HomeMy WebLinkAbout03 18 1997 PC Minutes3-18-97
MARCH 18, 1997
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, March
18, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members
present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Hilda
Lee -Washington; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Mr. William Finley. Other
officials present were: Mr. David Benish, Chief of Community Development; Mr. Ron
Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Ken Baker, Planner; Ms. Susan Thomas, Senior
Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner
Tice.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of March 4, 1997 were unanimously approved as amended.
CONSENT AGENDA
Addition to Carter's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District - Staff has received
applications to add four parcels totaling 262.75 acres located on the west side of State
Route 627 to the Carter's Bridge District. The Commission is required to take action
to refer the applications to the Agricultural/Forestal Advisory Committee. Commission
referral of application to Advisory Committee.
MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that the Addition to the
Carter's Bridge Agricultural/Forestal District be referred to the Advisory Committee.
The motion passed unanimously.
SDP 97-002 Storage Area for Blue Ridge Builders Supply Maior Site Development
Plan Amendment/Waiver Request - Proposal to construct a storage building of 19,500
square feet to serve the existing business, on approximately 17.113 acres zoned HC,
Highway Commercial, with a critical slope waiver request. Property, described as Tax
Map 56, Parcels 109B (part of) and 110A (part of), is located on the south side of Rt..
250 West, approximately 2 miles west o the junction of Routes 250 and 240, in the
White Hall Magisterial District. A portion of this site is locate din a development Area
(Rural Area 3) and designated for Neighborhood Service.
Ms. Thomas presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the site plan
amendment and the waiver and modification requests, subject to conditions.
Staff answers to specific Commission questions included the following:
--All the intrusion into the buffer area occurs on property that is owned by the
applicant.
Ali
2
3-18-97
--The existing critical slopes are a combination of natural and man-made
slopes.
Ms. Huckle expressed surprise that white pines are still being recommended as
screening trees given the fact that they have been experiencing a lot of virus
damage. Ms. Thomas said the white pines were proffered with the the original
rezoning, when the beetle problem was not as serious as it has become in recent
years. She offered to discuss with the applicant the possibility of a different type of
screening tree. Ms. Huckle also said that white pines lose their bottom branches as
they grow, which defeats the purpose of screening.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Don Wagner. Addressing Ms. Huckle's concern
about white pines, he said he would be glad to plant Leyland Cypress instead, if the
adjoining property owner will agree to the change. He passed among the Commission
a drawing of the site and an aerial photo showing the footprint of the Blue Ridge HC
area. He pointed out the locations of the road and the building. He said he was in
agreement with staffs recommended conditions of approval. Answers to specific
Commission questions included the following:
--There are presently no plans for the "large level area (open field) south of this
development." (Mr. Stallings, owner of the property, confirmed he presently has no
plans for this property.)
-- Mr. Glen Parsons, part owner of Blue Ridge Builders, said he hopes to
construct the pole barn as soon as financially possible. Treated lumber will be stored
in the pole barn. The barn will be open on one side, closed on three. Consideration
is being given to a U-shaped structure, open in the center, with the closed walls to the
outside. Even if a U-shaped structure is built, the footprint of the storage area will not
change, but the building might move on the site some." Mr. Parsons noted that the
roof would not be as high on a U-shaped building. The storage area will have a
paved surface.
Ms. Huckle called attention to the Engineering Department's comment that "the uphill
of the graded flat area will be made steeper--2:1 slopes. The probability of slope
failure on these portions of the hillside will be increased due to the steeper grade as
well as the lack of vegetation and stabilized root systems.... To better insure that
siltation is eliminated, a 3:1 slope is recommended where slopes are to be
constructed. Mr. Wagner located the area in question on the photos. He offered to
"along the top of that steep slope, put a berm or a diversion ditch to catch that water
and take it away and hamper it with some appropriate culverts to catch it and slow it
down, or something like that." He said those types of measures will be a part of the
Erosion Control Plan which will be reviewed by staff. He said it is in the applicant's
best interests to protect the slopes so that they will not erode and dump mud over the
storage area. Ms. Huckle said the Engineer commented that experience has shown
that it is difficult to get plants to grow on a cut slope, because generally, the poorest
soil is exposed. She asked if the applicant could make the slope 3:1 rather than 2:1.
