Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06 24 1997 PC Minutes6-24-97 JUNE 24, 1997 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, June 24, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman; Mr. David Tice, Vice Chairman; Mr. William Nitchmann; Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Mr. William Finley. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Ms. MaryJoy Scala, Senior Planner; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Planner; Mr. John Shepherd, Planner; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Washington. A quorum was confirmed and the meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. The minutes of June 10, 1997 were unanimously approved as submitted. Mr. Cilimberg summarized actions taken at the June 18th Board of Supervisors meeting. ------------------------------------- CONSENT AGENDA SDP 97-047 Peter Jefferson Place II Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct an office building of approximately 80,000 square feet with associated parking on 7.97 acres zoned PD-MC, Planned Development - Mixed Commercial. Property, described as Tax Map 78, Parcel 31, is located on the south side of Richmond Road (Route 250 East), across from Westminster Canterbury. This site is located in the Rivanna Magisterial District and is designated for Office/Regional Service use in Neighborhood 3. Mr. Andrew Drucopoli represented the applicant. He answered Commission questions about the phasing schedule for the development. He anticipated this first building will be ready for occupancy during 1998. Noting that several waivers and modifications, which are routinely granted by the Commission, are a part of this approval, Mr. Dotson suggested a Zoning Text Amendment be considered at some future time which would allow these items to be a part of the Engineering Department's approval. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that the Consent Agenda (Peter Jefferson Place II Preliminary Site Plan) be approved, including waivers for construction on critical slopes, curvilinear parking and cross slope parking grade, and modifications of loading spaces and one-way circulation. The motion passed unanimously. SP 97-10 Sunnyboy Gardens - Proposal to establish a farm sales on 2 acres zoned RA Rural Areas. Property, described as Tax Map 31, Parcel 23, part thereof, is located on the southwest side of State Route 743 (Earlysville Road) near Earlysviile in the Rio Magisterial District. This property is designated Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan, and is not located in a development area. Deferred from the June 3, 1997 Planning Commission Meeting. 71 OR 6-24-97 2 Ms. Scala presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. Noting that the site plan which has been submitted is for less than 1,500 square feet, Mr. Dotson asked for clarification of staffs recommendation for approval. Ms. Scala explained staff was recommending "approval of the farm sales use, as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance ... up to 1,500 square feet." Ms. Scala asked that the Commission discuss whether or not it is permissible for fertilizer to be stored under the arbor area rather than specifically inside the enclosed structure. She explained that the Supplementary Regulations require that items not grown on the farm be stored inside the building. Though normally the bagged fertilizer would have to be stored inside the building, she said she had visited the site and feels it would be acceptable for the fertilizer to be stored in the arbor area. In that case, the total of the arbor area and the inside area which the applicant uses is not to exceed 1,500 square feet. Mr. Dotson asked how the parking area had been calculated. Ms. Scala thought it had been based on just the inside sales area (1 space /100 square feet). She did not think parking would be a problem, because there appears to be more than will be needed. Noting that staff has recommended waiving the requirement for a site development plan, Mr. Cilimberg said staff will have the plan which the applicant has presented (not a full- blown site plan) reviewed by the appropriate agencies which are a part of site review. Mr. Tice asked staff how well the Supplementary Regulations deal with this type of use. Ms. Scala said this is the first farm sales use that has been proposed. Nurseries are an "odd" use; they are not permitted in the rural area. The farm sales provision is relatively new and it seems to work for this applicant. She said there seems to be a need for the Zoning Ordinance to address nurseries directly in the rural area. Mr. Tice said, given the state of the farm economy and the population increase in the County, there might be more of these applications in the future. He thought there should be a section of the Ordinance which deals more directly with this type of use. He said that though this proposal seems to meet the intent of the farm sales use, that may not be the case for others which may be proposed in the future. He asked that staff look at this question and come back at some future time with recommendations. (Mr. Cilimberg said this issue will be addressed during the Comp Plan rural area review. Mr. Dotson thought it would be helpful for the Zoning Administrator to take part in those discussions.) The applicant was represented by Mr. Hunter Davidson. He said bagged goods will not be sold on the retail side of the nursery. All bulk materials "which are unsightly" will be stored in the "employees only" section. Answers to Commission questions were as follows: --The farm is a 502 acre beef cattle operation. --There are existing detention ponds which will contain any runoff from the site. --Mulch will be sold from the site. (it is not produced on site.) Mulch is a small percentage of sales. 