Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04 18 1995 PC Minutes4-18-95 1 `1*rr APRIL 18, 1995 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 18, 1995, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present were: Ms. Babs Huckle; Mr. Tom Blue, Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Mr. Bruce Dotson; Mr. Tom Jenkins; and Ms. Monica Vaughan. Other officials present were: Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of Planning; Ms. Yolanda Hipski, Planner; Ms. Marcia Joseph, ARB Planner; Mr. Don Franco, Assistant County Engineer; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioner Imhoff. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and a quorum was established. CONSENT AGENDA Rivanna Ridge/Woodburn Ridge Final Plat - Private road request in accord with Section 18-36 of the Subdivision Ordinance �%w and Western Albemarle Tennis Courts Minor Site Plan Amendment - Modification of Critical Slopes (Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance) MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Dotson, that Rivanna Ridge Final Plat and the Western Albemarle Tennis Courts Minor Site Plan Amendment be approved. The motion passed unanimously. The following two items were removed from the Consent Agenda and discussed briefly. Branchlands Village Phase 2 Preliminary Site Plan - Modification of Critical Slopes (Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance) Ms. Huckle wanted to know when the report on the stormwater study on the Branchlands Channel would be ready. Mr. Don Franco reported that the "numbers and the summary tables" had just been received and are being reviewed by Jack Kelsey. He said he had glanced at Mr. Kelsey's preliminary summary just prior to this meeting and the numbers for the channel (stretching from the Brookmill area) appear to be "slightly higher" for the 100-year storm elevations in the channel, particularly at the lower end. He said the finished floor %4W elevations in the Brookmill development are all still 1.5 feet above the 100-year storm elevation that were calculated by the consultant. Thus, even though the elevations are slightly higher than previous studies, they are still within acceptable parameters. Ms. Huckle asked: "So you are positive there won't be any flooding once the addition of this increased impervious cover?" Mr. Franco replied: "Everything that we've seen indicates that the flooding will stay within accepted parameters for that area." The applicant was represented by Mr. Ron Langman. He confirmed that extensive studies done for the unified drainage plan for the entire area had included this additional impervious cover. Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Langman who was responsible for maintenance of the trash rack on the standpipe. It was Mr. Langman's understanding that the County was responsible for keeping the trash rack clean because the wetlands area was to have been dedicated to the County. (This question was raised again at the end of the meeting.) On the critical slope request, he described how the slopes on the property had been created and concluded: "When we're done, there won't be anything over 15%." MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Branchlands Village Phase 2 Preliminary Site Plan be approved. The motion passed unanimously. Forest Lakes South - Ravenscroft Preliminary Plat - Modification of Critical Slopes (Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance). Ms. Huckle said that the applicant has a "new site plan" which is different from that which the Commission had received. She said the first plan had shown small areas of critical slopes but "his latest plan is that he will level the entire piece." She asked that the applicant be allowed to comment. The applicant was represented by Mr. Steve Runkle. He explained that the site plan on the display board behind the Commission was the most recent plan and showed 68 lots. [NOTE: A typographical error in the staff report had said that 65 lots were proposed.] He said the applicant's current plans are to use the same road alignment but to make "detached lots 60 - 65 feet wide." Ms.Huckle asked: "When you submitted this were you intending to level the whole thing?" Mr. Runkle responded affirmatively explaining that the amount of grading had not changed. He said that if the waiver is not granted approximately 14 lots will be lost. He also asked if the plan should change from these 68 units to 60-65 attached units, "will that be a problem?" Staff had given him the impression that it would not be a problem. (The Commission did not respond to this question.) gn MOTION: Mr. Nitchmann moved that the Forest Lakes South - Ravenscroft Preliminary `%W Plan be approved. Mr. Jenkins seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. SDP-94-067 Virginia Oil Minor Site Plan Amendment - Proposal to locate a car wash to be served by a new entrance. Property, described as Tax Map 78, parcel 