HomeMy WebLinkAbout09 16 1997 PC Minutes9-16-97
SEPTEMBER 16, 1997
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday,
September 16, 1997, in the County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were: Mr. Jared Loewenstein, Chairman, Mr. David Tice, Vice
Chairman; Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington; Mr. Bruce Dotson; and Mr. William Finley. Other
officials present were: Mr. Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community
Development; Ms. Elaine Echols, Planner; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Planner; Mr. Jack Kelsey,
Chief of Engineering; and Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent:
Commissioners Huckle and Nitchmann.
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The
minutes of August 26, 1997, were unanimously approved as amended. The minutes of
September 2, 1997, were unanimously approved as submitted.
Mr. Cilimberg briefly summarized actions taken by the Board at its September 2nd
meeting.
SP 97-39 Woolen Mills Warehouse - Proposal to construct 2 warehouses totaling 10,000
square feet on approximately 6.7 acres zoned LI, Light Industry. The applicant requests
a special use permit for fill in the floodplain of Moore's Creek. This property, described as
Tax Map 77, Parcel 40, is located on the south side of Franklin Street, between the
Charlottesville City Limit and Moore's Creek. This property is located within the
Scottsville Magisterial District and is recommended for Industrial Service in Neighborhood
4. Deferred from the September 2 Commission meeting.
"IZED
SDP 97-086 Woolen Mills Warehouse Preliminary Site Plan - Proposal to construct 2
warehouses totaling 10,000 square feet on approximately 6.7 acres. Deferred from the
September 2 Commission meeting.
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report. The applicant was also requesting a waiver of
Section 4.12.6.2 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for grading on critical slopes and
Section 32.7.4.1d, a waiver for stormwater detention. Both the Planning staff and the
County Engineering staff recommended approval of the special permit and approval of the
two waivers, subject to conditions.
Referring to staffs statement that "the area is recommended for Industrial Service in
Neighborhood 4 (and) warehouses are a listed use in Industrial Service Areas, (therefore)
this proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Tice said he understood
..° this to mean that staff was saying the proposal is consistent with the Land Use
component of the Comp Plan. (Mr. Morrisette did not dispute this interpretation.) Mr.
Tice noted that there are other components of the Comp Plan --the Open Space and
/ ,�
9-16-97 2
Critical Resources section --which are also applicable here. He asked if staff had
considered these sections only in terms of the aesthetic aspects of the proposal or had
consideration been given to the value of stream valleys for wildlife, etc. Mr. Morrisette
said staff feels there will be no detriment to water quality as a result of this project. He
said any detriment that has occurred took place many years ago, during the fill activity.
Mr. Morrisette said he would address Mr. Tice's concerns in the staff report which will go
to the Supervisors.
City comments had been only on the width of the entrance. Revisions to the proposal
were sent to the City. No comments were received on the revisions.
Mr. Tice asked how this property fits into the Greenway plans. Mr. Cilimberg said the
City has not done any specific planning in this area, nor has the County.
Mr. Kelsey's answers to Commission questions were as follows:
--The exact percentage of critical slopes which will be impacted has not yet been
calculated, but only a small portion will be disturbed as a result of the fill activity.
--The Engineering Department's recommendation against soil removal is related to
concern about work in the wetlands area. Disturbance of wetland vegetation would be
more detrimental to the environment than would replacing a small amount of fill. He
confirmed the applicant's alternative will be to bring in some fill.
--Water quality measures which can be used in place of stormwater detention
include things such as additional vegetative filter strips, i.e. stormwater will be captured in
a pipe and these filter stips would be constructed at the end of the pipe where the water
is discharged and spread out. There are certain types of plants which will absorb more
moisture and take up more nutrients. He said there is documentation which shows these
types of measures have been effective.
--The small amount of soil which will be removed from the floodplain will not effect
the flood elevation levels.
--The areas of fill are not "jurisdictional wetlands." The wetland areas are "pretty
much" beyond the critical slope areas.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Katurah Roel. His comments included the
following:
--The critical slopes are no more than 10 feet. This site is approximately 13 acres
and adjoins 26 acres (all within the floodplain). The Corps of Engineers has visited the
site and determined wetland areas and potential impacts. None of the water courses or
wetlands areas will be impacted.
--The site will be used for a bread warehouse.
--There are no plans at this time to access the area which is above 325 feet (the
only area in the 40 acres which is not in the floodplain). That is a separate issue to be
addressed later but it would not impact the floodplain water level.
Public comment was invited. None was offered and the item was placed before the
Commission.
/7�
9-16-97 3
Mr. Dotson wondered about the consistency of conditions on the special permit and the
site piar , i.e. ii`le special permit LNo. 31 says no son snaii be removed, whereas i.he Siie
plan [No. 1(b)(3)] says any soil that will be removed." Mr. Cilimberg says if the Board of
Supervisors approves the conditions of the special permit, then the wording in the site
plan will not be needed. He recommended that no changes be made to the conditions at
this time. He confirmed that the special permit is the controlling approval.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP 97-39 for Woolen Mills
VVareflOUse be recommended i0 tfle Board of Supervisors Tor approval SUDject to the
following conditions-
1. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
2. Water quality measures shall be provided subject to the approval of the Water
Resources Manager. [NOTE: This condition was amended later in the meeting.]
3. No soil shall be removed from the Moore's Creek flood plain to compensate for any fill.
The motion passed, 4:1, with Commissioner Tice casting the dissenting vote.
Discussion
Mr. Tice explained he had not supported the motion because of concern about the
cumulative impact of a number of things in this watershed and the precedent that may be
set. He said his biggest concern is whether condition No. 2, related to water quality
measures, is adequate. There was discussion as to how to best address Mr. Tice's
concerns, and whether or not the Commission should see the final site plan. Mr. Tice
said the Water Resource Protection Areas Ordinance has provisions to allow the
requirement for a Water Quality impact Assessment. Staff was unable to determine,
without checking a map, whether this property is within the Water Resource Protection
Areas. Mr. Finley asked staff what type of water quality measures will be required, in the
absence of a requirement for a Water Quality impact Assessment. Mr. Kelsey said if a
waiver of stormwater detention is approved, the applicant will need to provide on -site
detention, but would not be required to do anything for water quality mitigation. Mitigation
would only be required if the site is in a runoff control area or if a Water Resource
Protection Area is being disturbed in excess of 10,000 square feet. Mr. Kelsey doubted
that the 'Water Resource Protection Area would be impacted, but if it is it will not be to a
point which will require a major impact assessment.
