said it will be in the Tavern's best interest to see that dust does not
become a problem. He supported the requests made in the letter from Monticello's
President, Dan Jordan.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that SP 98-12 for Michie Tavern Motor Coach
Parking be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Paving of the parking lot with a gravel base.
2. A drainage pipe shall be installed under the FOP driveway.
3. Engineering Department approval of preliminary and final site plans including:
a. Approval of an erosion control plan.
b. Approval of stormwater management BMP plans. This will include receipt of
a completed facilities maintenance agreement. The preliminary computation given in
the interim design manual must be completed. The manhole structure in the front
must have the required BMP volume, as well as an outlet drain protected against
clogging.
.:?87
9-22-98
c. Receipt of easements or letters of permission from property owners for off -
site work at the neighboring entrance.
d. VDOT approval of right-of-way improvements and drainage computations.
e. Engineering Department approval of adequate channel computations
according to the minimum standards given in the Erosion and Sediment Control
regulations.
4. Provision of vegetation at the entrance to the site in accordance with the
conceptual plan presented by the applicant.
[Note: Mr. Nitchmann originally proposed to delete the condition requiring additional
vegetation (3f), saying that he felt a plan agreeable to both the applicant and
Monticello could be finalized prior to the Board hearing. After Mr. Rooker expressed
concern about having no condition related to a vegetative buffer, it was agreed
condition 4, as stated above, would be included.]
Ms. Washington seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously. (Mr. Rieley did not participate in the vote.)
SP 98-43 Rosewood Village - Petition to construct an assisted living facility at the
northeast corner of Greenbrier Drive and Westfield Road. This request is to develop a
60-bed facility that would provide residential, assisted and intensive living care 24
hours a day. The site, zoned C-1, Commercial, is located on 2 acres. The property is
described as Tax Map 61 W, Section 2, Parcel 1, is in the Rio Magisterial District.
Mr. Wade presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions. Mr. Wade read two additional conditions which were added after the
writing of the staff report.
Mr. Loewenstein asked how much area in critical slopes will be disturbed. Neither Mr.
Wade nor Mr. Kelsey could answer this question.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Michael LeVally, architect for the project. In
answer to Mr. Loewenstein's question about critical slope areas, he said there are
three areas of critical slopes. One, adjacent to the county's detention pond, will not be
disturbed at all. The other two areas are minimal, and there is some question as to
whether they actually fall into the critical slope category. He said the applicant is
agreeable to the conditions of approval. Mr. LeVaily's answers to specific Commission
questions were as follows:
--The building will be three stories totalling approximately 42,000 square feet.
--When addressing parking requirements, there was discussion, during the
review of this proposal, as to whether this should be considered an apartment
,5?,y6�
„,.. 9-22-98 6
complex, or an assisted living facility. Conditions 2 and 3 are related to those
discussions. The residents of this facility will not have automobiles so parking must be
provided only for the staff and visitors.
--The residents will be ambulatory, "to various degrees.” Several levels of care
will be provided, as defined by the State.
--Transportation will be provided for residents to nearby activity centers.
Residents will not be walking to activities outside the facility. (Ms. Washington
expressed concern about the danger of elderly citizens walking in areas where there is
a high volume of traffic. Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that this section of roadway is in
the Six -Year Road Plan for pedestrian improvements.)
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Wade said this request will not be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board.
Mr. Rieley asked if this proposal were to fit within the C-1 zoning (i.e. it did not require
a special permit), "is there anything about the configuration of the building and the
parking which would raise a red flag?" Mr. Wade said the plan is presently going
through the site review process. Mr. Rieley asked if the site plan will come back to
the Commission for review. Mr. Loewenstein said it is tentatively scheduled to be
approved administratively, unless the Commission specifically asks to see it.
