Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUB199000063 Minutes 1990-06-26 SUB-90-063 - Ir ,' eside Preliminary Plat - " , oposal to create 12 lots averagi_ t 6 . 99 acres from two parce .s totalling 88 . 40 acres. Property, described as Tax Map 60, Parcel 1 and "X" , is located on the north side of Route 601 across from the Inglecress Subdivision. Zoned RA, Rural Areas in the Jack Jouett Magisterial District. Mr. Tarbell presented the staff report. Staff recommended approval subject to conditions. The Commission had several questions about the silt basin, which staff was recommending be constructed to meet the demands of a ten-year storm. Mr. Wilkerson asked about the U June 26, 1990 Page 2 difference between a two-year and a ten-year storm. (Staff did not know the difference in the expected amount of rainfall but explained that a two-year storm can be expected to occur once every two years and a ten-year storm once every ten years. ) Mr. Rittenhouse asked if there was enough room for the construction of the basin. (Mr. Tarbell replied that there should be room though it would be "tight. ") Mr. Johnson asked about the maintenance of the basin. (Mr. Keeler explained that a silt basin is supposed to function just during construction and will probably be allowed to just "silt up" after construction is complete. ) Mr. Johnson asked if a bond would be required until the road is taken into the State system. (Mr. Tarbell replied that the road must be constructed or bonded before staff will sign the plat. ) Ms. Huckle asked if bonding was required for the silt basin. (Mr. Keeler stated that a bond should be required as part of the Soil Erosion plan but it was not necessary to make it a condition of approval . ) The applicant was represented by Mr. James Gercke. He offered to answer Commission questions. There being no public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission. Ms. Huckle asked why the road was not located on a flater part of the property. Mr. Gercke explained that the location of the road had been determined by two design criteria: (1) The desire to protect the existing race track; and (2) The identification of logical and natural building sites. He stated the road had thus been designed to serve the building sites. Mr. Jenkins asked how the creation of this 88 acre tract effected the development rights of the original piece of property from which it was taken. Mr. Tarbell explained that the 88 acre tract had been created in May, 1990 "with all their development rights. " Thus the remainder (approximately 220 acres) can only be developed in 21 acre parcels. Mr. Wilkerson felt the proposal was "staightforward" and therefore moved that SUB-90-063 , Ingleside Preliminary Plat, be approved subject to the following conditions: 1. The final plat shall not be signed until the following conditions are met: June 26, 1990 Page 3 a. Department of Engineering approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; b. Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit to include a silt basin located downstream of the proposed culvert near station 15+00on road "B" . The basin shall be constructed to meet the demands of a ten-year storm; (NOTE: This condition was further amended later in the meeting. ) c. Department of Engineering approval of drainage easement plats; d. Virginia Department of Transportation approval of road and drainage plans and calculations; e. Dedication of right-of-way to accommodate the turn and taper lane; f. Residue strips of land on the north side of the roads shall be transferred back to Tax Map 60, Parcel 1. 2 . Administrative approval of the final plat. Ms. Huckle expressed extreme concern about the critical slopes and the amount of fill which would be necessary to construct the road across two gullies. She was also concerned about construction which would take place in such close proximity to one of the main tributaries of the reservoir. She stated that though she was aware of this developer' s good reputation, she could not support this proposal. Mr. Grimm seconded Mr. Wilkerson's motion _for approval. Discussion: Ms. Andersen asked if staff could comment on how much soil could possibly get into the stream, i.e. how much would the silt basin not collect? Mr. Keeler could not answer definitively but stated that even the most effective soil erosion measures are only about 75% effective. He added that the nature of the soil is a factor because fine soils stay in suspension in water for long periods and therefore the basin will not catch those soils. He stated that Albemarle County, in general, has a lot of fine-type soils. Mr. Johnson asked if the road were constructed in another location (such as across the dam) would a silt basin be necessary? Mr. Keeler responded that VDOT would not accept a road which crosses a dam. June 26, 1990 Page 4 Ms. Huckle asked if she was correct in her understanding that fill would be required in two different places for the road construction, but that a second basin was not possible to contain the runoff from the second smaller fill area. Mr. Keeler responded that the smaller area would have 8-10 feet of fill and does not have "as defined a channel. " He added that if that was of concern to the Commission, then staff would pursue the issue and ask the County Engineer and Watershed Management Official to review that possibility. He noted that in some cases excavation for a silt basin may do more harm than good and other measures may be preferable. Mr. Johnson asked if that was possibly already included in condition 1(b) . Mr. Tarbell stated that the Erosion Control Officer would "require this anyway in his review of the Erosion Control Plan. " Mr. Tarbell added that he would prefer the issue resolved and clarified now. Mr. Johnson felt that would probably be done automatically. Mr. Keeler felt that the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances offered more authority because they recognized the reservoir and the Soil Erosion Ordinance does not. Mr. Keeler quoted from the building site provisions of the ordinance: "The County