HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 30 1994 PC Minutes8-3044
AUGUST 30, 1994
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, August 30,
1994, Room 7, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those members present
were: Ms. Babs Huckle, Chair; Mr. Tom Blue, Vice Chair; Mr. Bill Nitchmann; Ms.
Katherine Imhoff, and Mr. Bruce Dotson. Other officials present were: Mr. Wayne
Cilimberg, Director of Planning and Community Development; Mr. Ron Keeler, Chief of
Planning; and Mr. Larry Davis, County Attorney. Absent: Commissioners Jenkins and
Vaughan.
The meeting was called to order at 7.00 p.m. and a quorum was established. The minutes of
A.uLm ,16, 1994 were unanimoustly approved as submitted.
C01'4SENT AGENDA
(a) AMtion to Keswick AgriculturahFor stal District - Proposal to add 117.107 acres to the
Keswick AgricuituraY.Forestal District. Properties described as Tax Map 63, parcels 4.2A and
40, are located off State route 612.
(b) Rodew REKeswiqk Agricultural/Forestal District - The existing Keswick
Agrico.lterat/Forestal District will be reviewed for a. proposed ten year renewal_ The district
consists of 6,151 acres located on bunth sides. ofRt. 22, and also on Rts. 649, 616, 612 and
61
(0)• Reviow of Kinluai� r riealturalirgrestal Di - is T'ue existing =Knlooh
Awicultural/Forestal District will be reviewed for aproposed ten year renewal. The . distriict
consists of 1,680 acres located on both sides of kt. 231, and Aso on fits. 22, 640, 140, and
783.
(d) won; 9, KinJoch. Agric Ijura�.f orestal District -Proposal to add 393.160 acres to the
Kinloch Agricultural/Forrestal District. Property; described as Tax Map 66, Parcel 3A is
located on the east side of St. Rt= 231.
(Thc Commission was being asked to refer these four itcnls--a b,c, and d-- to the Advisory
CQmmiitae')
(e) SDP-94-039 Microaire Preliminary Site Plan - Request for a modification of Section
4.12.6.5(c) to allow curvalinear parking. Request for a modification of Section 4.12.7.5 to
allow a reduction of the number of loading spaces. Property described as Tax Map 32, pareel
19 (part of), is Iocated on the southern side of Quail Run Load approximately 800 feet east of
its intersection with Rt. 606 in the Rivanna Magisterial District. This site is located in a
desig.ated growth area and is recommended for indust-'al use.
/03
8-3Q-94. 2
With respect to item (e), Mr. Keeler noted that the two very small areas of critical slope do
not require a waiver. He explained that they show on this plan because of the applicant's
choice of contour interval and had the map been drawn with the 20-foot contour interval as
specified in the Ordinance, they would not show up at all. With respect to the reduction of
loading spaces, Mr. Keeler explained, and the applicant's representative (Mr. Richard Shank)
confirmed, that there is sufficient space to replace these loading areas in the fixture because
there is an excess number of parking spaces proposed. Mr. Dotson wanted it to be clear that
it is feasible to get 6 loading spaces on this site and the Commission, in approving this
request, is saying that only I space need be installed at this time. He concluded: "I just want
to make sure that that is clear, it's not that we're re -writing the ordinance and saying 'you
don't have to do it."' He felt this is more a "deferred installation" (until the use is changed)
than an actual waiver.
Ms. Imhoff excused herself from any action on the two Kinloch items (c and d), because of
a possible conflict of interest.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson *Moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that items a, b and a on the Consent
Agenda be approved. The motion passed unanimously.
MOTION: Mr. Dotson moved, seconded by Mr. Blue, that items c and d on the Consent
Agenda be approved. The motion passed (4:0:1) with Ms. Imhoff abstaining.
----------------------------------------
SDP-94-037 Slue Ridge HC Area Prelimin „ Site Plan - Proposal to locate approximately
47,839 square feet of retail and service uses supported by 252 parking spaces on 6.189 acres
zoned HC, Highway Commercial, and EC, Entrance Corridor. Properties, described as Tax
Map 56, parcel 110, plus parts of 110A and 109B, are located on the south side of Route 250
approximately 0.9 miles east of the intersection with Routes 635/240 in the White Hall
Magisterial District. This property is located in the Community of Crozet growth area and is
recommended for Neighborhood Service.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report and answered Commission questions. The staff was
recommending approval of the request with the following actions: (1) The Commission
modify/waive the requirements of Sec. 4.2 Critical Slopes as recommended by the Dept. of
Engineering and the Dept. of Planning and Community Development; (2) The Commission
modify/waive the requirements of Sec_ 21.7.3 (to allow encroachment in 20 foot buffer along
western property line) as recommended by the Dept -of Planning & Community Development;
and (3) The Commission authorize administrative approval of the final site development
plan.
