HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201800017 Staff Report 2022-09-09COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
TRANSMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
6.111IT, I TI/_1Wits] A»_1►1►11►[CIK61tTIIT, 1.1.1 M►1/_TO0N7I'll
1
AGENDA TITLE:
AGENDA DATE:
ZMA2018000017 Woolen Mills Light Industrial Park, Steep
July 17, 2019
Slope Amendment
SUBJECT/PROPOSAL/REQUEST: Rezone approximately
STAFF CONTACT(S):
0.45 acres from Steep Slopes Overlay District (preserved)
Graham, Benish
which allows uses under County Code § 18-30.7.4(b) to
Steep Slopes Overlay District (managed) which allows uses
PRESENTER(S):
under County Code § 18-30.7.4(a). No dwellings proposed.
David Benish, Chief of Planning (Acting Director)
SCHOOL DISTRICTS:
Monticello High, Walton Middle, Cale Elementary
BACKGROUND:
At its meeting on April 9, 2019, the Planning Commission (PC) conducted a public hearing and voted to recommend
approval of ZMA201800017. The Commission's staff report, action memo, and minutes are attached (Attachments A, B,
and C).
DISCUSSION:
At the Planning Commission meeting, staff recommended approval the proposed Zoning Map Amendment application.
The Planning Commission voted 5:2 (More, Spain opposed) to recommended approval of ZMA2019000017.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board adopt the attached Ordinance (Attachment D) to approve ZMA201800017 Woolen
Mills Light Industrial Park, Steep Slope Amendment.
ATTACHMENTS:
A — Planning Commission Staff Report
A.1 — Location Map
A.2 — Applicant Narrative and Application Plan
A.3 — Comprehensive Plan section regarding critical slopes
A.4 — Section 30.7 of Zoning Ordinace (Steep Slopes Overlay District)
A.5 — Assessment of wooded area by Natural Resources Manager
B — Planning Commission Action Memo
C — Meeting Minutes from 04/9/2019 PC Public Hearing
D — Ordinance to Approve ZMA201800017
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE STAFF
REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: ZMA201800017 Woolen Mills Light
Staff: David Benish
Industrial Park, Steep Slope Amendment
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
April 9, 2019
TBD
Owner: Elemental Ecotech, LLC
Applicant: Elemental Ecotech, LLC
Acreage: 14.06 acres
Rezone: 19,660 square feet (0.45 ac.) of preserved slopes
to managed slopes within Steep Slopes Overlay District
(18.30.7)
TMP: 07700-00-00-040BO
By -right use: Light Industry uses
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Proffers: No
Proposal: Amend Steep Slopes Overlay District
Requested # of Dwelling Units: Not applicable to this
to change designation of an area of 25%> slopes
request.
from Preserved slopes to Managed slopes as
identified on the application plan.
DA (Development Area): Neighborhood 4
Comp. Plan Designation: Parks and Green Systems —
parks, playgrounds, play fields, greenways, trails, paths,
recreational facilities and equipment, plazas, outdoor
sitting areas, natural areas, preservation of stream buffers,
floodplains and steep slopes adjacent to rivers and
streams.
Character of Property: The subject property is
Use of Surrounding Properties: The surrounding
located at the corner of the intersection of
property within the County is zoned industrial (LI). Within
Broadway Street and Franklin Street. It is adjacent
the City, the surrounding property is residential (R-3) and
to the border of the County and the City of
industrial (M-1). Carlton Mobile Home Court is across the
Charlottesville (See Attachment A).
street from the subject property.
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The slopes in question better meet the
1. The wooded area on the steep slopes would no
criteria for designation as managed
longer be preserved; the vegetation contains a
slopes.
good mix of native trees/plants with some invasive
2. Design standards for managed slopes will
species, particularly in the under -story.
protect site and downstream lands and
waterways from the adverse effects of
unregulated disturbance.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of ZMA201800017 Woolen Mills Light Industrial
Steep Slope amendment.
ZMA201800017 Woolen Mills Light Industrial Park, Steep Slope Amendment
STAFF PERSON:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
David Benish
April 9, 2019
TBD
PETITION:
PROJECT: ZMA201900017 Woolen Mills Light Industrial Steep Slopes Amendment
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 077000000040B0
LOCATION: Property is located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Franklin Street and
Broadway Street
PROPOSAL: Request to change the zoning designation of 19,660 square feet (0.45 ac.) from preserved
slopes to managed slopes which would allow the slopes to be disturbed. [Note: actual amount of square
footage is less than this total based on an assessment of the site in the field.]
PETITION: Rezone approximately 0.45 acres from Steep Slopes Overlay District (preserved) which
allows uses under Section 30.7.4(b) to Steep Slopes Overlay District (managed) which allows uses
under Section 30.7.4(a). No dwellings proposed.
OVERLAY DISTRICT: Steep Slopes (SS); Flood Hazard (FH)
PROFFERS:No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Parks and Green Systems — parks, playgrounds, play fields, greenways,
trails, paths, recreational facilities and equipment, plazas, outdoor sitting areas, natural areas,
preservation of stream buffers, floodplains and steep slopes adjacent to rivers and streams.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA:
The surrounding area is developed with both industrial and residential uses Lig(see Attachment A). A
variety of light industrial uses are located along Broadway Street to the north and east of the site.
Portions of the Moores Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant lie on the eastern and southern sides of the
property. The western side abuts a residential area known as Carlton Mobile Home Court, as well as the
old H.T. Ferron concrete plant site. Moores Creek Lane and a wholesale bakery nearly bisect the subject
property into two separate parcels of approximately 7.2 acres and 6.8 acres. The area under review is
located within the approximate 7.2 acres on the northern side of Moores Creek Lane.
SPECIFICS OF PROPOSAL:
The applicant requests to rezone a 19,660 square feet area of steep slopes within the subject property
from preserved slopes to managed slopes. This area is located on the northeastern portion of the
property. The applicant is not requesting a change to any of the other areas of Preserved slope area
located on the property. Preserved slopes are areas that may not be disturbed except under limited
circumstances found in Section 30.7.4(b), whereas managed slopes may be disturbed for any use
permitted in the underlying zoning district subject to the design standards found in Section 30.7.5.
APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST:
The applicant believes the preserved slopes on the site should be reclassified because these existing
preserved slopes have characteristics more in keeping with managed slopes (see Attachment B). The
slopes in questions were likely created as a result of the construction of a railroad track and bed. The
applicant has also indicated the change in designation to managed slopes would allow regrading of the
slope area resulting in a more logical layout of the development on the site.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
ZMA201800017 Woolen Mills Light Industrial Park, Steep Slope Amendment
The subject property is located on the western edge of an area that has consistently been
designated for industrial use in the County's land use plans. The 1970 Comprehensive Plan
designated this area for "light industrial and research" uses and the official zoning map prior to
the County's 1980 comprehensive rezoning showed this area as zoned "MV (now called "LI" or
Light Industry). Staff found that no rezoning applications have been approved in this area since
the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance (other than a 2015 request to amendment the steep slope
overlay district designation, discussed below).
The Steep Slopes Overlay District was adopted into the Zoning Ordinance on March 5, 2014.
The current slope designations on this property have existing since the adoption of the overlay
district. The intent of the District is to:
The purpose of this section 30.7 is to establish an overlay district on those lands within
the development areas of the county as delineated in the comprehensive plan which have
steep slopes and for which additional development design care and consideration must
be given, prior to permitted development occurring.
The board of supervisors finds that whenever steep slopes within the overlay district are
disturbed, their disturbance should be subject to appropriate consideration and care in
their design and construction in order to protect the integrity of the steep slope areas,
protect downstream lands and waterways from the adverse effects of the unregulated
disturbance of steep slopes, including the rapid or large-scale movement of soil and rock,
or both, excessive stormwater runoff, the degradation of surface water, and to enhance
and preserve the character and beauty of the steep slopes in the development areas of
the county.
The board also finds that certain steep slopes, because of their characteristics, should be
preserved to the maximum extent practical, and that other steep slopes, whose
preservation is not required, should be managed. Preserved slopes are those slopes that
have characteristics that warrant their preservation by the prohibition of disturbance
except in the limited conditions provided in this overlay district. Managed slopes are those
slopes where development may occur, provided that design standards are satisfied to
mitigate the impacts caused by the disturbance of the slopes.
A previous rezoning application to amend the steep slope designations on this parcel was
reviewed by the Commission and Board in 2015 (ZMA201500002). That request, submitted by a
different applicant, was to change three (3) distinct areas of Preserved slopes to Managed
slopes and included only a small portion (about 2,731 square feet) of the 19,660 square foot area
under consideration with this request. Since the 2015 application, an adjacent parcel (the old
railroad parcel) containing most of the 19,660 square feet of preserved slopes was acquired and
added to the TMP 07700-00-00-040130. Therefore, most of the area under review with this
current request was not reviewed with the previous application. The two other steep slope areas
under review at that time were located 1) on the northwest corner of the site along Franklin Street
and Broadway Street, and 2) along southern edge of Moores Creek Lane (entrance road for the
sewer treatment plant). Figure 1 below shows the the areas reviewed in 2015. The Board of
Supervisors denied ZMA201500002 for all of the slope area requested for change.
Regarding the 2,731 square feet that in now part of current rezoning request, the staff report for
ZMA201500001 stated that:
ZMA201800017 Woolen Mills Light Industrial Park, Steep Slope Amendment
The location of the property line makes these slopes look relatively small and unimportant, but
they're actually a part of a much larger system on the County's maps. Although the field run
topography did show some portions of these areas as less than 25% grade, it's difficult to
know if that is a more comprehensive characteristic within this system (as observed in area
'A') or if it's indicative of only minor modifications along the edges of the system (as observed
in area `B'). Without additional information, staff finds it appropriate to maintain these slopes
as preserved slopes.
Figure 1: Areas of Slopes,
"cop
77
A final site development plan was approved for this site in 2017 (SDP201600076) for an
industrial park containing 113,000 square feet of building space. The site plan preserves the all of
currently designated preserved slope areas as no grade/build areas. Site grading is now underway.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The current Comprehensive Plan designates this property for Industrial Service, which recommends
warehousing, light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited
production and marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and
residential development (6.01-34 units/acre). The Comprehensive Plan also recommends construction
of a greenway along Moores Creek, which forms the southern boundary of this parcel. The proposed
rezoning would not impact the designated greenway area.
The Comprehensive Plan also contains general statements about critical slopes that were particularly
relevant to the creation of the Steep Slopes Overlay District, which can be found in Attachment C.
ANALYSIS OF REQUEST:
ZMA201800017 Woolen Mills Light Industrial Park, Steep Slope Amendment
The review of this rezoning request focuses primarily on the appropriate designation of steep slopes as
adopted within the Steep Slopes Overlay District on the official zoning map. This review is not
specifically related to a development proposal for the site.
The analysis begins with the purpose and intent of the Steep Slopes Overlay District. As noted above,
this district was created to delineate lands which have steep slopes and for which additional
development design, care and consideration must be given prior to any permitted development
occurring. It states that "certain steep slopes, because of their characteristics, should be preserved to
the maximum extent practical, and that other steep slopes, whose preservation is not required, should
be managed."
The characteristics of preserved slopes and managed slopes are outlined in Section 30.7.3(a) and (b)
respectively and represent the specific criterion used to determine the appropriate designation of steep
slopes (see Attachment D).
Assessment of Slope Area:
The area of preserved slopes depicted on the Steep Slopes Overlay District Map is 19,660 square feet in
size. After several site visits to the area by Planning and Engineering staff, it appears that some areas
designated as steep slopes/Preserved slopes are not steep slope areas (slopes less than 25 percent).
The applicant has not provided more detailed field run information for this area, so there is no a specific
measurement of the error, but staff estimates that approximately 5,500 to 6,500 square feet (0.16 ac.)
currently designated preserved slopes are actually not steep slopes. Therefore, the actual area of
steeps slopes is probably in the range of 13,160—14,160 square feet. Figure 5 shows this general area
outlined in red.
Figure 2: Non -Steep Slope Area (in red)
ZMA201800017 Woolen Mills Light Industrial Park, Steep Slope Amendment
Staff also confirmed that the remaining steep slopes area is likely man-made resulting from the
installation of a railroad track. Old railroad ties and property boundary monuments labeled "C&O
Railroad" where observed the on -site.