Mr. Tice asked if the Commission would consider amending condition No. 1(b)(1) of the
site plan as follows: "Water quality measures to achieve levels of water quality at least
equivalent to that which would be expected from a stormwater detention basin, subject to
approval of the Water Resources Manager." Mr. Kamptner said the Water Resources
Manager is limited in applying rn the ordinances, U t with the special permit the �.ornrnisswn
has the ability to impose conditions that address potential impacts. To amend a condition
of the special permit, there must be a Motion to Reconsider the previous action.
177
9-16-97
4
Mr. Kelsey suggested wording "to achieve water quality equivalent to pre -development
conditions."
Mr. Roel said this project will improve the conditions that currently exist on this property.
He explained: "We will create, at the edge of the floodplain, at the discharge of our storm
sewer pipe, a small pond that will contain an inch of water. It will have green growth in it
and will sustain water. It runs it through a gravel discharge and then releases it. It will
improve the existing conditions there in numerous ways. The little bit we are disturbing
is simply importing the fill to bring the site one -foot above what we need to have for a
loading dock level, that is all above the floodplain. Our waiver for stormwater detention is
the simple fact that we're in the floodplain as soon as you step off the edge of the site.
There is no sense in having a pond that is going to hold what is going to top the dam with
a storm. There is no point in containing that water. Mr. Roel said the pond he described
has been used on another site and has already been approved. The Water Resources
Manager has indicated this will be an improvement to existing conditions.
Mr. Tice agreed it sounds as though this project will improve the existing conditions, but
he said he still wanted to add a condition, not only for this project, but for future
applications.
MOTION TO RECONSIDER: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that SP 97-39 be
reconsidered. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP 97-39 for Woolen Mills
Warehouse be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval subject to the
following conditions:
1. Albemarle County Engineering approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
2. Water quality measures shall be provided to achieve water quality at least equivalent to
pre -development conditions, subject to the approval of the Water Resources Manager.
3. No soil shall be removed from the Moore's Creek flood plain to compensate for any fill.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that a waiver of Section 4.2.3.2
(Critical Slopes), be granted for SDP 97-086, Woolen Mills Warehouse Preliminary Site
Plan. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that a waiver of Section
32.7.4.1d (Stormwater Detention), be granted for SDP 97-086, Woolen Mills Warehouse
Preliminary Site Plan. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that SDP 97-086 ( Woolen Mills
Warehouse Preliminary Site Plan) be approved subject to the following conditions:
9-16-97 5
e 1. The Planning Deparment 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. Planning Department approval of landscape plan.
b. Engineering Department approval to include:
1. Water quality measures are to be provided subject to the approval of the Water
Resources Manager.
2. [32.6.6.d] Approval of final grading and drainage plans and computations.
3. [32.7.4.3] Approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. The plan must
indicate any soil that will be removed from the flood plain.
4. Modification of site plan to provide radii of a 12.5 foot minimum according to
Virginia Department of Transportation entrance requirements.
c. Fire -Rescue Division approval to include verification that adequate fireflow is available.
Required fireflow is 1,250 gpm at 20 psi. Initial flow tests by the Service Authority
revealed a fireflow below 1,000 gpm. Should the fireflow be inadequate, the applicant
can choose to sprinkler both buildings or reduce the needed fireflow by installing fire walls
to reduce the fire area.
d. Building Code and Zoning Services approval to include provision for one van -
accessible, barrier -free parking space, with any curb cuts necessary to provide an
accessible route from the parking space to the building entrances.
e. Albemarle County Service Authority approval to include:
1. Show the proposed sewer lateral connection for each building. Connection(s)
to the RWSA sewer line must be made at a manhole with the accompanying note stating
the connection(s) will be made by field coring with a flexible boot installed.
2. Approval of water construction plans for the new fire hydrant.
3. Approval of final sewer plans indicating a minor adjustment to the existing
sewer easement near the northeast corner of the southernmost building. (Contact Pete
Gorham.)
The motion passed unanimously.
SP 97-03 Virginia Land Trust - Proposal to establish a church on approximately 5.22
acres zoned RA, Rural Areas [10.2.2.35]. Property, described as Tax Map 32, Parcel
22K Lot A, is located on the east side of Route 29 North, approximately 1 1/2 miles north
of Proffit Road, in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in a Development
Area and is designated Neighborhood Density Residential.
Staff was requesting deferral to September 30, 1997, to allow the special permit to run
concurrently with SP 97-46.
/79
9-16-97
1.1
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that SP 97-03 be deferred to
September 30, 1997. The motion passed unanimously.
SP 97-036 First Citizens Bank - Proposal to construct a 2,930 square foot building wiht
associated drive-thru lanes and parking on 1.349 acres, zoned HC, Highway Commercial.
The applicant requests a special use permit to allow for three drive-thru lanes and an
Automated Teller Machine (ATM). This property, described as Tax Map 46134, Parcel 1
(part of), is located on the southwest corner of the Route 29 North and Timberwood
Boulevard intersection. This property is located within the Rivanna Magisterial District
and is recommended for Community Service in the Hollymead Community.
AND
SDP 97-092 First Citizens Bank Preliminary Site Plan - Waiver Request - Proposal to
construct a 2,930 square foot building with associated drive-thru lanes.
Mr. Morrisette presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the special
permit subject to one condition, and approval of the preliminary site plan, subject to
conditions. Staff also recommended approval of a waiver of Section 4.12.6.2 to allow for
one-way internal circulation, due to the use of the drive-thru windows.