Mr. Rieley explained his concern: "I am concerned that we are in the middle of
developing standards for development within the urban area, (though) they are not
codified yet. The way this building sits in the middle of the site --it is catercorner to
both the streets it relates to, and is a massive building with parking on one side and a
stormwater detention pond on the other side directly adjacent to the roadway --raises a
lot of concerns for me and what it is going to be like for people to live in this place. I
really do worry about building warehouses for people who don't get around well. I
would like to see this plan reflect some of the principles that are coming out of the
DISC committee.... I hope the architect will be in touch with the people who are
generating those ideas and I hope we can see this move in a way that is both
urbanistically and humanistically more viable than what we have before us. But ... I
don't know that that is a basis to turn down the special use permit."
Mr. Loewenstein agreed the issue raised by Mr. Rieley is separate from the special
permit request.
Mr. Rooker asked that the site plan come back to the Commission for review.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that SP 98-43 for Rosewood
Village be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
ems/
`,, 9-22-98 7
1. Maximum usage is limited to 60 residents in the facility.
2. No part of the property may be utilized for any activities other than those directly
related to the adult care residence.
3. This special use permit authorizes only an adult care residence which provides an
assisted living level of service, as defined in 22- VAC-40-71-10.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rooker seconded, that a Critical Slope Waiver
be approved for SP 98-43. The motion passed unanimously.
-------------------------------------
SUB 98-132 Foxcroft Phase III,Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create 22 lots for single-
family detached dwellings, totaling approximately 5 acres of a 23.135 acre parcel.
Property, described as Tax Map 76M1, Parcel 10, is located just south of 1-64 in the
Foxcroft Subdivision on Foxvale Lane approximately 700 feet from the intersection
with Southern Parkway. This site is in the Scottsville Magisterial District and is zoned
Planned Unit Development.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to
conditions.
This item was before the Commission at the request of two adjacent property owners
who raised concerns about the adequacy of drainage in earlier phases of the
subdivision.
Mr. Rooker asked if there is agreement between staff and the applicant about the
changes to the pedestrian plan. Ms. Echols replied: "Yes. If this is approved, we will
be working on that before the final plat gets approved."
The main issue of concern was the flooding which is occurring in the development.
Using the plan on display, Mr. Kelsey pointed out the locations where flooding is
occurring.
Mr. Rooker asked if the flooding problem is addressed in the proposed conditions of
approval. Ms. Echols said conditions 2d, 2e and 2f address the flooding. Mr. Kelsey
said the Engineering Department has been working with the developer to try to solve
the flooding problem for the past 2 weeks. The county still holds the Erosion Control
Bond. VDOT also holds a bond and can use it if there are problems related to the
road. The developer is working with his consultant to re -analyze the drainage through
the system in an effort to confirm whether the ditches and culverts are sized properly
for a 10 year storm. He said some sediment has accumulated in the ditches. Mr.
c-;2 90
OR
9-22-98 8
Nitchmann asked who is responsible for cleaning the ditches. Mr. Kelsey said the
County can require the sediment to be cleaned out, as a condition of the release of
the Erosion Control Bond.. He confirmed the sediment is coming from development
that has taken place after the road was completed. Mr. Kelsey said once the bonds
have been released, it is VDQT's responsibility to maintain the ditches which are
within their right-of-way. If there are ditches which are not in VDQT's right-of-way, it is
generally the property owner's responsibility to keep the ditch clear, but there is money
available for stormwater projects which are caused by runoff from roads. Mr. Rooker
asked if there is a problem with the design of the stormwater system. Mr. Kelsey said
that question is currently being studied, but when the road was taken into the system
the ditches met the specifications and there was no evidence that they would not
function properly at that time.
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Kelsey: Do you believe you have the ability, within your
purview, to correct this problem?" Mr. Kelsey responded: "Yes, (and) the developer
has been cooperating so far." Mr. Kelsey was anticipating receiving the developer's
consultant's calculations in the next few days.