Additional issues raised and addressed by staff included:
--The possibility of a joint entrance with the adjoining site (Blue Ridge Building
Supply). Mr. Keeler explained that though it might be achievable with some rearrangment of
the buildings, it would result in pedestrians having to move through the parking area to reach
IVY
8-30-94 3
different businesses. Mr. Keeler explained that the site is "tight" and each possibility
considered had its own set of problems. In answer to Ms. Huckle's question as to whether the
site has been used to the maximum, to the point where there is no flexibility, Mr. Keeler
stated: "I'm not sure there is a design superior to this one, given the building area that they
have on the site."
--The zoning boundary of the HC property and the reason there is HC property on the
south side of Rt. 250. Mr. Keeler explained that the boundary is the stream. He fuuther
explained that these properties had been rezoned to commercial designation "to their entire
depth" at the owner's request, in the early 70's. A truck repair business existed on the
property at that time and subsequently there were other commercial uses (an antique store, a
restaurant and a motel). By subsequent zoning actions in 1980, and again a couple of years
later, (initiated by the County), the commercial area was cut back to the stream --"to the
developed portion of the property." He explained that the zoning map in 1980 was done by a
policy statement of the Board of Supervisors, i.e. "if it was developed or had an approved
plan for development, they recognized it with the corresponding zoning." In 1982 further
zoning changes were made based on watershed considerations.
--The size of the proposed sewer line. Ms. Imhoff felt an 8" line seemed excessive.
Mr. Blue responded to this question and stated that an 8" gravity sewer is "about the
minimum." Mr. Cilimberg pointed out that both the water and sewer lines cross growth area
properties which are undeveloped. Ms. Imhoff commented: "What I don't want to do is
approve or put in sewer line in that area that somehow, five years from now, they will be
saying 'See, they put in this really large sewer line, they obviously meant there to be more
commercial development or other development off this line.' I don't want us to set ourselves
up. If that is the standard line --I just wanted to raise it as an issue." Mr. Blue felt this was
an issue which was most properly addressed by the County technical staff, which he assumed
had been done.
--The height of the retaining wall. Mr. Keeler determined that, at it's highest, it would
be approximately 18 feet. (NOTE: At various times during the discussion, the height of the
retaining wall was referred to as being 20 feet by different people.}
--Total critical slope area. Mr. Keeler pointed out the critical slope areas and
estimated them to be slightly over one acre (80' x 600'). He estimated approximately 1/3 of
that part of the site which will be developed to be in critical slope areas.
--Concerns of adjoining property owner (Hardy) related to impact of the decel lane on
his driveway. Mr_ Keeler explained that Mr. Hardy is concerned about possible rear -end
collisions which may occur as he prepares to turn in to his driveway and persons behind think
he is turning into this commercial site which is beyond his driveway. (Mr. Blue pointed out
this situation could happen even without the decel lane, and possibly would be even worse.)
Mr. Keeler explained this situation as been left, thus far, to be worked out by Mr. Hardy and
the developer. He pointed out, however, several options which might address Mr. Hardy's
concerns. (VDOT has stated they will not deny an entrance permit to this site because of the
existence of a private driveway. Mr Blue questioned whether the Commission could require
the developer to address this concern if VDOT has not identified a safety problem. Mr.
Keeler felt the Commission had the authority to address this issue if it feels there is a safety
concern.) Mr. Keeler questioned whether it was any less safe for Mr. Hardy to turn from this
8-30-94
decel lane into his driveway, than it is for him to turn directly from Rt. 250, since at least the
decel lane will allow him to get out of traffic to make the turn.
Regarding the Commission's review of this request, Mr. Keeler was of the opinion that in
addition to the issues of critical slopes and the waiver for the western buffer zone, the plan
was before the Commission "under the entire site plan Ordinance." He did not think the
particular uses were before the Commission. Mr. Blue concluded: "So the comments that we
hear and the decision to be made is on the basis of those two things, critical slopes and the
buffer zone on the west, and if we agree that the preliminary site plan has met the
requirements of our site plan ordinance, which, in all respects I think you have stated that it
has, except you have brought up this idea of the driveway and the decel lane which was not
discussed during site review process."