Mr. Dotson asked if sidewalks were proposed, other than those internal to the site. Staff
deferred to the applicant's representative.
The applicant was represented by Mr. Peter Bishop, and Mr. Don Franco. Mr. Bishop
said the applicant has no concerns about any of the proposed conditions. Answers to
Commission questions were as follows:
--There will be no access to the site directly from Rt. 29.
--There are no plans for sidewalks along Timberwood Pky.
There was considerable discussion about pedestrian traffic patterns and potential
sidewalks. Mr. Franco said there are presently no plans for sidewalks but he said the
developer is willing to explore the idea further. He questioned the wisdom of requiring
sidewalks for this project, because they would not connect to anything else. The
construction of sidewalks would cause the removal of existing landscaping. Mr. Cilimberg
said sidewalks would need to be studied in the context of an overall system for the entire
shopping center. Mr. Dotson felt it was time to begin thinking about, and planning for,
the development which is going to occur in this area. Mr.Cilimberg said staff will work
with the developer to see if a sidewalk plan should be, or can be, developed. Staff will
report back to the Commission on the results of staffs findings. It was ultimately decided
the following condition would be added to the site plan approval: Provisions for
pedestrian sidewalk/pathway, pursuant to Section 32. 7.2.8, from the subject property to
,. adjacent property, consistent with an overall sidewalk plan for the area, if determined by
the Director of Planning to be feasible.
9-16-97 7
In response to Mr. Franco's request that a time limit be attached to the condition, Mr.
Kamptner said the determination of feasibility will have to be made within the time the
County has to act on the site plan.
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SP 97-036 for First Citizens
Bank be recommended to the Board of Supervisors for approval, subject to the following
condition:
1. Drive -through windows will be limited to four (4).
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that a waiver of Section 4.12.6.2 (One -
Way Circulation) be approved for SDP 97-092 - First Citizens Bank Preliminary Site Plan.
The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, Ms. Washington seconded, that SDP 97-092, First Citizens
Bank Preliminary Site Plan be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. The Planning Deparment 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. Planning Department approval of landscape plan.
b. Engineering Department approval to include:
1. The plan shall be sealed, signed, and dated by an architect, professional
engineer, land surveyor with 3(b) license, or landscape architect licensed to practice in
the Commonwealth of Virginia. (This can occur when the plan nears final revisions.)
2. Approval of grading and drainage plans and computations.
3. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) approval of grading plans and
computations. Per VDOT, the road plans are currently being reviewed for Fortune Park
Road.
4. Approval of an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan.
5. Engineering and VDOT approval of the Fortune Park Road Plan.
c. Albemarle County Authority approval to include submission and approval of final plans
to address fire flow. Required fireflow is 1,225 gpm @ 20 psi. Records indicate that the
fire flow serving this site is 964 gpm @ 20 psi.
/ V/
9-16-97
51
d. Albemarle County Architectural Review Board issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness.
e. Approval of SP 97-36 to allow for the use of drive -through windows.
2. Provisions for sidewalks or pathways from the subject property to adjacent property as
provided in Section 32.7.2.8 of the Zoning Ordinance, if determined by the Planning
Director to be feasible, and consistent with an overall sidewalk or pathway plan for the
area.
The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Dotson reminded staff to update the Commission, under some future item of Old
Business, on the progress of the sidewalk discussions.
SUB 97-044 Rivancrest Preliminary Subdivision Plat - Request for preliminary plat
approval to create five lots and use a private road on 26.42 acres of land along the south
side of Woodlands Road (Route 676). The property, described as Tax Map 45, Parcel 5,
is located in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. This property is located approximately
250 feet from the intersection of Route 676 and Route 1050. It is zoned RA and is
designated as a rural area in the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval of the preliminary
plat and approval of the request for a private road.
Ms. Echols and Mr. Kelsey's answers to Commission questions were as follows:
--The proposal uses all five developments for this parcel. No further family
divisions are possible.
--Staff originally suggested a road alignment which would have avoided the creek
crossing, but would have necessitated the removal of 30 trees on a neighboring property
in order to achieve sight distance. The Water Resources Manager was consulted about
the impact of the culvert and the fill, and he said "the real effects will be with the road in
the low-lying area ... there will have to be stormwater management and erosion and
sediment control measures in this area to protect the reservoir from any siltation." Mr.
Kelsey later confirmed that some type of erosion control basin will have to be constructed
downstream from the stream crossing. Mr. Tice asked if a waiver will be required if critical
slopes must be disturbed for the erosion control and stormwater detention measures. Mr.
Cilimberg later addressed this question and said the "provisions of the ordinance don't
apply to accessways, public utility lines and appurtenances and stormwater management
facilities necessary to provide the usage of the property."
--VDOT favors this proposed entrance location (on Rt. 676). Location was limited
because of sight distance problems. There appears to be little flexibility for the entrance
location.
--It may be possible to pull the private road "up a little farther," (which could then
allow the lower lots to be moved higher on the property, away from the critical slopes).
/ 00-�
9-16-97 a
--The calculations for total volume of grading for a public vs. a private road were
based on the same alignment. The biggest difference is in the width of road --a private
road will be 14 feet wide, a public road will be 18 feet wide.
Mr. Tice pointed out that the Subdivision Ordinance says a private road can be approved
if a public road would cause 30% more grading, "and if no alternative public road
alignment is available to the subdivider that would alleviate significant degradation of the
environment." He said: "It seems to me, if there is an alternative configuration of this
property, that would allow a public road that was shorter than the proposed private road.
If we're at a 35% point right now, it wouldn't take much in the way of an alternative
alignment to drop it below that 30% level and if the applicant has an alternative available
to him ... by a reconfiguration of the lots that would allow a shorter public road (sentence
unfinished)." Mr. Kelsey questioned whether the grading would drop below 30%. He
explained: "Even if you cut the road length in half, you still have the stream crossing to
deal with, cause we're limited as to where the entrance can go." Mr. Kelsey said no
alternative alignments have been suggested, so no others have been reviewed.