Mr. Loewenstein said he is concerned about the drainage situation. He said these
problems have existed for a while, even before this phase of development was
proposed. He said there may need to be changes made to the existing drainage
system, independent of what is being added with this phase of development. He said
he has been present during some of the flooding events and he doubts that a blocked
pipe is responsible for all the flooding which is occurring. Mr. Kelsey agreed that the
"last culvert is laid very flat, without much fall, and the last section of ditch has a very
gentle slope." He noted that he has no authority to require that the ditches be
designed for greater than a 10-year storm. Mr. Loewenstein said there is clearly a
concern about the general welfare of the people who are living there who are being
impacted by this high water." Given these concerns he wondered if this problem
should be "addressed a little more aggressively from the outset, rather than simply
trying to address it from whether or not it falls within the standards according to the
calculations or whether we need to go beyond that." Mr. Kelsey said: "We will
explore every opportunity to try to relieve the problem." Mr. Loewenstein asked: "But
it would be within our power to add or modify an existing condition, as recommended
in the staff report, to take some more aggressive action if we chose to do that. Is that
correct?" Mr. Kamptner responded: "Essentially what we are allowed to do is impose
the existing standard." Mr. Nitchmann said they should meet the existing standards
because they were inspected by the Engineering Department, but what is trying to be
determined is whether the calculations were correct, and were the ditches built to what
the calculations required? Mr. Kelsey confirmed that is precisely what is being
analyzed at the present time. Mr. Nitchmann pointed that there is a bond in place to
ensure that the problem will be fixed.
,/l
9-22-98
Mr. Loewenstein said condition 2(f)--Engineering Department approval of final road
plans and drainage computations.-- will address these concerns. Mr. Cilimberg
interjected that there is an existing problem which will have to be corrected, even if
this plat were not before the Commission. This phase of development will have to be
designed so that it is in accord with the overall system.
Mr. Rieley asked what will happen if it is found that the impervious area is greater
than was originally calculated, "and it is not a matter of blowing sediment out of one
pipe, but, in fact, we have a whole system that is underdesigned, which, when looking
at this photograph, doesn't seem to be impossible. If that is the case, do we have,
within the limited scope of the Erosion Control Permit, enough leverage to re -work that
system so that people don't get flooded?" He said he was not sure it would be
accurate to call it a "mistake" in calculations because some "assumptions" must be
made and those assumptions may prove to not be completely accurate after a project
is complete. He said a chronic structural problem is a much bigger issue than just
one or two culverts. He said if there is no leverage to fix what could be a chronic
problem, "then it does raise a question about whether we should move ahead." Mr.
Kelsey indicated he believes the three bonds which are in place will be able to ensure
that the problems are corrected. He believed the Erosion Control Bond provides
adequate leverage to get repairs done. Mr. Kelsey confirmed that VDOT is involved in
this situation.
Mr. Rooker said his development had experienced similar problems wit but
once the culverts were paved the problem was corrected. Mr. Rieley said paving
culverts increases the velocity of the water passing through them, which can cause
other problems downstream.
Mr. Loewenstein pointed out that the staff report says "the drainage system for Phase
III will include sufficient capacity to allow the diversion from this other portion" of the
development.
The applicant was represented by David Pettit. He stressed that the developer agrees
the drainage problem is a serious one, but believes it can be solved. He is fully
cooperating to come up with a solution. He described the situation which is causing
the current flooding of some properties, which are at the bottom of a slope, in a flat
area. He said the developer has completed the calculations referred to by Mr. Kelsey,
and they will be submitted to the Engineering Department tomorrow (Wednesday,
Sept. 23). "The developer is quite prepared to do one of two alternatives, once VDOT
and the County Engineering Department are satisfied the two alternatives are
adequate. One is to regrade and reshape the drainage ditches in the area involved to
improve the rate of flow through there, and also to raise the back of the ditch so that
the yards that are effected are more protected from the water flowing back there.
Another alternative is to increase the size of the culvert, from 15" to 18". The
applicant will do either of those that VDOT and Engineering feel is appropriate to solve
cz �.�
10
the problem, and to ensure that this facility will meet the requirements of a 10-year
storm."