* The applicant was represented by Mr. Don Wagner. He called attention to the materials
attached to the staff report, which included the applicant's justification for the requested
waivers. He expressed no objection to the conditions of approval set forth in the staff report,
which he described as "normal requirements which we would have to satisfy as we proceed
through the development process whether or not they are listed at preliminary site plan
approval." Other comments included the following:
--The proposed use is in compliance with both the zoning and the Comprhensive flan
and the plan is by -right with the exception of a waiver required to allow the planting of trees
and shrubs in a 20-foot buffer area on the west side of the property and a waiver to allow
development on a man-made fill slope of 25% or greater within the project.
--The request to allow plantings in the setback area is for the benefit of the
neighboring property and not for the benefit of the proposed development, (If it is found that
there are existing "significant trees" on the applicant's property, it is intended that those will
remain.)
--The request for the critical slope waiver reflects a condition "almost always present
in commercial development in the County and is entirely in line with what you (the
Commission) have granted in similar situations."
--"The staff report recommends that the waivers be granted and the precedent supports
that recommendation."
Addressing the issue of precedent, Ms. Imhoff could not recall any previous waiver which
had been granted involving such a large area of critical slopes. Mr. Wagner replied that he
had not researched the size of waivers, though he had done some research on waivers.
However, he had been told by a "senior staff member that, to the best of his memory the
Planning Commission had uniformly granted waivers for steep slopes on commercially zoned
property in the growth area and uniformly refused waivers for slopes on rural properties."
Ms. Imhoff pointed out that since she had been a member of the Commission the waivers
which have been granted have not been "uniform" in that the votes had not been unanimous
ones. Ms. Imhoff felt there has been "a scale difference" in the past. Mr. Wagner pointed
out that some people see a distinction between man-made and natural ,slopes. He called
attention to a recent approval (Wray Brothers) where a steep slope had been created during
** NOTE: Additional comments of Mr. Wagner's are attached to these minutes
as Attachment B. (These were approved by theCcmmission 10-4-94)
/V&
8-30-94
the development of the property and the same developer had later wanted to "expand this flat
area." He felt this was the same situation except that the time frame is different (this slope
was created 25 or 30 years ago), but the principle is exactly the same.
Ms. Imhoff expressed concern about the size of the retaining wall. She asked if anything
could have been done to prevent the need for the wall. Mr. Wagner responded by explaining
that the retaining wall would result in less steep slopes which could cause erosion.
Mr. Blue asked if the applicant was satisfied that the necessary easements could be obtained
for installation of the water and sewer line. Mr. Wagner did not anticipate any problems.
Ms. Huckle asked who would maintain the stormwater detention facility. She was particularly
concerned about the long-range maintenance issue and how the facility would be cleaned out.
Mr. Wagner assumed that the responsibility for maintenance was the developer's and the
maintenance agreement would be a part of final site plan approval.
Mr. Dotson asked if more parking was being provided than was required by the ordinance.
He was trying to determine if more of the site was being paved than was necessary. Mr.
Wagner responded: "I would say not."
Mr. Dotson asked if it would be possible to fit the major uses on the property, without the
waivers. Mr. Wagner replied negatively explaining: "It would not be possible to fit the
major use (Food Lion) because there is not enough room between the 30-foot setback from
the highway and the top of the slope." Mr. Blue added: "Might there not also be some
economic factors involved in being able to afford to build that sewer and water line. If you
cut down the size of the commercial area, then you might not be able to build that much
water or sewer line." Mr. Wagner responded: "That's correct."
Mr. Nitchmann asked if the applicant had performed any studies to determine how much
money the County is losing to Waynesboro (because Crozet is half -way between Waynesboro
and Charlottesville shopping areas). Mr. Wagner stated t4at studies done in 1988 had
indicated that $5,000,000 in grocery sales were going to Waynesboro. Mr. Nitchmann asked
what had been the feeling of residents about this possible development in 1988. Mr. Wagner
recalled that petitions had been circulated and there had been 167 signatures opposed vs.
approximately 1,400 signatures in support. (A questioned asked of Mr. Wagner later in. the
meeting determined that not all the I,400 signatures- had been of Crozet residents.)
Mr. Wagner completed his opening comments, but addressed the Commission again at the
end of the public comment.