Mr. Tice said this proposal presents a dilemma for the Commission because "the Board of
Supervisors has made very clear, by other actions taken recently regarding the reservoir,
that they want to see the maximum protection that can be done for the reservoir."
The applicant was represented by Daniel Veliky. He explained the private drive is being
requested on the advice of the Planning staff, based on the determination that it will have
less of an impact on the natural terrain. He said his daughter hopes to build on lot 1 and
the suggestion to divide lot 1 is not acceptable to his daughter. The lots are arranged so
that all will have access to the reservoir. Though lot 5 does not have as many building
options as lot 1, it does meet Health Department requirements, and the applicant
requests that it be approved as proposed.
Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Veliky how the long, narrow design of lot 1 is useful for a lot sited
toward the reservoir because "visually it is far removed." Mr. Veliky suggested part of the
lot may be used as pasture. He said the top part of the lot has a mountain view. Mr.
Dotson questioned the marketability of a lot where the house site is sandwiched between
lot 5.
Ms. Laurie Veliky said she plans to build on lot 1. She explained the lots had been
arranged so as to provide all with a reservoir view and also be set back from Rt. 676.
Mr. Roger Ray, the applicant's surveyor, addressed Mr. Tice's question as to what
alternatives had been evaluated in terms of road alignment and lot configuration. He
explained how the achievement of sight distance had dictated the location of the
entrance. One possible alignment had not been possible because it would have
interfered with a small stream. No consideration was given to moving the road to the
west. Mr. Ray noted that the building sites shown are just potential sites, except for lot 5,
which has only one potential building site. (He later confirmed that the building sites for
lots 2, 3 and 4 had little flexibility.) He said the applicant has proposed a private road
193
9-16-97
10
based on the advice of the Planning staff. The applicant agrees that a private road will
cause less environmental impact and is compatible with other subdivisions around the
reservoir.
Mr. Finley asked if lot 5 will access the private road near the culvert. Mr. Ray said the
applicant wishes to leave that decision to the future owner of lot 5. "However, it could be
accessed with a drainage pipe across the private road (he pointed out the location on the
plan). He pointed to a couple of places where lot 5 could access the private road, but
which would be less desirable and more expensive "than staying to the west of the low
lying area."
Mr. Loewenstein asked what type of erosion control measures are envisioned. Mr. Ray
responded: "Sediment traps where needed; silt fences where needed...."
Mr. Dotson asked how much tree clearing will be necessary in order to provide the views
of the reservoir. Mr. Ray said the site is primarily forested. Mr. Dotson asked if the
Ordinance speaks to tree removal in critical slope areas. Mr. Cilimberg responded: "The
Water Resource Protection Area is to be retained as a natural buffer and that is shown as
a 100-foot setback adjacent to the reservoir. I believe that has to remain in a natural
state and is not to be cleared." Mr. Cilimberg later said the critical slope provisions are
for grading activity and do not prohibit tree removal so long as the grade is not altered.
Mr. Cilimberg clarified there is a 200 foot septic setback and the Water Resource
Protection Area setback is 100 feet.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Katie Hobbs, representing the League of Women Voters, expressed the League's
long standing position that the WRPA setback should be greater than 100 feet. She said:
"I wonder, when we have some of the weakest septic laws in the United States, and we
have a reservoir that we must protect at all costs, is this really a good use of this land
above the reservoir?"
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Tice asked Mr. Kelsey what elements are addressed in the County's review of
stormwater detention and runoff control. Mr. Kelsey said calculations must include
"some reasonable approximation of impervious area, for each dwelling as well."
Mr. Finley asked about private road maintenance agreements. Mr. Kelsey said the
Planning Department will require evidence of an agreement for the maintenance and care
of the road, but the agreement is enforced within the homeowner's association.
Mr. Tice expressed his concerns about the proposal. He acknowledged that the
Commission's role in dealing with subdivision proposals is ministerial, but "there are a
couple of provisions of the Subdivision Ordinance that relate to some of the concerns I
have. In the section dealing with drainage, water and sewer and Section 18-22 dealing
/8Y
9-16-97 11
with flood control and drainage structures, it does state that 'provisions shall be made for
the disposition of surface water runoff from the site, including such on -site and off -site
drainage facilities as the Commission, upon the recommendation of the County Engineer,
may deem adequate, and then it goes on to say later in the section 'in addition, provisions
shall be made for the minimization of pollution of all downstream water courses due to
surface water runoff." I look at that as giving us the ability to look at this project and say
'has the applicant explored all the alternatives that are available to truly lead to a
minimization of pollution of all downstream water courses?' Minimization is a fairly clear
term and it states very clearly that the burden should be on the applicant to show that
alternatives which would result potentially in less pollution have been fully explored and,
for whatever technical reasons, could not be done. I am not convinced that has been
done in this case. The other section related to this is the section dealing with private
roads [18-36(b)]: 'The Commission may approve any subdivision served by one or more
private roads under the following circumstances (1) for property zoned rural areas where
the subdivider demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the Commission that (a)
approval of such roads will alleviate a clearly demonstrable danger of significant
degradation of the environment... for the purposes of this provision, in addition to such
other factors as the Commission may consider, significant degradation shall mean an
increase of 30% in the total volume of grading for construction of a public road as
compared to a private road.... As secondary considerations, among other things, the
Commission may consider actual volume differential as well as surface area differential
and removal of vegetative cover.' It goes on to say '(b) no alternative public road
alignment available to the subdivider would alleviate significant degradation of the
environment.' What that says to me is while the 30% rule is one of the criteria that can
be considered, it is not the only one that can be taken into account. Secondly, there
should be a test of alternatives, not just an alternative of a public road on the same
alignment as this but are there other alternatives that are available to the applicant --
different lot layouts, different road design, or other alternatives that would be more
acceptable? In light of both of those considerations, I think we do have more of a
responsibility in looking at requests like this than simply to say 'does this particular
request meet the specifications of the Subdivision Ordinance?' I think we have the
responsibility to say 'have all the alternatives been explored that might lead to additional
minimization of pollution to downstream water courses and better protection of the
environment?' My intuition is that those alternatives exist on this property without denying
the applicant reasonable use of the property and for that reason I don't think I can support
the application we have before us."