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Matt Wood, a resident of Foxcroft representing the Homeowners' Association,
addressed the Commission. He said there is no objection to the construction of
Phase III, but the residents want to make sure that the quality of the development
does not decline. He expressed the following concerns:
--The drainage situation is more of a problem than can be addressed just by
cleaning out the ditches. He described problems in areas other than those in the cul-
de-sac.
--He hoped the developer will make an effort to keep as many trees as
possible. He said most of the trees in the Phase II development had been approved.
—There should be assurance that the sediment basin will be cleaned out by the
developer before it is turned over to the homeowners. He believed the basin is
already 1 /3 filled with silt.
--The pedestrian trails are disintegrating and should be repaired. The
homeowners should be informed if there is to be any deviation from the approved
pedestrian plan. He pointed out a place where the walking path crosses a yard, and
was dissected when the owner of that yard put up a fence. He said the trail should be
"patched back together."
--He questioned if the original plan is being followed in terms of "ratio of lot
sizes. He said Phase I had a good mix of sizes, but most of the lots in Phase II are
small. He was concerned that there were no larger homes planned for the remaining
phases, which will impact the property values of all the residences.
--He expressed concern about the plan for lots 13 -17 to be served by grinder
pumps, rather than gravity -fed sewer. He asked if it would be the responsibility of the
homeowners to maintain these pumps and, if so, there should be an amendment to
the homeowners' disclosure package.
Ms. Pam Kelleher, the owner of one of the homes experiencing the worst flooding,
addressed the Commission. She asked for the Commission's assistance in getting the
problems resolved. She said the photographs show flooding which occurred on her
property in July of 1997, one week after she had moved in. The developer was
contacted immediately. At that time the developer was getting signatures from
residents to "sign off' on the roads so they could be taken into the State system. As a
condition of obtaining the Kelleher's signatures, the developer "guaranteed that the
problem would be fixed, and even wrote a letter guaranteeing the problem would be
fixed." Though some minor changes were made to the ditch, flooding problems have
continued and the developer, over the last year, has not been responsive to their
complaints about continued flooding. When she spoke to the developer's
representative (Nat Perkins) in June of this year, she was told it is no longer his
responsibility, it is VDOT's responsibility. When reminded that the problem has
93
9-22-98 11
existed since the early phase of the development, "he basically washed his hands of
the responsibility." She disagreed with the attorney's statement that the developer has
been cooperative and felt they are only cooperating now "because we have some
leverage and they want to move on with Phase Ill." She believed this is a much
bigger problem than just sediment in the pipes.
Mr. Brian Blackwell, a resident of Lot 56, presented photographs of flooding which
occurred after a gentle rain on August 8, 1998, after some minor changes were made
to the ditch. He said there is always standing water between his home and the one
next to it. He expressed concern about the danger standing water poses to small
children.
There was no further public comment.
Mr. Nitchmann asked Mr. Pettit to address some of the comments made by the public.
Mr. Pettit said he would not dispute any of the comments made by the public because
he is not personally familiar enough with the facts to be able to say whether all the
comments are correct or not. He said, however, he believes the developer is
"committed to working expeditiously with the Highway Department and the Engineering
Department to determine the best solution to the problem and to solve it." He invited
the residents to participate in the process for determining the solution. He said he has
no knowledge of the developer denying responsibility.
Mr. Nitchmann asked how long it will take, once the calculations are reviewed, to fix
the problem. (Mr. Pettit's response was inaudible.) Mr. Nitchmann asked if the
developer would be interested in requesting a deferral to allow time for a solution to
be agreed upon.
Mr. Nitchmann asked who is responsible for the maintenance of grinder pumps. Mr.
Kelsey said grinder pumps on individual lots are the responsibility of the homeowner.
He agreed that this is information which should be made available to potential
homeowners.
In response to Mr. Nitchmann's question about a deferral, Mr. Pettit said he felt a
deferral would be appropriate. Mr. Pettit requested the item be deferred to October 6,
1998.