At Ms. Imhoffs request, Mr. Don Franco, representing the County Engineering Department,
addressed the Commission. In answer to Ms. Huckle's earlier question about the practicality
of the maintenance of the detention basin ("how do you do it"), he did not think access to the
basin would be a problem (which he envisioned would be across the adjoining site --the
/0 7
8-30-94 6
Building Supply). He confirmed that trees would have to be removed to create the basin and
that trees are not allowed on dam structures for impoundment areas. He confirmed that
maintenance will be the responsibility of the landowner. Ms. Huckle asked how pollutants,
which will drain to this basin from the parking area, will be addressed to prevent groundwater
contamination. Mr. Franco explained that presently only the Runoff Control Ordinance
addresses the issue of suspended solids and nutrients and this is a part of the Runoff Control
Permit process. He stated that it appears that the proposed dctcntion structure will provide
the required removal efficiencies and ratings. He did not anticipate the developer would have
a problem in meeting the County's standards. He did not think the basin would address the
concern about oils, which he thought "would gust go on through." He felt a majority of
metals would be collected in the basin and would settle out with the suspended solids.
Ms.imhoff asked Mr. Franco if there were any safety concerns with the 20-foot retaining wall.
Mr. Franco was uncertain as to whether or not a fence would be required. (Mr. Cilimberg
called attention to condition 6) which requires safety fencing along the retaining wnll_)
In response to Mr. Dotson's question, Mr. Franco explained how he anticipated the retaining
wall will be constructed.
Mr. Nitchmann asked if Mr. Franco could foresee any technical or environmental reasons why
the proposed use might be inappropriate for this site. Mr. Franco responded. "With the
exception of the connection through the property which we recommended be closed, I don't
see anything that is inappropriate."
Ms. Imhoff asked Ms. Marcia Joseph, ARB Planner, to comment on concerns of the ARB.
Ms. Joseph noted the following had been comments from various ARB members, but there
had been "no concerted effort to create any kind of list of suggestions for the applicant_"
--Some felt there should be more vegetation on the site;
--There was concern that travelers along Rt. 250 will be looking down at the parking
area so vegetation may be necessary to help soften the effect of the parking area;
--There was concern about the size of the development and how it worked and perhaps
smaller buildings would be more appropriate.
Ms. Joseph noted that she did not think the ARB, at the time of its preliminary review of this
plan, had been aware of the location of the critical slope areas. The ARB had felt the issue
of critical slopes should be decided before they finally reviewed the plan. Mr. Blue asked if
screening of the retaining wall from Rt. 250 was going to present a significant problem "from
the ARB perspective." Ms. Joseph said the possibility of 2 shorter retaining walls, rather than
I very tall one, had been mentioned as a way to possibly soften the effect. Mr. Blue felt the
type of buffering described by Ms. Joseph would not be possible given the applicant's
proposed maximum use of the site, i.e. "it's so tight they really can't use up more land for
that kind of buffering without either lowering their grade or cutting down the size of the
buildings." In response to Mr. Blue's comments, Ms. Joseph stated that she did not feel,
/aa
8-30-94 7
based on the comments of the ARB thus far, that the ARB would have requirements which
would make the development unworkable.
Public comment was invited.
Ms. Rae Ely addressed the Commission and explained that she was representing many
adjacent and adjoining landowners. She introduced several speakers who expressed concerns
about, and opposition to, the project. She also expressed the concern that if the preliminary
site plan is approved with so many conditions of approval, and with administrative approval
of the final site plan, the public will not have another chance to see the plan. She suggested
that the Commission address the waiver requests, but defer approval of the final plan until all
the questions have been adequately addressed,
The following persons addressed the Commission and expressed concerns: Kenneth
Thompson; Ira Doppelt (far Mr. Joe Hardy), Ms. JoAnne Stanley, Mr. Sanford Wilcox, Ms.
Ellen Waff, Mr. John Marston, Ms. Jean Wagner (for Robert Langdon), and Mr. Phil Unger.
Their concerns included the following-
-Possible pollution of private wells and the Mechum River (the source of
Charlottesville's drinking water).
--An excessive amount of the site will be fill area.
--An excessive amount of encroachment on critical slopes is proposed.
--The applicant is attempting to maximize the use of the site at the expense of
adjoining properties.
--The property was zoned commercially to recognize the uses that existed at that time.
It was intended that those would not change.
--Granting the requested waivers is encouraging a larger scale development than would
otherwise be possible.