7 Y 6-24-97 3 Noting that this site lies within a reservoir watershed, Ms. Huckle suggested an additional condition requiring that "any fertilizers, herbicides and insecticides shall be kept under roof and off the ground." Mr. Davidson expressed no objection to this condition. He asked that other "artistic items" such as wind chimes, pots, etc., be acceptable and "only be inside the farms sales building." He said staffs suggestion that the arbor area be considered part of the building space will allow him to use the inside area for only items that need to be kept dry. Ms. Scala explained the use will have to meet the Supplementary Regulation: "50% of the farm sales building must be items grown on the premises." Mr. Tice said.. "If we expand the footprint to include 1,500 square feet, 750 of that would have to be locally produced products and that 750 then could be the outdoor space...." Ms. Scala responded: "I would think you could specify that." Mr. Davidson hoped the Commission would allow this. Mr. Davidson noted that approximately 1/3 of the building is devoted to sales counter and "dry space for our books, etc.." Ms. Huckle asked how this could be stated. Ms. Scala responded: "I think you could say they can use the shade arbor as part of the farm sales structure up to a total of 1,500 square feet." She added: "You (i.e. the applicant), can display outside the 1,500 square feet as long as it is agricultural or horticultural. So you are not limited by your plant materials." Public comment was invited. None was offered and the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle said she had visited the site and was very impressed. She said she could support the request with the addition of the condition she had proposed earlier related to storage of fertilizers, insecticides and herbicides. MOTION: Ms. Huckle moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that SP 97-10 for Sunnyboy Gardens be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. Compliance with Supplementary regulations for Farm Sales (Section 5.1.35). 2. Water Resources Manager approval for compliance with Runoff Control Ordinance. 3. Fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides shall be stored under roof and off the ground. 4. The applicant may use the shade arbor as part of the farm sales structure, up to a total of 1,500 square feet, including the interior. The motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Mr. Nitchmann seconded, that a waiver of the requirement for a site development plan be approved for Sunnyboy Gardens with the understanding all 761 4 6-24-97 site development issues will be reviewed by the appropriate agencies under the site review process. The motion passed unanimously. ------------------------------------- SUB 97-007 Covesville Orchard Estates Preliminary Plat - Proposal to create a total of 37 lots averaging 18.3 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 109, Parcels 3,4, 11 and 12 are located in the Covesville area on the north side of Rt. 699 (Cove Creek Lane) approximately 3/10 of a mile west of Rt. 29. The property containing a total of 677.32 acres is zoned Rural Areas in the Scottsville Magisterial District. The lots will be served by public roads. Prior to presentation of the staff report, Mr. Shepherd explained a procedural matter which had been discovered just minutes prior to the meeting. He said there are three very small areas of critical slope in the roadway as it is shown on the plan (adjacent to lot 9, lot 33 and lot 18). After having consulted briefly with the applicant and Jack Kelsey, Chief of Engineering, he said: "We would suggest that we proceed with this with the condition--now--that the road plans could not show any work in areas of critical slope. If it is found areas of critical slope would have to be disturbed as a result of the road construction, then the final plan would require a waiver of critical slope provisions." He pointed out the areas in question on the plan. Mr. Kamptner was asked to comment on the applicability of the critical slopes provisions related to driveways or road building. He responded: "The critical slopes provisions provide that accessways are not subject to the critical slopes provisions unless there is another possible alignment that is outside of the critical slopes areas." He said the Zoning Administrator would have to determine the definition of "accessways," but assuming that it would include "everything --all types of driveways, roads, private roads", what I've just told you applies. In addition, under the Subdivision regulations, the alignment of roads is subject to approval by the County as part of the Subdivision approval process." Having heard staffs and Mr. Kamptner's explanations, Mr. Dotson said: "So, while these critical slopes exist, the Ordinance may not govern, or if it does govern, this could be worked out between the preliminary plat and the final." Mr. Kamptner confirmed the accuracy of Mr. Dotson's statement. Mr. Kamptner concluded: "What we would recommend, if the Commission is inclined to approve the preliminary plat, would be to include a condition that would require that the road alignments be removed from the critical slope and if that is not possible, to come back to you prior to final plat approval to take a final look at that." Mr. Dotson asked: But if these are accessways, they wouldn't require a waiver. Is that right?" Mr. Kamptner replied: "No. But there is a determination that has to made as to whether or not there has been an attempt to align the roads outside the critical slope areas. If the applicant has