In analyzing this specific area, staff found characteristics of both Managed and Preserved slopes. The
slopes in this area are likely manufactured, a characteristic of Managed slopes. The total "adjusted" size
of this steep slope area is greater than 10,000 square feet, which is characteristic of preserved slopes.
Staff also considered the context of the larger slope area. This band of manufactured slopes (generally
ranging between 25 and 70 feet in width) continues eastward beyond this parcel an onto the adjacent
RWSA sewer treatment plant site/property. This off -site band of manufactured slopes intersects with
another band of preserves slopes on RWSA properties that runs along the edge of the floodplain of
Moores Creek, and impaired stream (see Figure 3, below). This area east of the applicant's property
appears to be the more critical area to protect given its proximity other larger preserved slope areas that
are adjacent to the Moores Creek floodplain/stream buffer. That area is not proposed to be changed
with this application. The upper end of the band of manufactured slopes located on the applicant's
parcel is over 250 feet distance from the 100-year floodplain and stream buffer of Moores Creek and is
more removed and fragmented from other larger concentrations of Preserved slopes. These
characteristics are more in keeping with the characteristics of Managed slopes.
Figure 3: Context of slopes
Charlotte./Ville City /
Wv.ii �r tL le r�JNe �.,r-�+IS i�ay. ei_ �J
L n-�ov
NEEN W I \
Yam/
THE _ � r�EiC
V
ZMA201800017 Woolen Mills Light Industrial Park, Steep Slope Amendment
Below is a table that summarizes our analysis under the characteristics of Managed and Preserved
slopes and compares it to the applicant's analysis:
Characteristics of Managed Slopes as shown under Section 30.7.3 (a)
Applicant
Staff Analysis
Analysis
Yes*
No*
Yes*
No*
(i) the contiguous area of steep slopes is limited or fragmented;
X
X
(ii) the slopes are not associated with or abutting a water feature, including, but not limited to,
a
river, stream, reservoir or pond;
X
X
(iii) the slopes are not natural but, instead, are manufactured;
X
x
(iv) the slopes were significantly disturbed prior to June 1, 2012;
x
X
(v) the slopes are located within previously approved single-family residential lots;
n/a
X
(vi) the slopes are shown to be disturbed, or allowed to be disturbed, by a prior county action.
X
X
Characteristics of Preserved Slopes as shown under Section 30.7.3 (b)
Applicant
Staff Analysis
Analysis
Yes*
No*
Yes*
No
(i) the slopes are a contiguous area of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or more or a close
grouping of slopes, any or all of which may be less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet but
X
whose aggregate area is ten thousand (10,000) square feet or more;
(ii) the slopes are part of a system of slopes associated with or abutting a water feature,
including, but not limited to, a river, stream, reservoir or pond;
The applicant
X
(iii) the slopes are part of a hillside system;
X
did provide
lthe slopes are identified as a resource designated for preservation in the comprehensive
analysis of these
X**
pan;
plan;
characteristics
(v) the slopes are identified as a resource in the comprehensive plan;
X**
(vi) the slopes are of significant value to the entrance corridor overlay district;
X
(vii) the slopes have been preserved by a prior county action, including, but not limited to, the
placement of an easement on the slopes or the acceptance of a proffer or the imposition of a
X
condition, restricting land disturbing activity on the slopes.
*Yes = meets criteria; No = Does not meet criteria
** This property is recommended for parks and green systems use in S+W master Plan due to the amount of
floodplain and critical slopes present on the property. This particular portion of the steep slope area is
related to fill for an old railroad bed. The railroad bed is not identified as a significant historic or cultural
resource for protection in the Comprehensive Plan. The slopes were not known to be man-made when
designated as preserved slopes.
ZMA201800017 Woolen Mills Light Industrial Park, Steep Slope Amendment
The 19,660 square foot steep slope area on this property has characteristics of both Preserved and
Managed slopes but, on balance, staff is of the opinion it has characteristics more keeping with the
Managed slope designation.
SUMMARY:
Staff has identified the following factors as favorable to the rezoning requested:
1. This steep slope area better meets the criteria for designation as managed slopes.
2. Design standards for managed slopes will protect site and downstream lands and waterways
from the adverse effects of unregulated disturbance.
Staff has identified the following unfavorable factor:
1. The wooded area on the steep slopes would no longer be preserved; the vegetation contains a
good mix of native trees/plants with some invasive species, particularly in the under -story.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the 19,660 square foot area on TMP 07700-00-0040MO delineated as preserved
slopes on the Steep Slopes Overlay District Map be rezoned to managed slopes. Staff recommends
approval of ZMA201800017, Woolen Mills Light Industrial Park, to amend the Steep Slope Overlay
District zoning map from preserved slopes to managed slopes as identified in Attachment B.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION:
A. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this zoning map
amendment:
Move to recommend approval of ZMA201800017, Woolen Mills Light Industrial Park Steep Slope
Amendment, to rezone a 19,660 square foot area on TMP 07700-00-0040MO from Steep Slope -
Preserved to Steep Slope -Managed on the Steep Slope Overlay District Map, and as identified in
the application plan found as Attachment B of the staff report.
B. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this zoning map amendment:
Move to recommend denial of ZMA2015-00002, Woolen Mills Light Industrial Park Steep Slope
Amendment, based on the following reasons... (Should a commissioner motion to recommend
denial, he or she should state the reason(s) for recommending denial).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Area Map
Attachment B: Applicant Narrative and Application Plan
Attachment C: Comprehensive Plan section regarding critical slopes
Attachment D: Section 30.7 of Zoning Ordinance (Steep Slopes Overlay District)
Attachment E: Assessment of wooded area by Natural Resources Manager
ZMA201800017 Woolen Mills Light Industrial Park, Steep Slope Amendment
Attachment A - Area Map
Legend
(mole: Some gems on map may nor appear In legend)
Parcel Info
❑ Parcels
77-40C4 �----
77-4OCS
77-40J
/77-40C2 boo' 77-40L
77-40 K;
-
.`_ �.�•
77-40E
77-401B
77 401 77-40H
IQ
eaaaaee�
st —� -::w� 77-40M
77-40E1
B�
dd
78-21H ;�oli
ie
77-40N /
77-40Q
hill
ii-ao
77-40P
ac
t>
I.