a/9
3-18-97 3
Mr. Wagner said he would do whatever the Commission requires him to do, but he
cautioned that a 3:1 slope would push the development closer to the neighboring
properties. It was estimated that it would be approximately 25 feet closer. He said it
is a tradeoff because even though it is difficult to get plants established on a 2:1
slope, there will be 50% more slope to stabilize if it is changed to 3:1. Also, more
existing vegetation will have to be removed. Staff also noted that a 3:1 slope will
allow more noise to escape to surrounding properties.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Joseph Harding, adjoining property owner to the west, addressed the Commission
and expressed his dissatisfaction with this entire project. He described how the owner
of this property had "carved in" his driveway in 1988. Chains and No Trespassing
signs were completely ignored. He described methods which he said the owner had
used to "gerrymander" in HC zoning on this property. He said the proposed shopping
center has "grabbed all his road frontage for a decel lane" and his children must now
wait for the school bus in this decel lane. He said the HC zoning had not been
shown in County records until 1 1/2 years ago, when it was pencilled in. Given the
impact to the quality of his life and the devaluation of his property, he said he is
considering legal action against the property owner. Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Harding
how he felt about the slope question. He said he had no opinion on this issue. Mr.
Harding also said neither he nor his neighbors had received notification of the
"%ww' rezoning when it occurred.
Mr. Wagner was allowed final comments. Regarding the property's zoning history, he
said the zoning history is described accurately in the staff report, and proper
notification was given to all adjacent owners.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Dotson asked staff why no landscaping is proposed on the western boundary of
the property. Ms. Thomas said there is existing vegetation on the western side which
staff feels is more valuable as a screen than new plantings would be.
MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that SDP 97-002, Storage
Area for Blue Ridge Builders Supply Major Site Development Plan Amendment be
approved subject to the following conditions, and that a waiver of Section 21.7.3 (to
allow grading within the buffer zone), and a modification of Section 4.2 (to allow
grading in areas containing critical slopes) also be approved:
1. The Planning Department shall not accept submittal of the final site plan for
signature until tentative approvals for the following conditions have been obtained.
The final site plan shall not be signed until the following conditions are met:
a. Department of Engineering approval of an erosion control plan;
,;v,�2 c
on
3-18-97 4
b. Department of Engineering approval of final grading and drainage plans and
computations.
c. Department of Engineering approval of revised runoff control computations
to meet the requirements of the Runoff Control Ordinance. This site lies within the
drainage area of the stormwater management basin proposed to address Runoff
Control Ordinance requirements for the Blue Ridge Commercial area site plan. The
computations and drainage area map (and possibly the plan) for this basin must be
revised to reflect the additional runoff from this proposed storage area.
d. Recordation of a revised plat reflecting the requirements of Proffer (1) of
ZMA-89-03 regarding designation of open space on parcel 110, prior to signing of the
final site plan;
e. Granting of a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Architectural Review
Board,
f. Redesign of the grading plan to indicate that no grading shall occur within
100 feet of the stream.
g. Outdoor lighting shall be directed away from roadways and adjacent
properties and shielded where necessary. Lighting spillover onto public roads and
properties zoned residentially or rural areas shall not exceed one-half foot candle.
2. Extension of existing bank northward at southern property line to accommodate
installation of screening with White Pine and Russian Olive trees, proffered by
applicant in Proffer (2) of ZMA-89-03; enlargement of berm considered to be in lieu of
fencing or additional landscaping;
3. Site shall be developed in general accordance with the major site plan amendment
prepared by Muncaster Engineering dated January 7, 1997, and revised January 23,
1997 and February 21, 1997, specifically, the elements pertaining to the lowering of
the site elevation shall not be modified without additional review.
4. The vegetation growing within the RA district surrounding the 2.0 acre HC zoning
district to the east, south, and west shall be preserved, as indicated on the applicant's
site plan; no additional screening has been required where existing vegetation
provides screening in these locations.
Discussion:
Mr. Dotson asked if condition No. 2 should be modified to say "White Pine, or
equivalent. Mr. Keeler explained that condition is tied to a proffer which can only be
read by the Zoning Administrator. However, staff will make the Commission's intent
known to the Zoning Administrator and if the Zoning Administrator will not allow an
equivalent planting, then the applicant can make application to amend the proffer. Mr.
Dotson asked that the record show that it is the Commission's intent that "white pines
or the equivalent" are acceptable.