73A, is located on the Southeastern corner of Rolkin Court and Route 250E in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is recommended for Regional Service in Neighborhood 3. The applicant was requesting deferral to May 2, 1995. MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, seconded by Mr. Jenkins, that the Virginia Oil Minor Site Plan Amendment be deferred to May 2, 1995. The motion passed unanimously. WORK SESSION Grading on Sites Without Approved Site Development Plans Ms. Marcia Joseph presented a staff report. The report explained how and why the concept had arisen. (A copy of staffs report is made a part of these minutes as Attachment A.) Staff was soliciting input from the Commission concerning the concepts outlined in the staff report and any other issues that might relate to the proposed ZTA. Commission comments and directions to staff included the following: Mr. Blue noted that the staff report concentrated on the favorable aspects of the concept. He asked that staff comment on potential unfavorable aspects. Ms. Joseph listed the following concerns: --There is no time limitation. How long might a piece of property sit once it has been graded? (It was pointed out that there would still have to be an erosion control plan for the site so it would have to be replanted with grass.) --How will having pieces of flat land fit with the natural topography of the County? Will we be creating a lot of "nice, level pads up and down the highway?" --How might this effect water quality? As sites are stabilized, chemicals and fertilizers will be required to ensure a good stand of grass. How will that runoff effect water quality? (Mr. Blue suggested the possibility of allowing this only in growth areas which will be graded eventually anyway. He felt this would address the water quality issue somewhat.) --It has not yet been determined how many sites are presently in existence which might be effected by this possible amendment. --Design standards will be impacted because "if we start with a topo, we can design with a topo; if we start with it flat --there it is, it's flat." More pleasing designs might be possible if you start with the original topography. /17 cm --Forth ► v ng. -- r` ! �`._ ntractorrr. rnigh t,%t ; niarc r��f liS^r�i '? nrade it fC) k ±4ti�s e y :ipmynf hUsy - ...fig 10:3° I—. _s. AU. iKw"Olai'', who Iliad been a part of ti Ile Round T cable discussions !s or, i 'Lillis IL-OPiC, 1/ Ill_ ,_a i first 'L t_ � J been J _ _3 that 'this .. • _ 1. •ta J a recaiied that at rii st it clad been` rec offiiiienued that this only be perriiittea in concert with another site which already had an approved site plan, and the other site would be either the sender or the receiver. He said: "Without this, the sender and the receivers will be in the rural areas and so all the ills that you would have in the urban area, you would continue to have on these rural sites." Mr. Steve Runkle. who had also been a mart of the Round Table discussions, C-�?Mmented° "'Grorn rn'Y' rparcmp i%ja t�rhat !S rtesir ble ab:�pt it ! , %fie C!zrt$inu"ously tall about maximizing the vgg rcowth areas and directing growth Into,�ygrowth arQyas9 yet we � -%.W Fti Iue to �rnake it Moores di f c'u"It to operate i/ i tl O gro tI, areas. So if that's what we . -.tea � �.. 'C.. lam:. Ll:.=w ... L' you'd .3... really weal tt to do, 'then we ought to help promote it. i! i this case, I ti iii k you a Udo it on a basis that is reasonable. You post soil erosion bonds; you have to fevegetate it. !f there are problem sites out there, then somebody ought to be tailing the bonds and the bonds ought to be set high enough that it corrects the problem. That's the solution for that problem. " Ms. Huckle asked if thip County would have. ally over the ex3intent (if €Ill 'hat IS dumped. (This question was discussed at sortie length,)) lolls Joseph said there had been some discussions about requiring testing- She also expiaineri that the B�Eng neeri^g Depail ent requires b r ..,g tests as art d the build:ny pen nit process. i`Fii, i`c 'lci vi icflji dcjvri��icd to Ile E tii i i e ei lvvs. s-lv pointed i�E ti out that neither 1cr the vtcftc gulations nor the Erosion Controi Ordinance address compaction of the Tiii. The ssl`ulifl of requiring Fie property owner to submit a Certified Engineer's Re rl at F� " Y 9 9t R - Y 9 the time of the fill activity had been discussed. Ms. Huckie asked the County Attorney to comment on the County's liability if problems arise from fill which has not been compacted properly. Mr. Davis responded: "The County probably does not have any liability in that situation. The County's responsibility is to enforce the Builtiirtt ;ru r? artd the Reiildinc f:rade does ret iiirp r_.omQaotie�n� tP tint fnr these areas that are being filled- That would be enforced at the timra the Building Permit is apniip'd for 11 _ Coiirliisait her a Hi Cklia and Nit :hiiiann expressed concern as to how prospe ti\ie 0uyers could