done all they can to remove the alignment from the critical slope area and it can't be done, then they would be able to put the road in the critical slope area." Fr 6-24-97 5 Given the fact that the applicant has not asked for a waiver, Mr. Tice wondered if proceeding as suggested by staff would be setting a precedent whereby future applicants would not make that request for a waiver until we have the decision in front of us and make the same argument to just go ahead and pass the preliminary plat and deal with that section later." Mr. Kamptner said normally, where critical slopes are more apparent, this would not happen with the preliminary plat. He said there are some unique circumstances here so it would not set a precedent. Mr. Cilimberg added: "In reality, if you have a road that we review that is in critical slopes and it can be moved, it will be moved before the preliminary plat ever gets to you. If it can't be, then it's not subject to waiver anyway because they have done everything they can. It's kind of a non -issue other than for you to include as a condition that they will go through that process --which they have not done as yet --between now and final." Having looked at the plan prior to the meeting, Mr. Tice said it is possible that the delineation of critical slopes on the plan is not accurate and it could be the critical slope area may be a little larger than shows on the map. He said he did not have a problem with proceeding as suggested by staff, but before this goes to the final plat, and as they work through this issue, I think we should ask for a more accurate delineation of the critical slopes." Ms. Huckle said this is a "tricky" site and every precaution should be taken that nothing is left to chance. [At the end of the meeting, it was decided the critical slopes issue could be addressed by amending the wording of condition No. 5 to add the words "including critical slope requirements".] The Commission directed staff to proceed with the staff report. Mr. Shepherd presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. He offered the following additional information: --In response to Engineering Department comments, the applicant has agreed to move the location of the private road serving lots 7 and 11 so as to avoid the spillway. Staff recommends approval of the private road request. --Several water courses pass through this site in underground pipe. The Water Resources Manager has determined that even though Cove Creek is a perennial stream as shown on the USGS Map, that section of the creek which flows through the pipe will not be protected by the RPA buffer requirements. Staff will re -address that issue prior to final approval. A condition of preliminary approval is that all drainage easements be shown on the final plat. There are areas in the Orchard which have underground piping which are not shown on this plan, but they will have to be shown on the final plat. Maintenance agreements will have to be approved by the Water Resources Manager covering all those drainage structures. The Water Resources Manager will also have the discretion to determine whether or not repair or replacement of any of the underground pipe might be needed. The condition of the piping system is not known at this time, V 6-24-97 6 because "we really don't know what's there." The applicant may also choose to reopen some of the channels which are presently piped. If any of the pipes are "opened," the RPA buffers would be required. --There are several access easements which serve parcel 3A, north of this property. Parcel 3A is also owned by this applicant. There is also an easement which serves parcel 5. A condition of the final plat will be to show these access easements. The applicant will have to arrange with the owner of parcel 5 to accommodate this easement. Those items can be addressed later in the process. (Mr. Tice asked if there is a possibility that the sale of these lots could result in a land -locked parcel. Mr. Shepherd said staff will ensure that a final plat is not created which would extinguish an existing easement, thereby leaving a parcel land -locked. The final plat will have to show all easements, "at least by deed reference." If existing easements are not utilized, the applicant will have to show new access. Mr. Tice wondered if a condition should be added requiring that the final plat show an easement to parcel 3A. Mr. Shepherd responded: "The final plat must show existing access easements serving an adjacent parcel.") --If the pond is not used as a detention basin, a stormwater management agreement will not be required. The condition which calls for that agreement is based on the pond being used as a detention facility. The Water Resources Manager will address that question later in the process. Staff answers to Commission questions were as follows: --This proposal has fewer development rights (37 total) than the previously proposed RPD (48 total) because the previous proposal tried to maximize the development potential. This proposal has several parcels greater than 21 acres. Though they could create more lots than shown, they have chosen not to use all 48 development rights. --Building sites have been sited in areas where underground pipes may exist. Later in the meeting, Mr. Tice said he thinks there are at least two building sites directly in the path of the original channel. He said there should be some flexibility to allow the lots to shift. He thought the amended conditions proposed by Mr. Shepherd would give the Water Resources Manager the flexibility to deal with that issue. (Ms. Huckle hoped the applicant and staff would seek guidance from people who have lived on the property in the past.) --Future responsibility