Engineer shall require such protective and restorative measures as he deems necessary to insure that such development be consistent with the intent of the critical slopes provisions. " He felt that language provided the authority to require additional or larger basins, more detention, etc. He stressed, however, that this was under the purview of the County Engineer. Both Commissioner Wilkerson and Commissioner Grimm agreed to the following amendment to condition 1 (b) : "Department of Engineering issuance of an erosion control permit to include a silt basin located downstream of the proposed culvert near station 15+00 on road "B" and possibly a second basin located downhill at station 19 1/2 on road "B" if deemed appropriate by the Watershed Management Official and the County Engineer. The basin shall be constructed to meet the demands of a ten-year storm. " Mr. Rittenhouse noted that the motion contemplated staff approval of the final plat and staff was aware of the Commission' s concerns. Mr. Keeler noted that if there was a difference between the County Engineer and the Watershed Management Official the matter would be returned to the Commission. 111 June 26, 1990 Page 5 The previously stated motion for approval of the Ingleside Preliminary Plat passed (6: 1) with Commission Huckle casting the dissenting vote. June 26, 1990 Page 12 (Ms. Huckle asked if a condition should be added requiring Commission review in the event of a change in the site plan. Mr. Wilkerson felt staff had already indicated that would be the case. Mr. Rittenhouse added that typically staff is aware of the Commission' s concerns and will bring any changes back to the Commission which if feels the Commission would want to review. ) Mr. Grimm seconded the motion for approval . Discussion: In response to Mr. Jenkins ' question, Mr. Tarbell stated this was the last parcel of this site which would allow apartment buildings. Mr. Johnson stated he would support the motion, but he did not agree with the relocation of the pool . He stated: "It ' s being done, as I see, technically to satisfy critical slopes at the expense of the ecology--the effects of the building. " The previously stated motion for approval passed (6 : 1) with Commissioner Jenkins casting the dissenting vote. MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Rittenhouse noted that former Commissioners would be recognized at the July 10, 1990 meeting. Ms. Huckle brought up the question of why the Commission had spent so much time discussing critical slopes on the University Heights application, which did not effect the watershed, but "whizzed through" the Ingleside application which was very critical to the watershed. Mr. Rittenhouse responded that the amount of area in critical slopes is a very important consideration, i.e. are they small, isolated areas or is the area significant? Ms. Huckle felt 37 feet of fill was significant and the fact that it was "loose" would make it more erodable. Mr. Rittenhouse also pointed out that a factor was also the fact that the Ingleside road would be a State road and therefore the State ' s right-of-way would include the fill slope and the State would maintain it. /1,t/_ June 26, 1990 Page 13 Mr. Johnson felt Ms. Huckle's point was a valid one. He commented: "There we have a critical slope next to a waterway and here we have a critical slope next to nothing. Engineering and nobody can make any comment as to why we were worried about a critical slope other than there happened to be a critical slope and somebody wrote it into a document. There's no justification, no logic, no nothing. " Mr. Keeler commented: "I have been pushing for this for eight years now. We've reached the point where we have a Water Resources Committee and they are evaluating all the Ordinances that address mud, dirt and water. What I would like to see happen would be to remove from the Zoning Ordinance all reservoir protective measures and incorporate those in a Runoff Control Ordinance and let that document stand on it' s own. The problem I 've had for years in writing provisions in this ordinance is that I 'm writing provisions for multiple purposes. It applies county-wide but I also have to be concerned about whether it applies in the reservoir watershed and by the time I finish writing them it's got so many ifs, ands or buts that sometimes (even) I get confused. I thought there was language in here which would address this type of development but I left out the fatal words that would address this particular issue. I just think it's unwieldy at this point in time to attempt, in the Zoning Ordinance, to write provisions--and most everything in here applies county-wide--and then try to also include language that makes it work within a reservoir watershed too. " (Ms. Huckle asked what the "fatal words" were. ) Mr. Keeler responded: "There' s a provision in there which permits fill and the fatal words which I left out were 'provided no such activity shall occur within 100 horizontal feet of a tributary of a reservoir watershed. '" Mr. Rittenhouse stated he felt this was one facet of the Commission' s dual role of implementing the Ordinances and applying judgment and at the same time to looking at what the Ordinances say. He stated: "We really don't have the latitude to modify an Ordinance as we go on a particular issue. " Mr. Bowling interjected: "I think Mr. Johnson made some good points. You do have discretion. " Mr. Rittenhouse replied: "We do in interpreting the Ordinance but not in modifying the Ordinance. " 4 LL'l June 26, 1990 Page 14 Mr. Bowling stated: "There ' s a fine line there. This is a good example. You could have done whatever you wanted to do and I don't think that legally it would have made any difference at all for all the other cases that came later in interpreting critical slopes. That ' s the kind of discretion that you do have. " Mr. Rittenhouse pointed out that that is part of the dual role of the Commission, i. e. to be cognizant of the opportunity to improve the Ordinance when appropriate. Mr. Johnson stated: "We don't have to wait. When the situation