be i'i`iade aware that a site is a fill area. (Mr. Runkle des>rribsd_ sitioations where fiii has beers discovered and extensive eicravat on has been needed to "take the trash out" and replace it. He said: ''l do not think it would be unreasonable, if this was done, to require compaction testing be done in those fill areas and demonstrate that 95% compaction is achieved as part of the fill process.... If part of the motivation to do this is to prepare sites, then it ought to be done right.") Mr. Franco said it is anticipated that these graded sites would become part of the public record. /7 Mr. Runkle anticipated this would be used mainly on commercial properties. Mr. Dotson asked: "Am I right that this doesn't in any way reduce our standards and protections, whether they be environmental or otherwise. This really just addresses the timing. Is that correct?" Ms. Joseph responded affirmatively. She added that there should be a time limit on how long the site can be active before it must be re -seeded. Mr. Nitchmann expressed support for the concept, which he felt represented good planning. There was a discussion about the different slope grades. Ms. Joseph explained 2:1 slopes are difficult to maintain because they are difficult to mow; 3:1 can be mowed and grass will grow more easily. There was a discussion about the restrictions related to 25% slope areas. Mr. Nitchmann wondered if the Commission should be reviewing all the critical slope modification requests. He noted that two of the items on this agenda had already been reviewed by the Engineering Department. He wondered why these could not be handled by staff. Ms. Huckle commented: "If we keep the 25% slope restrictions in there, we certainly shouldn't allow anybody to make a manmade slope that is that steep" (i.e. if we have to grant waivers for 25% slopes, we shouldn't let them be created). She asked: "Why do we allow the 25% slope to be created?" Mr. Franco responded: "We know that they can be stabilized and that we can engineer slopes that are stable that are steeper than 25%. 50% is the commonly accepted practice here.... That is the way our ordinance is written. In our meetings we have discussed that maybe this needs to be looked at the same time as this potential ZTA.... Normally, the only criteria in the request for the modification that the Engineering Department doesn't address is the aesthetic resource." Mr. Keeler recalled the history of the critical slope restriction. He said staff has been discussing the idea of applying the critical slopes provisions only to those areas in the rural areas and those identified in the Open Space Plan. Mr. Nitchmann asked if the critical slopes provisions could be studied along with this site grading concept. Mr. Blue felt this was a good idea. Public comment was invited. Mr. Don Walker, a resident of Woodbrook, commented on the example which Ms. Joseph had displayed. [NOTE: The example displayed was of a piece of property on Rt. 29 at Carrsbrook Drive.] He explained that grading of that site (as shown on the example) would place the corner of a structure approximately 130 feet from his living room and a building or driveway could be built even closer to his lot line. He felt the concept could result in visual problems and it could also be abused. He expressed concern about the possibility of administrative approval which he felt would exclude �.. public comment. Mr. Keeler said that it was not anticipated that adjacent property ovvners would be notified of these grading plan requests. He pointed out that currently, fill activity is permitted by right on property which is in the growth area if it is not wooded. He conclud€d, "I don't see where this scheme would have anything at all to do with the final site plan for this property because obviously the developer is expanding as much as he coati -to get as much building area as any developer would." Mr. Slue did not think this concept would be any worse for adjacent property owners than what already exists. Mr. Davis explained: "Right now there is nothing in the Zoning Ordinance which requires there to be an approved site plan. That requirement is in the Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance where the requirement of a grading plan is that there be an approved site plan or subdivision plat. The E & S Ordinance is an administrative ordinance. The Planning Commission plays no role in approving a grading plan in normal circumstances. How your involvement plays in is the fact that in that ordinance there is a requirement that there be an approved site plan. So it is your responsibility, under the Ordinance, to approve a site plan and the administrative grading plan ordinance can't be approved until you have taken your planning function to the level that you have given it some approval_ ... For the Planning Commission to have involvement, there would have to be some zoning approval required for moving dirt." Mr. Slue commented: "l