for the maintenance of the underground pipes will be addressed through a maintenance agreement. --The drainage easements for both underground and above ground drainage will be shown on the plat and the maintenance agreement, which will include the piping system, will be part of a homeowner's recorded documents when they purchase the land. --Ms. Huckle called attention to condition No. 3--Engineering Department proof of compliance with State and Federal agencies regulating activities within jurisdictional streams and wetlands (at the stream crossing). Noting that there are a number of stream crossings on the property, she asked if this condition applies to all of them or just one in particular. Mr. Kelsey said the only stream crossing of concern, "at the moment," is the "section of the perennial stream coming out through the pond, where road A crosses it (which is also the emergency spillway)." (Though Mr. Kelsey said it was all right to make '',;, 6-24-97 the word crossing plural, Mr. Tice didn't think "at the stream crossing" was needed at all, so it was decided the words "at the stream crossing" would be deleted.) Mr. Tice identified some issues related to the drainage system which he felt were of importance: the drainage easement maintenance document which will provide for the property owners to share in the maintenance of the system; and the proposed amended condition No. 4, which gives the Water Resources Manager the flexibility to require specific measures which may include improvements to the pipe system or it may be removal of the pipe system. He said he has a question about the Water Resources Manager's determination that a piped perennial stream would not have the requirement for a buffer. He said he has not been able to find an exemption for a piped system. He said presently an RPA is defined as being "a tributary stream depicted as a continuous blue line on the most recent US Geological Survey 7 1/2 minute topographic quadrangle map." He felt, however, that the suggested amended condition No. 4 would give the Water Resources Manager the flexibility to deal with the issue. Mr. Tice also noted that the preliminary plat shows the RPA (Resource Protection Area) ending on lot 12 at the outlet for the pipe system and shows the 100 foot buffer laterally from that point, but neglects to take the 100 feet beyond that point, "which may be more important from a drainage standpoint for water quality than the lateral." He concluded: "I think to be accurate, that should show the 100 feet --even if we don't include the pipe system --at least that portion should be 100 feet beyond the outlet, which then would encroach into the building lot for lot 12." He thought there would be enough room to move the building site, even with that change. Referring to condition No. 5 and required drainage computations, Mr. Finley asked how computations would be done on the existing pipe system. Mr. Shepherd said the Engineering Department approval of final road plans "would probably end up being a new drainage system up to current VDOT standards." He said the discussion of the pipe system focuses more on what is outside of VDOT right-of-way, not part of the road plans. Mr. Shepherd said he feels the conditions give the Water Resources Manager the ability to require drainage computations on the existing system "if it is deemed appropriate." Mr. Tice added: "A part of the Water Resources Ordinance requires a major water quality impact assessment, and items which must be in that assessment include the location of drainage structures and materials including, but not limited to, the size and composition of pipes and outlets and also the estimation of pre- and post - development non -point source pollutant loads from the runoff." Applicant comment was invited. Mr. Frank Cox represented the applicant. He described how this plan had come about and how the development rights had been allocated. He provided the following additional information: --Before proceeding with the final engineering and environmental assessments of the property, an engineering analysis and hydrologic analysis will be done of the entire watershed to determine water quantity issues. "The underground culverts have to be 6-24-97 8 unearthed and tested both from a structural standpoint and their capacity to handle runoff in the way that contemporary runoff calculations are mandated by the County and VDOT. --It is anticipated a "good number of those (underground) pipes are not going to be satisfactory to current day standards." Consideration will be given to "opening up some of those areas that are inefficient now, hydraulically, and turning them into open channels and, hopefully, to do something that will be environmentally attractive, in which case the RPA buffers will re-emerge and if there are any minor adjustments to the lot placements, those will be accommodated." --The critical slopes on the preliminary plat are mapped at 1:200 scale. The design scale for the road alignments is 1:50. At that time it did not appear there were any 25% slopes being violated. "Obviously, we will go back and re -check all those and verify the existing critical slopes at a much higher level of refinement and a much larger scale." Ms. Huckle hoped the applicant would seek input from previous residents of the property. She also asked what was planned for the low-lying piped area. Mr. Cox replied: "The low-lying area is just going to be incorporated into the lots. It will be preserved. Building areas are designated well outside those areas. Mr. Finley asked if any consideration would be given to restoring some of the underground pipe, rather than opening up the piped channels. Mr. Cox said it would depend on the