--Negative impact on downtown Crozet.
--This terrain is not suited for development
Mr. Doppelt expressed Mr. Hardy's concerns about the impact to his driveway (as explained
by Mr. Keeler previously). He pointed out that if the entrance is shifted 200 feet to the east,
the entire decel lane will be directly in front of the subject site. (Mr. Doppelt later disagreed
with the figures the applicant had recited earlier in relation to the number of signatures
obtained on petitions obtained in 1989.)
Ms. Jean Wagner (speaking for Robert Langdon) read front a report prepared by Mr. Langdon
which described the history of the site. The report also contained numerous photographs
(taken in 1989) of debris and unidentifiable substances found on the site which the existing
Building Supply is built upon. His report raised questions about the make-up of the existing
fill and what will be unearthed when the fill is disturbed by grading.
Ms. Ely concluded the public comment. She felt the burden should be on the applicant to
justify the reasons why the waivers should be granted. It was he, feeling that the applicant's
/Of
9-30-94
justification --(I) that the slope areas are man-made and not natural slopes; and (2) that there
is a borrow pit nearby --are not sufficient justification for granting the waivers. After having
read Mr. Langdon's report and viewed his photographs, she expressed the fear that the slopes
might be an old landfill and careful consideration should be given to that possibility before
permission is granted to disturb the area. It was her feeling that the applicant can still make
reasonable use of this property even if this proposal is denied and she asked that the
Commission address the issue of the waivers, but that the preliminary site plan be denied so
that the applicant can. come hack with. a proposal which will he benefic alto the community_
Mr. Wagner, the applicant, was allowed to make closing statements. Mr. Wagner read a long,
prepared statement where he explained the reasons he felt the waivers should be granted-
M. Wagner's statement is made a part of this record as Attachment A. Regarding the
concern about the make-up of the existing fill, he stated: "To the extent that there is anything
in that fill which is dangerous...we, are proposing to bury whatever is there, to pave over it, to
put in a large reservoir protection system downstream, which is in the interests of mitigating
that problem if that problem exists." He confirmed that it is the applicant's intent to test drill
the site and county staff will have access to the results of the drill tests.
Mr_ Nitchmann asked if the applicant would be rpnductng a Phase I Environmental Study,
Mr. Wagner replied affirmatively and explained that such a study will be required by the
lending institution. Mr. Wagner expressed no opposition to an additional condition requiring
that the site pass a Phase I Study.
In response to Mr. Blue's question, Mr. Wagner confirmed that "as much as 1/3 of the site
will be fill over top of the critical areas."
Regarding the issue of the Hardy driveway, Mr. Wagner commented: "While I am not
prepared to write a blank check, we are certainly willing to work with them on trying to help
them solve their concern on possibly improving the entrance to their driveway or something
of that nature_" He expressed the feeling, however, that the decel Iane was not creating a
dangerous situation for Mr. Hardy since the traffic in the, decal lane will be moving slower,
than the traffic on Rt. 250. Mr. Nitchmann deduced from Mr. Wagner's comments that an
additional, separate decel lane serving just the Hardy driveway was a possibility.
There being no further comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Addressing the concern about the amount of critical slope areas, Mr. Blue asked if staff had
any additional information as to whether or not this is "an unusual variance" request. Mr.
Keeler recalled the Carrsbrook Retail area had been "just under an acre." (Mr. Blue noted
that Carrsbrook had been a different situation because it was actually a stream valley, which,
on the other side of the stream, had already been manipulated and piped.) Mr. Feeler
recalled that the most extensive situation had been with the Sam's site "where the northern
end of the parking lot --approaching the river --had involved up to 75 feet of fill." He pointed
out that 75 feet of fill would be equal to a lot of acres. Mr. Blue asked: "So I guess it's your
position that this isn't an. unusually large amount of critical slopes that they Ae asking for a
//0
8-30-94 9
variance on?" Mr. Keeler recalled that it had been staffs position that the Sam's request was
an unseal amount, but it had been approved. He also recalled that Sam's had requested
several hundred more parking spaces than required by the ordinance and it was the additional
parking area which had created the need for the unseal amount of fill. Staff had not
supported that "activity as being necessary to support Sam's."