77-40P1
n-z,
Nr oor,�-slCreek
Moor
•s Cre R
llV//____
77-38B
376 ft
78-22A
GISMin
1
p'P- K,'Yy
IIII
Geographic Data Services
osmNM'k .Iaemane.nrygla
{
GY
s
(430)2WM32
My determination mtmpmgraphy or commands, or any deplNon m physical Improvements, properly lines or Mundarea Ia for general Information ony and shall col be used Mir Me design, mMlficallon, or mmwNon of Impro temema to real pmcedy, orror bond plain delarmInatlon. February 27, 2019
•••
Engineering • Surveying • Planning
December 28, 2018
Lea Brumfield
Zoning Senior Planner
Albemarle County
210 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22901
RE: ZONING MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION FOR
TMP 07700-00-00-040B0
WOOLEN MILLS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK
MERIDIAN
PLANNING GROUP, LLC
440 Premier Circle, Suite 200
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Phone: 434.882.0121
www.meridianwbexom
The applicant is requesting the rezoning of a strip of land that is the site of an abandoned railroad track.
Much of the land in this section is less than a 25% slope, and that portion that is steeper than 25% can be
readily seen to be manmade — an embankment created by the railroad in order to build a siding to serve the
now defunct woolen mill. We are not requesting any change of the zoning for the preserved slopes along
Broadway, Franklin, or Moore's Creek lane, thereby preserving the buffer for the neighbors (including the
old stone wall). Once the by -right (already approved and permitted) development is built, the strip of land
in question will be an island surrounded by buildings, pavement, and stone water management systems.
The fact that it is man-made, coupled with the fact that its disturbance would not be detrimental to the public
health safety or welfare, and its preservation will not forward the purposes of the critical slopes ordinance,
make it a suitable candidate for re -zoning. Therefore, this Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) will be limited
only to the preserved slopes that are on TMP 07700-00-00-040BO and parallel the northern curved property
line between TMP 07700-00-00-040BO and TMP 07700-00-00-040M0. Refer to the Rezoning Application
Plan for the Preserved Slopes to be rezoned to Managed Slopes.
A. PROJECT PROPOSAL
The purpose of this ZMA is to rezone a 19,635 SF (0.45 acre) area of Preserved Slope Zoning to Managed
Slope Zoning. The Rezoning Application Plan shows the limits of the area to be rezoned. Although the
total area marked preserved and which is requested to be rezoned is 19,635 s.f, field observations and the
county gis confirm that much of this strip is in fact at a less than 25% grade, and that furthermore the
sections that do exceed 25% are manmade.
The Preserved Slopes are located within the properties, consequently this rezoning would not have any
affect on the public need or benefit.
B. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TMP 77-40B is located in Neighborhood 4 of the Southern and Western Urban Neighborhoods
development area.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use Classification of TMP 77-40B as Parks and Green
Systems. Chapter 11 of the Comprehensive Plan calls for a new pedestrian or multi -purpose path through
this parcel but does not designate this parcel as a location for a public park or greenway trail. The proposed
rezoning will allow for a new pedestrian or multi -use path through the parcel.
Page 1
ATTACHMENT B
The proposed use for the rezoned area will be light industrial buildings, and associated parking, which is a
by -right use for this parcel.
How Managed Slopes Were Created:
The majority of the rezoned area is located within the boundaries of the former TMP 77-40C1. This parcel
was owned by CSX Transportation as recorded in DB 274-70. TMP 77-40C1 was conveyed to Yves
Delorme, hic. in DB 3088-272. A legal description for TMP 77-40C 1 is included in DB 3088-272. TMP
77-40C1 was then conveyed to Elemental Ecotech, LLC in DB 4797-428. TMP 77-40C1 was then
combined with TMP 77-40B in DB 4893-401. Copies of these deeds are enclosed with this narrative.
The Application plan shows the former boundary line for TMP 77-40C. The plan also shows two Railroad
Right-of-way Monuments that were located during a recent field survey. There is also visible evidence of
rails and ties from an abandoned railroad. This is more than enough evidence a railroad was constructed
on this property.
The application plan also shows the existing contours for TMP 77-40B. The contours on the parent tract
of TMP 77-40B indicates gently rolling grades that have smooth horizontal and vertical transitions, which
is indicative of natural grading. The contours throughout TMP 77-40C1 have areas that are flat and areas
that have abrupt horizontal and vertical transitions, which is indicative of manufactured grading. Grading
that is typical for linear road and railroad projects.
Responses to Section 18-30.7.3 Characteristics of Manages Slopes:
i. The contiguous area of steep slopes is limited or fragmented. The slopes are fragmented.
ii. The slopes are not associated with or abutting a water feature, including, but not limited to, a river,
stream, reservoir or pond. The slopes are not associated with or abutting a water feature.
iii. The slopes are not natural but, instead are manufactured. The slopes were manufactured during
the construction of the railroad.
iv. The slopes were significantly disturbed prior to June 1, 2012; The railroad was constructed prior
to June 1, 2012.
V. The slopes are located within previously approved single-family residential lots; Not Applicable.
vi. The slopes are shown to be disturbed, or allowed to be disturbed, by a prior county action. Not
Applicable.
Section 18-30.7.5 Design Standards:
If the Preserved Steep Slope area is rezoned to Managed Slopes, then the following design standards will
be used to land disturbances and construction activity.
1. Retaining walls shall be incorporated into the design of building walls where feasible.
2. Cut and fill shall be rounded off to eliminate sharp angles.
3. Cut and fill slopes within the Managed Slope Zoning shall be no steeper than a 3:1 slope.
Comprehensive Plan -Appendix 8: Neighborhood Goal # 11:
1. Building foundations shall be used as retaining walls where feasible.
2. Cut and fill slopes within the Managed Slope Zoning shall be no steeper than a 3:1 slope.
3. Where feasible, small retaining walls, less than 6-feet in height, on stepped terraces shall be used
around parking areas.