Mr. Loewenstein said his concern with this proposal has also been whether there might
be alternatives which would better satisfy the provisions of the Ordinance and would
better meet the need to protect the environment. He said he is very concerned about the
proximity to the reservoir. He noted that there have been several applications recently
which have demonstrated the need for a great deal of sensitivity for dealing with these
matters. He concluded: "I am not satisfied that the applicant does not have reasonable
alternatives for this property. I would concur with Mr. Tice and I would have difficulty
supporting this application as it stands before us tonight. Might it not be possible to
9-16-97
12
redesign the lots in such a way as to make effective use of the overall parcel while
providing additional protection of the reservoir."
Mr. Finley pointed out that runoff would be greatly increased with a public, paved road.
Mr. Loewenstein said he was more concerned about whether the existing configuration of
lots necessarily makes the best use of the property and offers the best protection of the
important water resources, than about the public vs. private road issue.
Mr. Tice agreed. He added: "I don't mean to imply that I necessarily would rather see a
public road than a private road. I'm saying I don't think that is the only alternative that we
face.... As I read this --there is this 30% rule, but in addition to other factors that we may
consider --one of the other factors may be 'is there a better configuration that a shorter
road could serve so that it's still a private road, it's 14 feet of gravel instead of 18 feet of
payment, but it's shorter with less impervious surface and the lot configuration is such that
the runoff concerns to the reservoir are lessened. I don't want to imply that I'm
advocating a public road. I'm just saying there are a number of other alternatives that
should be explored and that I think, unless the County Attorney tells me otherwise, we
have the leeway within the Ordinance (to address)."
Mr. Finley said the owner has rights and he has designed the lot layout for his personal
reasons. There is established erosion criteria and Health Department criteria that will
have to be met. He asked: "How far does he have to go in making everything conform if
he can meet the criteria? How much further does he have to go? The developer also
has rights. We want to be sure the reservoir is protected, but we have criteria that must
be adhered to so we presume the reservoir will be adequately protected by what we have
here, else they are not going to approve it."
Ms. Washington said she agreed with Mr. Finley. She expressed support for the staffs
report and said she could support the request.
Referring to Ms. Hobbs' comments, Mr. Dotson agreed that our Ordinances and state
controls on septic regulations are not strong, "but that's difficult to deal with when
considering a subdivision that is largely a ministerial act, unfortunately." He said one of
the things which concerns him about the proposal is lot 5 and the fact that the building
site for the house "couldn't be further from the road, which means that it is maximizing the
distance that the driveway would have to traverse the grading, the side slope, the tree
removal and the crossing of the stream, and it seems to me that is an appropriate
concern when dealing with a subdivision. It is not just a matter, as Commissioner Finley
said, of a developer having his preferences for a long, skinny lot where someone else
might prefer a different shape. But it does translate into the question of whether or not
this lot layout minimizes degradation. Lot 5 and Lot 1 could be re -configured, perhaps as
staff has suggested, or perhaps some other configuration that would have less potential
environmental risk associated with it. I, personally, feel that the private road is the
sensible way to go. I don't feel that is much of an issue, even if all the alternatives
/ 94
9-16-97
13
haven't been demonstrated." Mr. Dotson asked staff what are the alternatives to the
developer if the Commission were to deny the request.
Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that if the Commission votes to deny the request, it must cite
what the applicant can do to make the proposal approvable so the applicant can revise
the plat to address those concerns. Mr. Kamptner said State Law requires that the
Commission specify the provisions on which a denial is based.
Mr. Loewenstein said the two sections cited by Mr. Tice earlier [18-36(b) and 18-22] could
be the basis for a denial.
Mr. Tice asked if it would be specific enough to say that the applicant needs to explore
"other alternatives that would eliminate the house site on the east side of the drainage
and such other measures that would demonstrate that Section 18-22's requirements for
the minimization of pollution of all downstream water courses due to surface water runoff
have been addressed." Mr. Kamptner said: "With that particular issue, with respect to
location of the building sites, our Ordinance only requires that they show a building site
somewhere on the property and that may not, in fact, be the actual building site at the
time of construction. All they are doing there is showing that there is 30,000 square feet
that meets the building site requirements...."
Mr. Cilimberg said "What can be summized from what Mr. Kamptner has said is that if
lots 4 and 5 were combined, there would be the lot 4 building site that could be used.
They still do have the building site available to them that is further away, if they so chose
to use that. That is where you end up.... They can use one or the other on that lot, if
they were combined. ... One of the options that was discussed was taking lot 1 and
having two lots --one with a building site closer to the road, and one where it is shown.
They would still get the five lots." Mr. Dotson concluded: "I guess I feel a configuration
like that would make some noticeable difference in the potential environmental impact.
With deference to the landowner, it would seem it could be done without encroaching on
the privacy of the marked site on lot 1. Particularly if it was kept up close to Rt. 676 1
would think it would be marketable, just in a sense of being more a part of the
development and less off to the edge."
Mr. Kamptner stated: "I am assuming this configuration satisfies the requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance and, unfortunately, we are limited on what we can do with respect
to configuration. ... There are other factors --that Commissioner Tice has cited --that come
into play with configuration. One is the private road alignment. The other is the flood
control and drainage. With respect to flood control and drainage and the ability the
Commission has to impose requirements, you certainly have that ability. If you determine
that the showing hasn't been made, under 18-36(b)(1)--Commissioner Tice cited concerns
with subsections (a) and (b)--that could have an impact on the ultimate configuration. But
I don't think we have the ability under our Subdivision Ordinance, standing apart from
private roads and other types of issues, to step in and determine the configuration of lots,
provided that it otherwise complies with the Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. If you
determine that the private road findings can't be made and it is determined that they need
/97
9-16-97
14
to come back with either additional evidence that there are no alternative public road
alignments, or that there is a different type of alignment that would allow you to make
those findings, then a different configuration may be the result."