Regarding the zoning on the property, Mr. Keeler stated: "Unequivocally, I can say that it
has the zoning it does because at the time the zoning snap was dom it was already developed
so under the policy it was recognized as zoned." Mr. Blue asked if Mr. Keeler felt staff
wood have recommended this zoning if it had not already existed. Mr. Cilimberg responded:
"I can unequivocally tell you that if it had not already existed, it would not have been in the
Comprehensive plan in 1989."
Mr. Chuck Rotgin, another representative of the applicant, interjected the following
information: "There is some misinformation. That property was not part of the zoning snap
when zoning came in. That property was rezoned in 1976 at the request of the owner at that
time." 'Mr. Cilimberg explained: "We are referring to 1990 after the downzoWng, Mt.
Rotgin: "The question was 'Was it originally part of the zoning mapT and there was a
request to rezone that property." Mr. Keeler: "That's correct. it was rezoned in the M...but
I believe the first action in 1980 recognized the zoning to the full depth and theca it was a
couple of years later, when the Board said 'Let's take another look at the whole reservoir
watershed,' that it was cut back to what you see on the map now." Mr. Davis interjected: "I
think this is interesting but I don't think it's relevant to this discussion."
Ms. Imhoff felt the entire plan "hinges on whether we grant the critical slopes waiver." She
stated that she recognized that commercial zoning exists on the property and no attempt is
being made tar tako-that zoning away. She. felt that staff s comments about- critical slopes arc
more of a t-hn.ical n -e, i:e: "can you do it-4a them a way to eugme a - it so it is. safes"
However, she felt it was a policy question for the Commission. She stated: "We cannot
abdicate our responsibility and, at this point, I feel that if'we grant this waiver we might just
as well get rid of the critical slopes portion of the Ordinance (because) I don't see how we'd
ever say 'no' to anybody else. To me it is a good portion of the site; it is over an acre and it
necessitates 900 feet of retaining wall."
Mr_.. 8111e. was not certain. that. what the applicant, was proposi,ig would not. improve the critical
slope situation. He stated it was, still his position that the enticat slopes provisions were.
intended to prevent' building on mountainsides or stream. vat ley, and he. agreed that .. � r ers In
those situations should not be allowed. But in this situation, Ito felt "if they build what they
are talking about, ira terms of the criticai slupes provisions, we will probably grad up with a
better product in terms of preventing erosion than we have now."
Ms. Imhoff disagreed, pointing out that the property slopes down to a stream valley "and
what they have to do to fit this amount of square footage onto that site, I think it flies in the
face of why have a critics: slope provision."
hl
8-30-94 10
Ms. Huckle pointed out that areas where waivers have been granted (as mentioned earlier by
Mr. Wagner) have been smaller areas and ones where public water is available_ .She felt one
reason waivers have not been granted in rural areas is because of the water and sewer issue.
She did not feel that 25% critical slope areas was "a limited area." She pointed out that in
some other localities no distinction is made between man-made and critical slopes. She stated
her maut concern was die maintenance of the runoff control basin and the possibility of
pollution of groundwater and the stream. Because of those concerns, she felt granting the
waiver for critical slopes would be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare and to
adjacent properties. She also expressed concern about the safety of the decel lane and about
traffic patterns.
Mr. Dotson felt a critical question was whether or not reasonable use can be made of the site
without the waivers, i.e. "is the waiver critical to a reasonable use of the site." It was his
feeling that "the waiver area, while Iarge, there is still a sizable frontage on 250... and there is
a sizable area that could be developed commercially. I think that the site could be used and
I`m not convinced that granting the waiver would better serve the public purpose or the
purpose of the Ordinance." He felt a reasonable use of the site would include possibly a
drugstore, bank, offices acid a smaller food store. He noted that the Comprehensive Flan calls
1`or "neighborhood service" and though neighborhood service is not well defined, he felt that
this proposal is at a scale that "goes beyond neighborhood and what the action (by the Board
at that time) intended." Regarding the issue of natural vs. man-made slopes, he asked "How
long does it have to be there before it becomes natural. He pointed out that there are some
very large, "natural looking trees„ on the man-made slope. He eoneluded- 1 have some real
problems with it."
Mr. Blue commented.: "The whole site is zoned HC, but by granting this waiver we are
expanding the usable area of the site —and doing a de facto rezoning by giving them more
use of the site. The zoning laws don't really address the topography, as such, at all. That's
why I tend to think that when you have an area zoned commercially, if it's possible to
engineer a flat area without destroying the environment or hurting something else, then we
ought to be allowing that. But you're absolutely right, they've got room to do something there
and if we grant the waiver we are essentially (making it possible for them to do more than
they could otherwise do). I'm still somewhat on the fence."