understand if adjacent owners are noti'ld they leave a chance to explain their problems and maybe work out something; but in terns of whether this Planning Commission can do a better job of approving a site plan than our technical staff can, I am firmly convinced we can't " Mr. Cavil added-: "Further, this is primarily a -ministerial erdinancs and if certain standards are met you have very little discretion in denying a plan. You have some discretion built in with the waiver and modification provisions where- .1 , m ia some flexibility, but where there are clear standards and those standards are met, you are obligated to approve the site plan." Ms. Eleanor Santic addressed the Commission. She expressed concern about the "lack of public involvement in major land decisions." She felt adjacent property owners deserve consideration. She felt that allowing grading without a plan would leave the County's citizens unprotected as to what could happen to large piecps of property Addressing Mr. Davis' explanation of the Commission's power, she said: "There must be something more that the Commission can do other than say 'This is legal' and 'This isn't legal.' There has to be some reason for your sitting here every Tuesday night." She suggested that there should be some operating standards which would give the Commission some control. in summary, lair. Iyitchmann said he liked the restriction about the rural area. He felt there should be compaction tests required. He suggested that adjacent property owners could be notified, and if no response is received in a set time period, then the *'" request would proceed. He also felt there should be some time limit as to how long the fill activity could take place. Em Ms. Babette Thorpe addressed the Commission. Using the Carrsbrook example which was on display, she felt that allowing speculative grading of these types of sites would result in greater nuisances to adjacent landowners. She was skeptical of the need for this proposed amendment. She felt developers had many options for disposing of fill materials. Mr. Dotson said he could see potential benefit from this concept, but he wanted to see, in writing, ways that could make it work. He shared concern about the idea becoming carte blanc. He expressed the feeling: "You ought to try to avoid grading when you can and when you can't you ought to try to minimize it and if you can't minimize it then you ought to compensate by buffering or landscaping or retaining walls, etc. I think, in general, that ought to be our attitude toward grading, so I wouldn't want this to make that impossible --to say that we just approve all grading. I don't think that has to be, but think we ought to keep that philosophy in mind." Ms. Huckle expressed concern about property which might be filled which might have a very immature stream on it and the effect this would eventually have on the water supply. Mr. Nitchmann attempted to understand why this topic had come up. He asked: "Is this a situation where the tail is wagging the dog because of one situation that occurred in the last 10 years and somebody on the Board said we should change something. Or is there more behind this than that one bit of direction?" Ms. Joseph said the Board's direction was the main reason the concept was being studied, but there were other reasons related to sites which don't balance where a property owner may have to "collect their neighbor's property to do what they need to do." She also said there have been dumping violations because there was no place to put the material. Mr. Nitchmann wondered if "we are looking for a reason to create more rules and regulations." He asked if we are going to create 10% or 20% more cost just to address a 1 % problem. Mr. Keeler said the Commission was not under any obligation to recommend any changes. The Board had just asked that the concept be studied. Mr. Blue said: "I don't think we're directing you to bring it back or not bring it back." Mr. Dotson felt that the grading requirements in the urban area should be looked at, "when it's timely." He said he was very concerned about infill and if this could contribute to that, then it should be studied further. ----------------------------------------- f�, MISCELLANEOUS M Ms. Huckle asked Mr. Davis if he knew anything about the ownership of the Branchlands detention pond. Mr. Davis said the pond had not been deeded to the County during his employment with the County (1 1/2 years). He said he was not aware of any obligation the County has for maintenance of the pond and the trash rack. Mr. Franco confirmed Mr. Davis' statements. Mr. Dotson asked the County Attorney if there were any concerns about the Commission using Internet for communication. Mr. Davis explained that as long as the dialogue was only between two persons, and was not "interactive" about a current meeting, then there was no problem. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. '.'ilimberg, Secretary 2M