Mr. Tice added: "And similarly --in regard to the extended culvert that will be required if
Lot 5 is configured with the house site as shown now --if by re -configuring the lots that
extended culvert could be eliminated so that you would no longer have to cross that
drainage with the driveway, then it seems to me you come closer to satisfying the
requirement of the Ordinance that I cited before about minimizing pollution. So the
indirect effect of the re -configuration of the lots is to be able to meet that Ordinance
requirement." Mr. Tice acknowledged a culvert would still be needed, but it would not be
as long so less fill would be needed.
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Kamptner if Mr. Tice's comments would be a legitimate finding
on the part of the Commission.
Mr. Kamptner responded: "I am not sure if these two statements are bases for denial or
they are conditions that you impose as part of a preliminary si'LVe r"
Mr. Tice said: "If we are talking about something that is likely to lead to a re -configuration
of the lots, I don't see how we can do it as a condition of approval of a site plan." Mr.
Kamptner said: "(Are) you looking at re -configuration resulting from denial of the private
road as currently proposed.?" (No response to this question.)
Mr. Cilimberg said the Commission's denial of the private road is telling the applicant he
can either re -submit a better proposal for the road, which could be public or private, or it
is telling the applicant "in this location we don't want a private road, you have to do a
public road, which I don't think is the result you are looking for.... It's not the private road
action that is going to get the result you desire. I think it is that in combination with the
lot layout. I think what Mr. Kamptner is trying to advise you about is how you might act
on the subdivision plat to see that there are some adjustments that deal with, particularly,
the issue of minimization of pollution. You know the saying, 'don't ask for something that
you might not want to get.' You may get something you really don't want if you deny the
private road in and of itself."
In response to Mr. Dotson's question about approving a private road, but not necessarily
in this precise location, Mr. Cilimberg said: "You could say, 'approve private road,
location to be determined, based on the subdivision plat's result."' Mr. Kamptner said he
feels there is some leeway allowed between the preliminary plat approval and the final.
Mr. Tice said even if the Commission were to deny the request for a private road based
on the finding that the alternatives have not been fully explored, the applicant could
simply decide to do a public road. He said: "But we still have the ability to state, whether
it's a public or private road, there is the issue of the flood control and drainage
structures."
M
9-16-97 15
Mr. Kamptner explained: "What 18-22 does is put obligations on the subdivider. One of
the things is the subdivider shall provide all information needed. It goes on to say
provision shall be made for the disposition of surface water runoff from the site, including
such on -site and off -site drainage facilities as the Commission, upon the recommendation
of the County Engineer may deem adequate. So we need to have information as to
whether or not those provisions, based on the recommendation of the County Engineer
are adequate. We either have that information tonight or we don't, and if you can't make
that determination, then I think you can conclude there is insufficient information for you
to make that determination. The second is the provision shall be made for the
minimization of pollution of all downstream water courses due to surface water runoff.
The subdivider shall also provide any other information required by the Board, its agent or
the Highway Engineer. Have provisions been made for the minimization of pollution to all
downstream water courses? The problem I have is we have an Erosion Control
Ordinance and a Stormwater Management Ordinance and a Water Resource Protection
Areas Ordinance and the applicant is going to have to comply with all those. Those are
presumably designed to satisfy pollution concerns. There may be additional information
that you can deem has not been provided, but, based on the staffs
recommendation ... (sentence not completed)."
Mr. Tice said that all three of the ordinances do not eliminate all pollution that occurs as a
result of development and the Water Resources Manager, in previous presentations to
the Commission, has made that specific point--i.e. "they only control erosion and runoff
and water quality up to a point and if there are alternatives, in combination with those
three ordinances, which would result in less pollution, then that alternative meets this
test." He concluded: "I don't think we have enough information before us to say whether
those alternatives have been explored."
Mr. Loewenstein felt the language cited from the Ordinance allows the Commission to
make that type of determination.
Mr. Finley said the County staff will ensure that all the requirements of the three
ordinances are met, or else this configuration will not be approved. He did not think it
was possible, at the preliminary plat stage, before all calculations have been done, for an
applicant to say definitively that all alternatives have been explored.
Mr. Tice pointed out that the Ordinance says the subdivider shall provide all the
information needed. Also, under the Private Roads Section [18-36(h)] it says subdivider
requesting Commission approval shall file with the agent a written request which shall
state reason and justifications for such request, together with such alternatives. "
Mr. Loewenstein again said he does not feel all alternatives have been fully explored and
that is his basis for not supporting the request.
Mr. Tice asked if a finding of insufficient information is a basis for denial or deferral.
/ 9 i
9-16-97 16
On the issue of minimization of pollution, Mr. Kamptner said it may not be possible for the
applicant to provide calculations at this time. Mr. Kelsey said pre -development vs. post -
development pollutant loadings would not be reviewed until the final design is submitted.
Mr. Kamptner asked: "Do you look at things beyond the ordinances, to comply with the
last paragraph of 18.2." Mr. Kelsey said: "if there is something specific about the use
that would generate additional pollution... where there may be contaminants other than
those expected with the usual development." Mr. Kamptner concluded the water related
conditions would be appropriately attached to a preliminary plat approval. Conditions
would "highlight" these concerns. Mr. Dotson said: "But it doesn't add authority or
requirements, it just highlights it." Mr. Kamptner responded: "The authority exists in the
Ordinance."
Mr. Tice wondered if such an approach would lead to the desired result of a change in
the lot configuration. Mr. Kelsey said there have been instances where significant
changes have been made in a preliminary plat and the applicant had to come back for
final approval. He questioned, however, how much change might be possible with this
proposal because "you are already limited as to where the connection can be to Rt. 676."
He said it might be possible to swing it to the left, shortening the length and thereby
reducing the amount of impervious surface."