.�29/
3-18-97
Ms. Huckle said she could not support the motion unless a condition is added which
will require that the slopes on the south side be 3:1 "because that is the uphill side
where the water will be draining off the most, down to the stream." She stressed that
the Engineering Department comments say that cut slopes are the most difficult on
which to establish stable ground cover.
Mr. Nitchmann declined to amend his motion as suggested by Ms. Huckle. He said it
has been his experience that the less a slope is disturbed, the better. Extending the
slope will just mean there is more of it to try to stabilize. He felt certain the applicant
will ensure that the slopes are well stabilized so as to prevent damage to his
materials.
Mr. Loewenstein said he has some concern about noise impact, particularly "back-up
alarms." He encouraged the applicant to voluntarily limit deliveries to weekdays
during regular working hours, so as to minimize the noise impact. Mr. Wagner said
deliveries are not scheduled on weekends, though occasionally, because of
extenuating circumstances, a delivery may occur on Saturday. He estimated this
would happen no more than 5 times/year. Mr. Loewenstein said he understood but he
wanted the record to clearly show that the Commission feels these voluntary
measures are desirable and should be pursued to the greatest extent possible.
Mr. Finley expressed the belief that a 3:1 slope would have a greater noise impact on
,*#aw neighbors.
The motion for approval passed, with Commissioner Huckle casting the dissenting
vote.
Mr. Dotson said he, too, would prefer to see 3:1 slopes, but he did not feel strongly
enough about this issue to vote against the project.
WORK SESSION - Comprehensive Plan
Greenway Section
Mr. Benish and Mr. Baker presented the staff report.
Commission questions, comments, and suggestions included the following:
(Note: Mr. Tice had submitted his written comments to staff. Mr. Benish briefly
summarized these at the beginning of the discussion.)
--(Tice - page 1) Add wording and improve development of components 2 and 4
related to protecting important and sensitive resources and providing an economic
benefit. Mr. Loewenstein agreed.
3-18-97 6
--(Huckle) She supported the 30 feet buffer to reduce streambank erosion and
water pollution. Mr. Benish said the width will be somewhat variable, depending on
the terrain, etc. He suggested: "We can take the 30 feet off but leave that as a
desirable standard in the text, or establish that there is a lot of latitude where that trail
will go."
--(Dotson) He suggested a "Plan View" could be included which will show
variable distance with habitat areas shown, "so that it is clear that the trail meanders
around."
--(Huckle, page 6 - "from a point west of the Earlysville Bridge, to the Ivy Creek
Natural Area, the south side of the river') She asked staff to describe what they
envision. Mr. Benish corrected that the description should say "east of the Earlysville
Bridge." She cautioned that the banks are unstable in this area and a very large
boulder fell off the bank. Mr. Benish was certain there is no plan to encourage public
access in those areas where there may be danger. Those areas will be avoided and
connections will be sought via "off stream trails."
--(Finley) How will property be obtained? Mr. Benish said ownership can be
either fee simple, or easements. If there are sections where ownership or easements
cannot be achieved, "it could be that we will find we are 'stuck' in developing the
Greenway." Mr. Kamptner did not believe condemnation can be used to acquire
property for Open Space.
--(Nitchmann) How will access points be determined and how will parking be
addressed? Major access points will be in existing public parks. Secondary access
%WW points would have some parking but not a full range of facilities. Neighborhood access
points will be internal to a private development.
--(Nitchmann) He said he could not envision a trail in the Milton area because
of problems in acquiring the property, flooding problems, lack of parking areas, and
potential severe erosion problems which are the result of frequent flooding. Mr.
Benish said 52 miles of trails are envisioned, but it is recognized that some areas may
be impossible to develop. He noted that there is presently a public access on Rt. 729
at the bridge. Also, the County has a reservation of 100 feet along the river frontage
at the Glenmore development. Mr. Benish pointed out that most of the trails are in
floodplain areas and that is the reason they are "minimal trails." He said a lot of
sections already exist because they have been created by usage, (e.g. fishermen). All
that is needed is management of those sections. He said the idea is for "minimal
improvements --keep it basically as is --but allow the public the opportunity to fish,
canoe, and walk along portions." He said this section of the Plan does not answer
the details about every mile of the trail. It simply identifies those areas which the
County would like to pursue and offers guidelines as to how those areas can be
developed.