comes up--there needs to be a waiver or a change--I think we should take it, bite the bullet, do it and then see what happens. " Mr. Rittenhouse felt these were two different issues, i.e. how to deal with waivers vs. the structure of the Ordinance. Mr. Keeler pointed out that he did not have the staff to deal with all the issues which need to be dealt with and some of those need to be taken over by some of the other County officials, e.g. the Watershed Management Official, the County Engineer. He stated there are currently "too many cooks stirring the broth and there are a lot of little holes. " Mr. Keeler stated he felt the proposed location for the public road in the Ingleside project was in the worst possible place, but there was nothing in the Ordinance to prevent it at the moment. Mr. Keeler stated that staff was aware of the Commission' s concerns, but he added: "I do think we have to take a lot of stuff out of this Ordinance and put it somewhere else because we are just spinning our wheels. " He listed all the Ordinances that staff now has to deal with and stated it is just too many for one department to have to deal with, particularly when in many cases the Planning Department is not the agency which administers the ordinance. He felt it might be time "to remove some of the protective measures and let the Chesapeake Bay provisions stand on their own as a separate ordinance and take all reservoir language out of here and put it in the Runoff Control Ordinance where, in my opinion, it really belongs. " Mr. Wilkerson asked if the "fatal words" which Mr. Keeler had referred to should be put in now. Mr. Keeler responded -7.dQ June 26, 1990 Page 15 that currently the Watershed Management Official has some proposed amendments before the Board of Supervisors and "rather than doing it here we may want to sit down with the Watershed Management Official and suggest we change the language that he's considering putting in that ordinance to include this privilege. " Ms. Huckle asked if the Commission had had the power to make modifications on the Ingleside application. Mr. Bowling responded: "That's more difficult. . . .You have a specific section of language in the Ordinance concerning building areas which suggests that access roads either leading to or within the building area are subject to certain requirements concerning the environment. It seems to be there, but- you can also argue that the requirements for building areas is concerned only with the driveway portions of access roads. The next section concerns the improvements and it says 'No improvements shall be built on critical slopes BUT' and then it says ' fill areas. ' It' s your ordinance and basically you could interpret it to have that power if you want to. It's just that it' s not black and white. " Ms. Huckle suggested that perhaps the fill areas should be removed. Mr. Keeler commented on the stockpiling activity at the Ingleside site. He stated: "Under the Ordinance it's by-right; it requires the Wateshed Management Official 's approval within 300 feet of a tributary. I 'm not sure there's any real clear answer to that because when you have a construction project here which has overburden, you have to move it. Maybe make it applicable everywhere except within a reservoir watershed--I don't know. These are matters which you all may want to ask us to refer directly to the Water Resources Committee when they are reviewing the various ordinances and formulating new provisions to the Ordinance. " Mr. Johnson stated that his experience on the Commission has given him the feeling that "we're not looking at the forest because we can't even seem the . . . trees because of the leaves. " He questioned why staff should have to take time to review items which are necessary requirements such as Fire Official approval, etc. He felt that anything which was automatic should not be addressed by the Commission unless there was "an exception to be taken. " He felt that would free some of staff' s time. /49 June 26, 1990 Page 16 Mr. Wilkerson pointed out that many items are included in the staff report for the benefit of the public and the applicant. Mr. Johnson felt it was the responsibility of the public to ask questions. He felt staff might spend too much time on "mundane, immaterial aspects--techanicalities--which have no meaning and are completely superfluous. . . and they don't have time to get to the big picture. " Mr. Rittenhouse stated he was in favor of tight ordinances. He stated: "I don't like ordinances were we are called upon to apply a lot of waivers to make them fit. If we find they are typically not fitting the purpose that we think they should, then I think it ' s time to change the Ordinance. Once we get away from tight ordinances we start applying lots of interpretation and lots of conditions and we begin to lose consistency and the public and development community no longer knows what to expect of us. " Mr. Johnson again brought up the issue of the Commission getting notification of BZA items. It was noted that the Ordinance says that the agenda of the BZA will be presented to the Commission which will offer comments. (Mr. Johnson quoted Section 34 . 4 of the Ordinance. ) Mr. Keeler stated that the Zoning Administrator has complied with this requirement by notifying the Director of Planning and Community Development who is the Secretary to the Commission. He added that the Commission decided some time ago that staff was to respond to these items and inform the Commission of any items of a "dramatic" nature. Mr. Keeler also stated that if the Commission wishes to change this procedure and wants to provide direct comment to the BZA, then staff will no longer provide comment so as not to risk being in disagreement with the Commission. Mr. Johnson disagreed with the statement that the Secretary of the Commission was actually a part of the Commission. He also stressed that it was not his intent to discourage staff comment on these items. Mr. Keeler noted that there is often very little time between when staff gets notice of BZA agendas and when comments are needed.