Mr. Nitchmann felt the Commission needed to address the question, in the near future, of the
definition of manmade vs. natural slopes. He stated he had.. been impressed by the
photographs taken by Mr. Langdon (presented by Ms. Jean Wagner earlier in the meeting)
which seem to indicate that there may be underground contaminents in the fill. However, he
felt that the development of the site, with the construction of the detention basin to catch
runoff and the reEaining wall to prevent substances from leaching further, could result in a
better environmental situation than presently exists. He expressed no concern about the
request for a waiver for encroachment into the buffer area on the western boundary. His
main concerns was with the decel lane and he also expressed concern about the long terns
8-30-94
11
maintenance of the detention basin. He asked if the County had any way to ensure that it
would always be maintained.
Mr. Davis explained that the developer would be required to enter into a maintenance
agreement which will be recorded and will run with the land. Therefore, it is enforceable
against whoever owns the land. The County will make an annual inspection to determine the
need for maintenance and it is then the landowner's obligation to see that the maintenance is
performed. If the maintenance is not performed the County can either perform the
maintenance and then collect from the developer or, by court order, force the developer to
take the appropriate action. He did not think there was any better solution available.
Mr. Keeler pointedout that if the plan is to: be denied, the Commission must cite the
infirmity it has in regard to specific sections of the Ordinance and also must tell the applicant
what changes to make -to make the plan approvable.
Mr_ Nitchmann noted that the applicant has agreed to an additional condition requiring an
acceptable Phase I Environmental Study. If the environmental report is not acceptable, then
nothing can be built on the site. He stated that he could support the request because he felt
"a man-made slope is a man-made slope." He noted he would like to see cooperation with
Mr. Hardy on the decel lane issue. He did not, however, support administrative approval of
the final site plan.
Tins. Imhoff asked for an explanation. from Mr. Davis as to why a distinction was being made
between man-made and natural slopes. She had been unable to find any such distinction in
the Ordinance. Mr. Davis explained that the Zoning Administrator has determined "that it
doesn't make a difference, that it's what exists there now --whether it's man-made or not, it is a
critical slope (and subject to Commission review), (and) what the Zoning Administrator has
determined is what controls unless that determination is disputed."
Mr. Cilimberg attempted to clarify the issue further. He stated: "You have to separate the
issue of what the Zoning Administrator has determined, which is whether or not it qualifies as
critical slope and what you are asked to make a decision on, and that is whether you are
going to waive the provisions to allow development on critical slopes." He confirmed that
the staffs recommendation to waive the critical slopes provisions had been based on the
comments of the Engineering Department.
At Ms. Imhoff request, Mr. Davis clarified that there were two issues before the
Commission --the granting of the waivers and the preliminary site plan. Mr. Cilimberg added
that if the waivers are not granted, then, essentially, the site plan has been denied because
"there is no way the site can be developed under that plan without the waiver." Based -on Mr.
Davis' and Mr. Cilimberg's comments, Ms. Imhoff concluded: "Then the reason for denial of
the site plan would be because it would intrude into steep slopes for which no waiver has
been granted." Mr. Davis added: "And that would be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance
and therefore you —.,Id have to deny it."
113
8-30-44
12
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that the request for a waiver of Section 4.2, to allow
development can critical slopes, be denied, becauseit involves a .large portion of the site and
because the request does not satisfy any of the 3 reasons for granting a waiver. (The action
did not address the request .for a waiver of Section 21.7.3.)
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion which sassed (3-2) with Commissioners Blue and
Nitchmann casting the dissenting votes.
MOTION: Ms. Imhoff moved that the Blue Ridge HC Area Preliminary Site flan be denied
because it intrudes into critical slope areas for which no waiver has been granted.
Mr. Dotson seconded the motion which passed unanimously.
MISCELLANEOUS
Ms. Imhoff asked that the Commission be allowed to preview the revisions to the public
notification letters before they are finalized.
Mr. Nitchmann asked about the status of the formation of an Educational Task Force.
There was a brief discussion about the CIP review process and whir or not a public
hearing should be held at the Commission level. No Commissioners felt strongly that the
Commission should hold a public hearing. No final decision was made.
Staff described the procedure for the conduct of the upcoming county -wide public meetings to
be held in September and October.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
W:
V. Wayn Cilimber t
114