4. Steep slopes will not be constructed near neighboring properties.
C. IMPACTS ON PUBLIC FACILITES AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE
Page 2
ATTACHMENT B
The rezoned area on TMP 77-40B is located within the parcel. There are no public facilities or public
infrastructure near this area, consequently, this rezoning will not have any impact on these facilities.
D. IMPACTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES.
The only environmental features near the rezoned area are the stream buffer for Moore's Creek and the
Flood Hazard Overlay District. Both of these features are located over 250-feet away from the rezoned
area. Erosion control measures will be used to prevent sediment from construction activities getting to
these features. A permanent flow equalization basin will be constructed as shown on the approved site
plan (SDP201600076) to prevent any increase in storm water run-off from entering these features after
construction is completed.
E. PROPOSED PROFFERS TO ADDRESS IMPACTS
This ZMA does not require any proffers as indicated on the checklist
Please let me know if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
Timothy Miller, P.E., L.S.
Principal
Page 3
ATTACHMENT B
Page 4
ZMA 201800017
ZONING MAP AMENDMENT
FOR
WOOLEN MILLS
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PARK
TMP 07700-00-00-040BO
ELEMENTAL ECOTECH, LLC
809 BOWLING AVE, UNIT C
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22902
ENGINEER
MERIDIAN PLANNING GROUP, LLC
440 PREMIER CIRCLE, STE 200
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901
INDEX
TAB
DESCRIPTION
1
NARRATIVE
2
PLAT FOR TMP 77-40B
3
PLAT FOR TMP 77-40M
4
DEEDS FOR TMP 77-40C 1
ATTACHMENT B
/ / / // \ \ \ / AV A \ °�NiA
/ / \ \ / \ \ \ \ PRESERVED SLOPE ZONING �
/ / \ \ / 20' 0 20' 40' 60' Z
' \ \ MANAGED SLOPE ZONING O n u
SCALE: 1"=20' ®VARIABLE WIDTH FOREST AND OPEN SPACE EASEMENT 6 i z O
/ /
go
/ / \\ \ \ o e
// A \ \
/ I \ \ \ o 00
/ / / / / \ \ \ �� o =
GSP \ r U P. / / / �\ \ 22. 0-.-,5
�4 d d F
�� / 1 \ \ o E- oa as w
402.45 \� / \\ \
I TMP 77-40N
X \� \ TREM COMMERCIAL RENTALS, LLC
/ I TMP 77-40M ��\ \ \ DB 2893-653
H5
II `\ `\ \ \ \ \ \
LLC V \ DB 907-684 PLAT -'
DB 5033-635 Ex. 101 ZONE: LI _ -
j FENCE Rim— 403.51' USE: 'S7-ORAG-E- WAREHOUSE
ZONE: LI
��N� Inv. In=393.41
USE: DIST. SNP\N Inv-out=393.30'
WAREHOUSE N��H -i
Formerly D4- -
TMP 77-40C1
DB 274-70
\ I \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ DB 3088- 272
DB 4797- 428
\ PP \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ TMP 77-40P
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ELEMENTAL ECOTECH, LLC
\\ \ \ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \\ \ \\ \\ DB 4796-325 \\ \\ \\\\ \ \\� ---- \\ / 7--
1-7
\ \ \ \ \ \ 14.0617 ACRES /
ZONE: LI �o \\ \ \ \ \ \ ` \ \ _ _ —' — / _ — \Ex -too
USE: VACANT Gout 3 2.20'
\\ \ \ \ \\ \\ \\ \ \ \\ \\ \ \ \ \ p — vergrown area wi h /
\ `�ti Portoin of Preserved Slopes
400 / � /
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ / i ra underneath \ \ \ \ \ \ F \ \ not included in this ZMA / /
390
NO F
TBR
19,645 SF (0.45 Acres) of
Preserved Slopes to be
ezoned t0 Managed Slopes
4-OREFENC
' \\ \ \ \ `TVP 77-38B ---
\ RIrAAWA-FATER &SEWER
— — — — — — \ AUTHORITY- /
DB 768-2_77
DB 616-135, PLAT
ZONE:-TI----------
/ F
____--- _VACANT_
/.
\\-----------
\\ Grav I \ I \ \ \\ \ \-------- J / / —_-- / IC �/ / w
TBR
Z
oz
Z
�
o
�a0E-
O
Z CVo
O U
z�,'w
�pc�rk�
W U °z
07 C]
�D
LJ
* W E-
zi7w0o
ZZaxa
z
w�"
�z
a�
w
SVILLE / / �� \ ��/ — — �' — — _ — — \ \ \ — — — / / / — — � — � �-------- c`i 100 EMA Flo p in ---- � � a p-I
/ h \ / \ \ \ 4�— / 1 ry
87.1 / >` __-- - /—�—
/ GATE\ / F-
INCE RUST / / TBR — — — — — — _ _ _ _ _ — — — — — — _ — /' _--- -- ��- \ ---------------------------------------
_ __ f
/ Exist. EX. WV _ — — _ _ _ _ — — — / / - ___-- ------ Z
BOLTON / / c1I Street Sign EX. Va ilto Uravel
_------163 / >IExist. �_ �— — _ _ — — — — _ — _ 7:7— — _ — / _ — �\ J �,'�■ Z
// /p Stop Sign TBR —_-- �_— J/ -- — --_ — --- - 0
MCI-0-03 / ` Q-1
Rim=322.64' , a E-I
/ I '\----------- — — --- - RWSA) /� Inv. In=310.36 a
/ / \ - — — — ----- E \ - 6" Clay / t 310 26 /
—---------------t — — - - —--------- LAN I --- _ 3 / / _ _ G'0 �RwsA E. �
EX. WV \ EX. WV \ --------- Grave----- \\ ES CREEK ---' -- // - �/ �-) \ / a
DL-ft _8„ OR ATE)
W
EX. FH --_-_ WATER ACSA \ RIv
X—y��—>F_�_�x— — E� �—y����------------------- 9Q — ----- �� � / // / / / � \ SHEET N0.