results of the hydraulic analysis. Public comment was invited. Ms. Judy McClanahan Perkins addressed the Commission and expressed support for the proposal. She explained her father had installed the existing pipe system and she offered to help the applicant locate the pipes. She said, to the best of her knowledge, the pipes have always been adequate. She said she and her Covesville neighbors feel this is a much better plan that was previously proposed, and it is for that reason no opposition is being presented. Mr. Randy Rawlston, Co -executor of the McClanahan Estate, addressed the Commission. In the event some of the old pipes are removed, allowing the stream to flow above ground, he hoped consideration would be given to the potential flooding impact to adjoining properties south of Rt. 699. He also expressed concern about increased traffic on Rt. 699. There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Mr. Tice said he continues to feel that a previous Planning Commission's decision to recommend denial of the proposal for an RPD on this property was a mistake and "has done more to undermine our rural areas policy than had we approved a public water and sewer system." However, he said he was pleased to see the degree of clustering which is proposed with this plan. He said he has already expressed his concerns about the Water Resources Ordinance, but staff s amended condition addresses that concern. He noted that one of the main objectives of the rural areas is to maintain the viability of agricultural and forestal activities and he wondered if the configuration of these lots 6-24-97 9 actually achieves that objective. (For instance, could a logging road be constructed that would allow BMPs to be installed? Land use assessment is lost if BMPs are not used.) He wondered if approval of this proposal will result in a situation where a landowner of some of these parcels will not be able to retain land use assessment because they will not, from a practical standpoint, be able to abide by Best Management Practices. He said he would not oppose the proposal on those grounds, but he thought this question should be considered in the future "if we are going to take seriously the objectives of being able to maintain the viability of forestry operations." He concluded: "I would much rather be reviewing an RPD tonight, but we're not, and I am pleased about a number of things we've seen, and I am particularly pleased by the degree to which staff has developed these proposed conditions. So I am willing to support this with the amended conditions." MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Ms. Huckle seconded, that the Covesville Orchard Estates Preliminary Plat be approved subject to the following conditions, and including approval of the applicant's request for a private road to serve lots 7 and 11: 1. Engineering Department receipt of a copy and proof of recordation of a County standard stormwater management facilities maintenance agreement for the pond. 2. Engineering Department approval of an erosion control plan. 3. Engineering Department proof of compliance with State and Federal agencies regulating activities within jurisdictional streams and wetlands. 4. Water Resources Manager approval of a Water Quality Impact Assessment outlining mitigation measures for encroachments into the Water Resources Protection Areas Buffer, including such stream restoration or improvements to the piped drainage system as may be deemed appropriate by the Water Resources Manager. 5. Engineering Department approval of final public road plans, including critical slope requirements and drainage computations. Drainage computations will include hydrologic and hydraulic computations for the stream crossing. 6. Engineering Department approval of pond routing and spillway discharge computations and possible improvement plans. 7. VDOT approval of final public road plans and drainage computations (including impacts to route 699). 8. Roads built or bonded in accordance with approved public road plans. 9. Engineering Department approval of private road plans. 10. The private road serving Lots 7 and 11 shall be located outside of the emergency spillway. 6-24-97 10 11. Staff approval of maintenance agreement for the private access easement serving Lots 7 and 11. 12. Water Resources Manager approval of drainage easement maintenance document which shall specify no public responsibility for the maintenance of the private drainage facilities. 13. Health Department approval. 14. The final plat must show existing access easements serving adjacent parcels. 15. Delete note #15. 16. Withdraw SP 95-24. The motion passed unanimously. Ms. Huckle expressed her disagreement with Mr. Tice's belief that the formerly proposed RPD plan for this property was preferable to this plan. She pointed out that this plan has eleven fewer houses, and "perhaps these people can qualify under Open Space" for land use. She also doubted that any of these lot owners would be in the forestry business. MISCELLANEOUS Commissioners Dotson and Tice asked that a future work session include a discussion about the effectiveness of RPDs and whether or not there has been an "erosion of community interest." Mr. Dotson said it might be helpful to compare the differences between the Covesville Orchard approved tonight and the Apple Cove RPD which was first proposed for the same property. Mr. Tice suggested inviting some developers who have done RPDs, as well as some realtors who have marketed them, to participate. Mr. Nitchmann asked staff to look into the status of the Ivy Landfill situation and report back to the Commission. There being no further business, the meeting adjourne� at 9:20 p.m. - K: M V. Wave Cilim