--(Loewenstein) How much field examination of these trails has been
performed at this point? Mr. Benish said a fair amount has been reviewed. He
pointed to those locations on the map.
OR
95
3-18-97
�.o. --(Dotson) Are there additional areas in the City that we are not showing? "We
are talking about natural areas so it seems we should ignore the political boundaries
and show them all."
--(Huckle) "At this point we should concentrate on trying to get the greenways
adjacent to high density areas where people have little land of their own to exercise
on, and let some of these more rural areas wait...." Mr. Benish said "that is the basis
for this Greenway concept ... for this Plan."
--(Nitchmann) He asked questions about the development costs/mile. Mr.
Baker said the city's figures show $15/foot for a Class A trail. There is 16,000 feet of
Class A trail and 263,000 feet of Class B trail at $7.50/ft = almost $2,000,000. Mr.
Benish added: "That is assuming complete development of everything that is
designated." He also said the cost could be reduced, depending on what
arrangements might be made with some of the organizations which are interested in
this type of development. Ms. Huckle thought $7.50/ft was excessive for the
development of a foot trail. Mr. Benish said he, too, thought the costs seemed high.
She said: "You can skip my part. I'll keep my tax money and forget the whole thing."
--(Loewenstein) He asked Mr. Mulaney (Director of County Parks and Rec)
about what he envisions maintenance costs to be. Mr. Mulaney quoted the report:
1511/1,000 feet/year for the Class A trail. This is also based on the City's
experience. He said: "We are going to be very concerned about what type of trail
goes in and what the river does in those locations. We don't want to develop a Class
A trail where the river will top it and cost us $50,000 after the first 100-year flood.
--(Nitchmann) He questioned how the County could ever afford this project.
Mr. Benish said this is a very long-term project and it is recognized as being
"ambitious." What is proposed at this point is the identification and prioritization of
those areas which need to be built, and then to slowly build from that. This is a
"concept for a very comprehensive Greenway system." Mr. Nitchmann felt this was
putting the cart before the horse. He felt funding sources should first be identified.
Mr. Benish said there must be a Plan before grant monies can be applied for or before
negotiations with property owners can take place.
--(Huckle) "I am sure there are more pressing projects than this."
--(Loewenstein) He asked what percentage of funding might be achievable
from other sources. Mr. Benish could not answer. He confirmed that it is possible
that a combination of monies will contribute to the project.
--(Dotson) "The way to think if this is that it is a multi -generational concept.
This is not just a 6-year CIP.... I am assuming that many parts of this can be
achieved through some cooperative efforts ... some parts will not cost as much, while
other parts may cost more. ... Normally we say it's a 20-year plan, maybe this is a
50-year plan. I think it is a very important idea. One thing which might be
emphasized more is it seems to me there is a real value --and I don't think it is quite
captured when you say 'outdoor classroom,' which implies school children --for adults
(as well as children) to get out on foot and become aware of their ecological address."
3-18-97 8
--(Loewenstein) He feels a very important concept is that of coordinating
adjacent land development with the Greenway system. He felt the strategy to
encourage developers to contribute to the system is very important.
--(Huckle) She did not see a need for the Greenway to be "continuous"
because "not many people will walk the entire length at one time."
--(Finley) He asked if staff, during this process, is also identifying those areas
where greenways should never be placed. Mr. Benish said a conscious effort is not
being made to exclude areas, but, by their omission, some areas are being removed
from consideration.
--(Huckle) She asked about the status of the county -owned Preddy Creek
property. Mr. Mulaney said this property is not under the control of Parks and Rec.
Several different uses are being considered. Mr. Benish pointed out that part of this
property is in another County.
--(Dotson) Referring to the designations shown for the access points as G1,
G2, etc., he thought the "G" was confusing.
Public comment was invited.
Mr. Tom Olivier, a Scottsville resident, addressed the Commission. His comments
included the following.-
--When developing the trails, remember that "less is more." A trail should be
one that requires minimal maintenance.
--Critical areas should be avoided.
--This trail system is one way of recognizing the need for public access to
attractive open space properties.
--in time, consideration should be given to the addition of some mountain trails.
OLD BUSINESS
--A work session on the topic of Industrial Square Footage will be scheduled in April.
--A Public Information Meeting on the proposed Historic Preservation Ordinance is set
for May 4th. He asked Commissioner to reserve this date if possible.
M
on
V. Wayne/Cilim