S
/ \ /MCI—MH-04 / / \ AP-2
PP / / Top=327.10'
/ Inv. In=310.90 /
SHEET 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT B
Critical Slopes
Critical slopes are included under natural resources because they require protection in order to
maintain the existing balance between slope, soils, geology, and vegetation. Critical slopes are
defined as areas with a slope of 25 percent or greater. Clearing, grading, building, cropping, and
overgrazing of these lands can result in extensive erosion and landslides or sloughing of soil and
rock; excessive stormwater runoff, increased siltation and sedimentation; loss of aesthetic
resource; and, in the event of septic system failure, a greater travel distance of septic effluent.
About 22 percent of the County acreage consist of critical slopes, as listed in the Soil Survey.
About 20 percent of the County acreage are in slopes of 15-25 percent. Critical slopes are located
throughout the County, but especially in mountainous areas adjacent to the Shenandoah National
Park, on both sides of Route 29 South, and east of Route 20 from Carter's Bridge to the Orange
County line.
Regulations to protect critical slopes by directing building and septic system locations to more
suitable terrain are included in the Zoning Ordinance.
Critical Slopes Standards
The following GENERAL STANDARDS should be used in areas of critical slope:
• Avoid use of septic systems on slopes of 20 percent or greater.
• Avoid road construction on slopes of 15 percent or more. Roads should follow
the natural topography in a manner to minimize grading, cutting, and filling.
• In areas of 15 percent or more slope, maintain natural drainage channels in
their natural state and/or stabilize such channels to protect the natural drainage
systems from impact of development activity.
• Design public utility corridors to fit the topography. "Straight line" and "up and
over" alignment in areas sensitive to such routing should not be permitted.
• Adapt development to the topography and natural setting of the County rather
than modifying the topography and natural setting to accommodate
development. Excessive grading, cutting, and filling should be discouraged
while imaginative and sensitive design should be encouraged.
• In fanning and forestry, practice those activities appropriate to the soils and
topography of the land. Generally, the soils of the County are not conducive to
intensive agricultural and forestal uses when slopes exceed 15 percent.
• As land slope increases, the rate of stormwater runoff increases. Discourage
applications of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals in areas of
steep slope where they may be ineffective and can increase probabilities of
surface and groundwater pollution.
107
ALBEAL RLECOUNTYCODE
a. Nothing in section 30.6 shall be deemed to compromise, limit, or otherwise impair the agent
or the commission in their review of a preliminary or final site plan under section 32. In their
review of any preliminary or final site plan, the agent or the commission may modify, vary or
waive any term or condition of a certificate of appropriateness upon finding that such action
would better serve the public health or safety; provided that the agent may modify, vary or
waive any such a term or condition only after consulting with the building official, the county
engineer, a representative of the department of fire rescue or other public official who advises
the agent that the public health or safety would be at risk if the condition is not modified,
varied or waived.
b. Nothing in section 30.6 shall be deemed to impair the authority of the zoning administrator
under section 31.4(d).
(§ 30.6.9, Ord. 10-18(5), 5-12-10)
30.7 STEEP SLOPES OVERLAY DISTRICT
30.7.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT
The purpose of this section 30.7 is to establish an overlay district on those lands within the development
areas of the county as delineated in the comprehensive plan which have steep slopes and for which
additional development design care and consideration must be given, prior to permitted development
occurring.
The board of supervisors fmds that whenever steep slopes within the overlay district are disturbed, their
disturbance should be subject to appropriate consideration and care in their design and construction in order
to protect the integrity of the steep slope areas, protect downstream lands and waterways from the adverse
effects of the unregulated disturbance of steep slopes, including the rapid or large-scale movement of soil
and rock, or both, excessive stormwater runoff, the degradation of surface water, and to enhance and
preserve the character and beauty of the steep slopes in the development areas of the county.
The board also finds that certain steep slopes, because of their characteristics, should be preserved to the
maximum extent practical, and that other steep slopes, whose preservation is not required, should be
managed. Preserved slopes are those slopes that have characteristics that warrant their preservation by the
prohibition of disturbance except in the limited conditions provided in this overlay district. Managed slopes
are those slopes where development may occur, provided that design standards are satisfied to mitigate the
impacts caused by the disturbance of the slopes.
(§ 30.7.1, Ord. 14-18(2), 3-5-14)
State law reference— Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280(t), (2), 15.2-2286(Ax4).
30.7.2 APPLICABILITY
Section 30.7 shall apply to all privately and publicly owned lands within the county that are within the
boundaries of the steep slopes overlay district and depicted as being managed or preserved slopes on the
series of maps entitled "Steep Slopes Overlay District," which are hereby adopted as the zoning map of the
steep slopes overlay district. Within this overlay district, the regulations in this chapter pertaining to critical
slopes shall not apply.
(§ 30.7.2, Ord. 14-18(2), 3-5-14)
State law reference— Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280(t), (2), 15.2-2286(Ax4).
18-30-32
Zoning Supplement #84, 3-5-14
ATTACHMENT D
ALBEAL RLECOUNTYCODE
30.7.3 CHARACTERISTICS OF STEEP SLOPES
The characteristics of the steep slopes within the overlay district are as follows:
a. Managed slopes. The characteristics of managed slopes are the following: (i) the contiguous area
of steep slopes is limited or fragmented; (ii) the slopes are not associated with or abutting a water
feature, including, but not limited to, a river, stream, reservoir or pond, (iii) the slopes are not
natural but, instead, are manufactured, (iv) the slopes were significantly disturbed prior to June 1,
2012; (v) the slopes are located within previously approved single-family residential lots; or (vi)
the slopes are shown to be disturbed, or allowed to be disturbed, by a prior county action.
b. Preserved slopes. The characteristics of preserved slopes are the following: (i) the slopes are a
contiguous area of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or more or a close grouping of slopes, any or
all of which may be less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet but whose aggregate area is ten
thousand (10,000) square feet or more; (ii) the slopes are part of a system of slopes associated with
or abutting a water feature including, but not limited to, a river, stream, reservoir or pond, (iii) the
slopes are part of a hillside system, (iv) the slopes are identified as a resource designated for
preservation in the comprehensive plan, (v) the slopes are identified as a resource in the
comprehensive plan, (vi) the slopes are of significant value to the entrance corridor overlay
district; or (vii) the slopes have been preserved by a prior county action, including, but not limited
to, the placement of an easement on the slopes or the acceptance of a proffer or the imposition of a
condition, restricting land disturbing activity on the slopes.