Mr. Cilimberg asked Mr. Kelsey if anything that has been discussed by the Commission
would result in the relocation of what is shown as a building site into another part of the
property altogether. He said: " I think that is part of what has been discussed, but I don't
think that can actually happen in the final plat. To begin with, we don't look at driveways,
unless they cross a Resource Protection Area, and, in this case, I don't believe this
stream is part of the Resource Protection Area. So it is simply a building and septic
setback that applies. The driveway can still go through, so I don't want this to leave a
false impression that you are going to see, in your action, a major redesign because of
environmental impact. What you may see is some change in the road and maybe some
shifting because of that in some of the building sites, but I think basically you are going to
see the lot layout as it is."
Mr. Tice said: "That's what I fear, and that being the case, I guess I have to come back
to my feeling that given the concerns and the finding that the applicant has not given us
enough information to satisfy us that these conditions regarding the minimization of
pollution have been met, the best thing we can do with this is to deny it."
Mr. Kamptner advised that a denial not be based on water issues, based on Mr. Kelsey's
confirmation that final calculations and designs are not available at this time. The
applicant could not provide the information without doing final engineering at the
preliminary stage. Mr. Tice said he disagrees with Mr. Kelsey's statement that it is not
possible to generate that kind of information at this time. He said the Commission would
not need to see final engineering calculations, but rather a rough calculation of the result
of an alternative configuration of lots which would shorten the length of the culvert.
/ 90
9-16-97 17
Mr. Washington wondered if a deferral (if the applicant agrees) would allow the applicant
time to provide additional information. (Staff said there are 10 days left in the 60 day
period during which the Commission must act on the request.)
Mr. Finley asked if this will be the usual procedure, "for all subdivision plats to provide
adequate proof that they've looked at every angle and they know this is the best for
protecting downstream water supply." Mr. Tice said this is not the usual subdivision in
that it is right on the reservoir with very steep slopes near an area that the Board of
Supervisors has stated very clearly on other issues that the quality of that reservoir is
paramount.
Mr. Loewenstein again said he feels the applicant bears the burden of showing that other
alternatives have been explored.
d4e,a.
The Chairman the applicant if he was willing to agree to a "voluntary deferral in order to
work with staff to see if additional alternatives can be explored that would help resolve
some of the Commission's questions."
The applicant asked for time to confer before answering.
To allow time for the applicant to consider the question, the Commission moved on to the
next agenda item at this time (10:15). They reopened the discussion on Rivancrest at
10:35.
Mr. Roger Ray spoke for the applicant. He made the following statements: "We are at
day No. 50 into this project at a considerable effort and a considerable cost to the
applicant to get this far. We have strived to provide every piece of information that any
department has asked for. We have revised the plan to accommodate Dave Hirschman's
concern over the environmental impact at the stream. We have not elected to revise the
plan for the Planning Department's request to re -configure the lots because the applicant
prefers the lot layout as proposed. We have staked out the road and most of the lots.
We have had a soil scientist to do soil testing on each five lots individually and have
Health Department approval of each five individual lots, at a considerable cost and great
effort. We rely very heavily on the staffs and County Attorney's opinions, and to read
from Mr. Echols report, she has stated 'Concerning the reconfiguration of lots, staff
consulted with the County Attorney's office to ascertain whether the County can require a
re -design of the parcels as a result of this issue. The County Attorney's Office has
determined that neither the staff nor the Planning Commission has the authority to require
the re -configuration of these lots by staff.' We have strived to believe that we have
designed this project to meet all the requirements, not just the minimum requirements of
the Ordinance, but all the requirements of the Ordinance, that was with the desires of the
lot layout that the applicant desires for his personal needs and to meet the desires of his
family. As far as the private vs. a private public road, our first thoughts for a private road
came about with our first meeting with the County staff. It was at their recommendation --
and it was appealing to us after looking around the reservoir and seeing many
subdivisions served by private roads. But it is not necessary that we do a private road.
l�j
9-16-97 18
The alignment that I have for a private road would accommodate a public road. So if you
don't want a private road, then we'll just accommodate by doing a public road design.
The private road allows not only the amount of yardage, it allows the surface area to be
disturbed much less. The private road allows you to leave as many trees within the right-
of-way as you elect. For a public road, VDOT will require the removal of all trees within
its 50-foot right-of-way. The private road will result in less surface disturbed and less tree
removal. If that's the issue, we'll do the public road. As far as a deferral, my client and
have spoken and we don't think that should be necessary. We came tonight to get a vote
and we'd like to have one. If it should be negative, we'd like explicitly stated those parts
of the Ordinance we are not in full compliance with."
Mr. Ray stressed that the applicant had relied on, and worked with, the County staff, and
believed this to be a viable plan.
The Chairman called for a motion.
MOTION: Ms. Washington moved, Mr. Finley seconded, that the Rivancrest Preliminary
Subdivision Plat be approved subject to those conditions listed on pages 2 and 3 of the
staff report, and also that use of a private road be allowed for the development.
The motion failed to pass (2:3) with Commissioners Washington and Finley voting for the
motion and Commissioners Dotson, Tice and Loewenstein voting against.
MOTION: Mr. Tice moved, Mr. Dotson seconded, that SUB 97-044, Rivancrest
Preliminary Subdivision Plat, be denied based on the finding that the application does not
meet Section 18-22(a) of the Subdivision Ordinance, which specifies that the subdivider
shall provide all information needed to determine what improvements are necessary to
provide adequate drainage, and has not provided information on the minimization of
pollution of all downstream water courses due to surface water runoff, and the finding that
the applicant has not complied totally with Section 18-36 regarding private roads,
paragraph (b), subparagraph (1)a and b which require that the applicant must
demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the Commission that the proposal will result
in less degradation of the environment according to factors that the Commission has at its
option to evaluate.
The motion passed (3:2) with Commissioners Tice, Dotson and Loewenstein voting for
the motion and Commissioners Finley and Washington voting against.
Mr. Ray asked: "Who is to identify this information for us?" Mr. Loewenstein responded:
"The identification is going to have to be worked out between the applicant and county
staff, both engineering and planning staff, and the Water Resources Manager. The
question is whether or not the applicant has shown all possible alternatives have been
explored to mitigate the potential negative effects on the environment. This involves both
the road configuration and the lot configuration that might be effected by that. I think that
is essentially what the motion represented. The relevant sections of the Ordinance were
9-16-97 19
quoted and Mr. Kamptner or other staff members can provide you with the text of those if
you need that."