Mr. Pettit asked if there were any other issues which should be addressed. Other
questions identified were:
--Why is there a change in the mix of lot sizes. Mr. Cilimberg said the mix had
been set out in the originally approved plan and what has occurred and is being
proposed here is in agreement with that approved plan.
a v�
„. 9-22-98 2
--Why were the trees cleared in Phase li? Mr. Pettit said Section II had
required a substantial amount of fill, which caused the need for the trees to be
removed. That situation does not exist in Phase III, and existing trees are also in
better condition. There is no plan to clear cut in Phase III.
--How will the pedestrian path be addressed? Mr. Cilimberg said the paths are
part of the zoning approval --it was proffered. So the alternative to what existed as an
alignment of that path can be enforced. He said: We cannot approve any deviation
of this pathway system plan that is significant. If there was a proposal to deviate
greatly from that plan, it would require a rezoning.” There is no standard for path
design. Mr. Kelsey confirmed that "no specific standard for trails" is being followed.
An effort is made to ensure that whatever material is proposed is "durable." Mr.
Rieley asked the applicant to provide more information on October 6th about the
composition of the pathways. Mr. Pettit said he believes the maintenance of the
pathways is the responsibility of the Homeowners' Association.
Mr. Rieley asked why no buffer is required on the intermittent stream. Ms. Echols said
stream buffers on intermittent streams are required only if they are in a water supply
watershed. Mr. Kelsey said buffers are required on all perennial streams. Mr. Rieley
said he is concerned because this intermittent stream drains into Biscuit Run, which
drains into Moore's Creek, "which has its own set of problems, and it seems to me
that is something we might not want to contribute to if there is a reasonable way to
protect that intermittent stream."
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Kamptner to explain "the limiting legislation which does not allow
us to require design to a higher standard than a 10-year storm, particularly in a case
where there are houses that are at risk." Mr. Kamptner responded: "Actually, under
the new Subdivision Ordinance we do have that ability --to require a design to a higher
standard. It doesn't apply to the existing phases, but to the new phases, the agent
has the ability to require 'to design and construct onsite drainage facilities determined
by the agent, on the recommendation of the County Engineer, to be necessary to
provide adequate drainage control' and 'drainage control' is defined to include
flooding." He confirmed this could be applied to Phase III.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if condition 2(d) would refer to the standard just read by Mr.
Kamptner. Mr. Kamptner responded: "In this situation there is a particular sensitivity
to the drainage here because of the potential for flooding below, which, in another
situation, may not necessarily exist."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the developer is aware of the new standard or has he been
using the old standard in plans for Phase Ill. Mr. Pettit responded: "I think he was
working with the old standard, but without having looked at the issue, I wouldn't
concede that the fact that the new standard might be applied to Phase III would give
the Commission authority to require the developer to meet it on an improvement in
9-22-98 13
Phase I." Several Commissioners, and Mr. Kamptner, speaking at the same time,
said that is not what Mr. Kamptner said.
Mr. Loewenstein again asked if condition 2(d) addresses the concern. Mr. Kamptner
responded affirmatively. Mr. Kamptner added that the word "should" in condition 2(d)
should be changed to "shall." He added: "Under the Subdivision Ordinance the flood
control standards can be higher than what might otherwise be required under the
Water Protection Ordinance."
Mr. Nitchmann wanted to be certain that the Engineering Department will use the new
requirements for Phase III.
Mr. Nitchmann said this development is in his district and he will talk with the
developer, personally, to make sure the residents' sense of urgency is understood.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Rieley seconded, that SUS 98-132 for Foxcroft
Phase III Preliminary Plat be deferred to October 6, 1998, at the request of the
applicant.
The motion passed unanimously.
--------------------------------
MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Cilimberg asked Commissioners to provide staff with e-mail addresses.
Staff was asked to prepare an updated list of Planning Department staff phone
extensions and e-mail addresses.
Mr. Cilimberg asked any Commissioners, particularly new ones, who are interested in
orientation sessions, to let him know by next meeting.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
M
V. Wayne Cilimberg, Secretary
oZ c'6