(§ 30.7.3, Ord. 14-18(2), 3-5-14)
State law reference— Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280(t), (2), 15.2-2286(Ax4).
30.7.4 PERMITTED USES
The following uses and structures are permitted by right or by special use permit on managed or preserved
slopes, provided that the land disturbing activity to establish the use or structure complies with design
standards in section 30.7.5 and all other applicable requirements of the Code:
a. Managed slopes. The uses permitted by right and by special use permit on managed slopes are as
follows, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter:
1. By right. The uses permitted by right in the underlying district shall be permitted by right
on managed slopes.
2. By special use permit. The uses permitted by special use permit in the underlying district
shall be permitted by special use permit on managed slopes.
b. Preserved slopes. The uses permitted by right and by special use permit on preserved slopes are as
follows, subject to the applicable requirements of this chapter:
1. By right. The uses permitted by right on preserved slopes are the following:
a. Existing single-family dwelling unit. Any single-family detached or single-
family attached dwelling unit which was lawfully in existence prior to March 5,
2014 may be expanded, enlarged, extended, modified or reconstructed. For the
purposes of this subsection, the term `lawfully in existence" includes, but is not
limited to, any single-family detached or single-family attached dwelling unit
for which a building permit was issued prior to March 5, 2014, provided that the
building permit has not expired.
18-30-33
Zoning Supplement #84, 3-5-14
ATTACHMENT D
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
b. Existing lot of record; first single-family detached dwelling unit. Any lot which
was a lawful lot of record on March 5, 2014 may establish the first single-family
detached dwelling unit on the lot, provided the lot does not contain adequate
land area outside of the preserved slopes to locate the dwelling unit. For the
purposes of this subsection, the term `lawful lot of record" includes any lot
shown on a subdivision plat approved prior to March 5, 2014, provided that the
plat is still valid.
C. Necessary publicfacilities. Public facilities necessary to allow the use of the lot,
provided that the lot does not contain adequate land area outside of the
preserved slopes to locate the public facilities and one or more of the following
exist: (i) the land disturbing activity avoids impacts on other protected resources
such as stream buffers or floodplain; (ii) the alignment of the public facilities is
consistent with the alignment of public facilities depicted or described in the
comprehensive plan, (iii) the disturbance is necessary to provide interconnection
required by the Code or the applicable regulations of other public entities; or (iv)
prohibiting the facilities from being located on preserved slopes will cause an
unnecessary hardship. To the extent that public facilities are established on
preserved slopes, the preserved slopes should be preserved to the maximum
extent practicable consistent with the intent and purpose of this overlay district,
d. Trails. Public or private pedestrian and bicycle trails
e. Accessory uses and structures. Any uses or structures accessory to a dwelling
unit authorized by subsection (b)(1)(a) and (b)(l)(b).
f Distribution facilities. Water, sewer, energy, and communications distribution
facilities. To the extent that distribution facilities are established on preserved
slopes, the preserved slopes should be preserved to the maximum extent
practicable consistent with the intent and purpose of this overlay district,
g. Legislative zoning actions related to the underlying district. Any use or structure
approved by the board of supervisors in a zoning map amendment whose
location is expressly authorized in an approved application plan, code of
development, or an accepted proffer, in a special use permit authorized in the
underlying district regulations, or in a special exception authorizing a waiver or
modification of the requirements of section 4.2.3, provided that the legislative
action is still valid and that the use or structure complies with all requirements
and conditions approved or imposed in conjunction with the legislative zoning
action.
It. Slopes less than 25% based on new topographic information. Any use or
structure allowed by right or by special use permit in the underlying district,
provided that the owner submits new topographic information that is based on
more accurate or better technical data demonstrating, to the satisfaction of the
county engineer, that the slopes are less than twenty-five (25) percent.
2. By special use permit. The only use permitted by special use permit on preserved slopes
are private facilities such as accessways, utility lines and appurtenances, and stormwater
management facilities, not otherwise permitted by right under subsection (b)(1)(e), where
the lot does not contain adequate land area outside of the preserved slopes to locate the
private facilities.
(§ 30.7.4, Ord. 14-18(2), 3-5-14)
State law reference— Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280(t), (2), 15.2-2286(Ax4).
18-30-34
Zoning Supplement #84, 3-5-14
ATTACHMENT D
ALBEAL RLECOUNTYCODE
30.7.5 DESIGN STANDARDS
The following design standards apply to land disturbing activity to establish a use permitted by right or by
special use permit in the steep slopes overlay district.
a. Retaining walls. Retaining walls shall meet or exceed the following minimum standards:
1. Wall height. The maximum height for a single retaining wall, measured from grade to
grade, shall be six (6) feet, except as provided in subsection (a)(3). When the overall
retained height would exceed six (6) feet, the retaining wall shall be broken into multiple
stepped walls.
2. Multiple stepped walls; separation. A minimum horizontal distance of three (3) feet shall
be maintained between each individual wall in a stepped wall system, and shall be
landscaped with screening shrubs planted on ten (10) foot centers.
3. Incorporation ofwall into design of building. Retaining walls may be incorporated into
the design of a building so that they become part of the building. Retaining walls
incorporated into the design of a building shall not be subject to height limitations of
subsection (a)(1).
b. Cuts and fills. Any cut or fill shall meet or exceed the following minimum standards:
1. Rounding off. Any cut or fill shall be rounded off to eliminate sharp angles at the top,
bottom and side of regraded slopes.
2. Location of toe of the fill slope. The toe of any fill slope shall not be located within ten
(10) feet horizontally of the top of an existing or proposed cut slope.
3. Tops and bottoms. Tops and bottoms of cut and fill slopes shall be located either: (i) a
distance from existing and proposed property lines at least equal to the lesser of three (3)
feet plus one -fifth (115) of the height of the cut or fill, or ten (10) feet, (ii) any lesser
distance than provided in subsection (b)(3)(i) the zoning administrator determines would
not adversely impact the abutting parcel based on information provided by the owner of
the abutting parcel, or (iii) on the abutting parcel if the owner obtains an easement
authorizing the slope on the abutting owner's parcel.