Mr. Kamptner added that for the two grounds from 18-22, dealing with drainage and
minimization of pollution to downstream water courses, the applicant needs to work with
the Engineering Department and with Mr. Hirschman to determine that those two
provisions can be satisfied, and that they have sufficient information to assure that both
of those requirements are satisfied. With respect to private roads (18-36), the applicant
should contact the Engineering Department who will work with VDOT regarding public
road alignments.
Mr. Dotson concluded: "The applicant's alternatives are to attempt to satisfy those
sections and reapply, or appeal to the Board of Supervisors, addressing the concerns."
Mr. Kamptner added: "Or appeal to the Circuit Court."
Mr. Tice again emphasized that, for him, it is not just a question of whether it is a public
or private road, rather "this has such other factors as the Commission may consider, and,
to me, one of those other factors is whether there may be another private road alignment
that would lead to less degradation of the environment and that may mean looking at the
lot configuration and if there is a way to reconfigure the lots so the private road may be
shorter or aligned differently, then that is a superior alternative to the one we have."
Mr. Ray said if it is just a question of a private vs. a public road, the applicant will simply
withdraw the request for a private road.
SDP 97-023 Fed Ex Distribution Center Preliminary Site Plan Approval - Request to allow
grading on critical slopes in accordance with Section 4.2.5 of the Zoning Ordinance; to
allow grading in open space in accordance with section 4.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance;
and to modify loading requirements in accordance with Section 4.12.7.6 of the Zoning
Ordinance for preliminary site development plan approval to construct a distribution center
with associated parking on 8.94 acres of land along Stoney Ridge Road [Route 1000].
The property, described as Tax Map 76M-1, Parcels 17& 18, is located in the Scottsville
Magisterial District. It is located on the west side of Stoney Ridge Road approximately
500 feet from the intersection with Southern Parkway and is zoned PUD, Planned Unit
Development. The area is designated for Industrial Service in Urban Neighborhood 4 in
the Comprehensive Plan.
Ms. Echols presented the staff report. Both Planning and Engineering staff
recommended approval of the waiver of Section 4.2.5.2, to allow grading on critical
slopes, and also recommended approval of modifications of Sections 4.7.2 and 4.12.7.2
to allow grading within open space (with one condition) and different loading standards.
Staff confirmed that the final site plan could be approved administratively and the
conditions listed in Mr. Brooks' memo of September 4th will be imposed.
9-16-97 20
Mr. Tice said his concern about the close proximity of the disturbed slopes to the stream
have been addressed in the Engineering Department's conditions.
The applicant was represented by Hunter Craig. He presented photographs of the
property and of a building which Fed -Ex completed recently in another location.
Regarding the tree buffer, he said the Ordinance allows two choices --a staggered row of
evergreen trees, 15 feet on center, or a staggered row of evergreen shrubs, 10 feet on
center. He said he was willing to do either, or both, but he asked for guidance from the
Commission as to which was preferable. He suggested it would be better to put the tree
buffer at the top of the slope, rather than in the open space. He said planting the trees
half way down the slope would decrease their effectiveness as a buffer. Mr. Craig said
the Fed -Ex trucks will use the new road by the high school to get to the interstate.
Ms. Echols said it was staffs intent that the trees which are lost during grading be
replaced to the point where they create a vegetative screen between the facility and the
adjoining property. She said she did not think there would be any problem with them
being on the top of the slope.
Mr. Tice asked about the maintenance of the disturbed slope after trees have been
planted. Mr. Craig said he is open to doing whatever the Commission desires. He
added: "We don't want to be limited by 32.7.9.8. If you would prefer more, let that be
our minimum, but don't make it our maximum." Mr. Cilimberg suggested the condition be
reworded to say "A tree buffer at least meeting the standards...."
There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
In response to Mr. Tice's question, staff said the stream is not a WRPA stream.
MOTION: Mr. Finley moved, Mr. Tice seconded, a waiver of Section 4.7.2 to allow
grading on critical slopes and a modification of Sections 4.7.2 and 4.12.7.2, to allow
grading within open space and different loading standards, be approved for SDP 97-023,
the Fed Ex Distribution Center Preliminary Site Plan, with the modification for grading in
the open space subject to the following condition:
1. A tree buffer at least meeting the standards of Section 32.7.9.8 be provided in the
open space on the property where the property abuts TMP 76(M)1-10, Mill Creek West.
The motion passed unanimously.
OLD BUSINESS
Fall River Renaissance Activities - Mr. Cilimberg reminded the Commission of the
Rivanna canoe trip. He said the staff will have an agenda for each of the activities. He
asked that those interested register in advance. He reminded the Commission of the
�4�
9-16-97 21
September 28th, 2-4 p.m. Lickinghole Creek Regional Basin and Constructed Wetlands
visit, to begin at the Western Ridge Subdivision Clubhouse.
The next regular Commission meeting will be held September 30th.
Referring to the difficult issue which the Commission had dealt with on the Rivancrest
proposal, Mr. Loewenstein said he feels "we need to look very closely at the existing
ordinances with the idea of guaranteeing that we are doing the best possible job we can
of stewardship of those resources and improving, if possible, our protection of them
because it appears to me that over the past several years, the Commission and the
Board have seen things come before them that were complex issues and that were very
difficult to deal with because of the parameters of the existing ordinances."
Mr. Kamptner updated the Commission on the status of some of the studies which are
currently taking place. A revised Water Ordinance should be coming back to the
Commission in October. Also, he is preparing a separate memo which deals with some
of the things the Chesapeake Bay Act authorizes localities to do. Another draft of the
Mountain Protection Ordinance should be ready in October. Staff is striving to get the
Noise Ordinance back to the Commission soon.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.
9:
En
V. Waynegilimbe- , Secretary
?3