4. Steepness. Cut and fill slopes shall not be steeper than a 2:1 (fifty (50) percent) slope. If
the slope is to be mowed, the slope shall be no steeper than a 3:1 (thirty-three (33)
percent) slope.
C. Reverse slope benches or a surface water diversion. Reverse slope benches or a surface water
diversion shall meet or exceed the following minimum standards:
1. When required. Reverse slope benches or a surface water diversion shall be provided
whenever: (i) the vertical interval (height) of any 2:1 (fifty (50) percent)) slope exceeds
twenty (20) feet; (ii) the vertical interval (height) of any 3:1 (thirty-three (33) percent))
slope exceeds thirty (30) feet, or (iii) the vertical interval (height) of any 4:1 (twenty-five
(25) percent)) slope exceeds forty (40) feet.
2. Width and location of benches. Reverse slope benches shall be at least six (6) feet wide
and located to divide the slope face as equally as possible and shall convey the water to a
stable outlet. Benches shall be designed with a reverse slope of 6:1 (approximately
seventeen (17) percent)) or flatter to the toe of the upper slope and have a minimum of
one (1) foot. The bench gradient to the outlet shall be between two (2) percent) and three
(3) percent), unless accompanied by appropriate design and computations.
18-30-35
Zoning Supplement #84, 3-5-14
ATTACHMENT D
ALBEAL RLECOUNTYCODE
3. Flow length within a bench. The flow length within a reverse slope bench shall not
exceed eight hundred (800) feet unless accompanied by appropriate design and
computations demonstrating that the flow length is designed to be adequate to ensure the
stability of the slope and prevent or minimize erosion.
d. Surface water diversions. Surface water shall be diverted from the face of all cut and/or fill slopes
by the use of diversions, ditches and swales or conveyed downslope by using a designed structure.
The face of the slope shall not be subject to any concentrated flows of surface water such as from
natural drainage ways, graded swales, downspouts, or similar conveyances.
(§ 30.7.5, Ord. 14-18(2), 3-5-14)
State law reference— Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280(t), (2), 15.2-2286(Ax4).
30.7.6 AMENDMENT OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
The boundaries of the steep slopes overlay district, including any lands depicted as managed or preserved
slopes on the steep slopes overlay district map, or a slope's designation as preserved or managed, may be
amended by the board of supervisors under section 33. In order to remove any lands from the district, the
applicant shall submit, in addition to any information required by section 33, field run topography prepared
by a licensed engineer, surveyor or landscape architect demonstrating that the lands to be removed from the
district do not contain slopes of twenty-five (25) percent or greater.
(§ 30.7.6, Ord. 14-18(2), 3-5-14)
State law reference— Va. Code §§ 15.2-2280(t), (2), 15.2-2285, 15.2-2286(A)(4).
18-30-36
Zoning Supplement #84, 3-5-14
ATTACHMENT D
Stephanie Banton
From: David Hannah
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2019 5:06 PM
To: David Benish
Subject: Woods at Woolen Mills
David B,
Here's a short description of the small area of woods, based on an informal walk there on Friday, 2/8/19.
There is a good mixture of native trees in the canopy. Many trees are mature, but there area number of younger trees
as well. It was not possible to judge the health of the trees, though some mature trees have died in recent years. A
strong presence of grape vines (Vitis spp.) seems to be hampering the growth of some trees. The native species
included American holly, eastern red cedar, hackberry, boxelder and at least one other maple, black cherry, black locust,
flowering dogwood, and black (sweet) birch.
Two non-native canopy trees were present — a few trees of heaven (and a few dead ones) and one princess (or empress)
tree.
The understory is degraded and home to several non-native invasive species. Privet is abundant. Japanese honeysuckle,
English ivy, and multiflora rose are present. I am fairly certain that both wineberry and oriental bittersweet are present
as well.
Let me know of any questions, and if you need more information or description. I am happy to give scientific names of
the plants if that would help. Thanks,
David Hannah
Natural Resources Manager
Albemarle County
Community Development Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 296-5832 ext. 3325
dhannah@albemarle.ore
Stephanie Banton
From: David Hannah
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2019 5:06 PM
To: David Benish
Subject: Woods at Woolen Mills
David B,
Here's a short description of the small area of woods, based on an informal walk there on Friday, 2/8/19.
There is a good mixture of native trees in the canopy. Many trees are mature, but there area number of younger trees
as well. It was not possible to judge the health of the trees, though some mature trees have died in recent years. A
strong presence of grape vines (Vitis spp.) seems to be hampering the growth of some trees. The native species
included American holly, eastern red cedar, hackberry, boxelder and at least one other maple, black cherry, black locust,
flowering dogwood, and black (sweet) birch.
Two non-native canopy trees were present — a few trees of heaven (and a few dead ones) and one princess (or empress)
tree.
The understory is degraded and home to several non-native invasive species. Privet is abundant. Japanese honeysuckle,
English ivy, and multiflora rose are present. I am fairly certain that both wineberry and oriental bittersweet are present
as well.
Let me know of any questions, and if you need more information or description. I am happy to give scientific names of
the plants if that would help. Thanks,
David Hannah
Natural Resources Manager
Albemarle County
Community Development Department
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 296-5832 ext. 3325
dhannah@albemarle.ore
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
May 10, 2019
Tim Miller
C/O Meridain Planning Group, LLC
440 Premier Circle, Suite 200
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZNIA201800017 Woolen Mills Light Industrial Park
Dear Mr. Miller,
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 9, 2019, recommended approval, by
a vote of 5:2, of ZMA201800017 Woolen Mills Light Industrial Park Steep Slope Amendment, to rezone a
19,660 square foot area on TMP 07700-00-0040MO from Steep Slope -Preserved to Steep Slope -Managed
on the Steep Slope Overlay District Map, and as identified in the application plan found as Attachment B
of the staff report.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
David Benish
Chief of Planning
Planning Division
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
May 10, 2019
Tim Miller
C/O Meridain Planning Group, LLC
440 Premier Circle, Suite 200
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: ZNIA201800017 Woolen Mills Light Industrial Park
Dear Mr. Miller,
The Albemarle County Planning Commission, at its meeting on April 9, 2019, recommended approval, by
a vote of 5:2, of ZMA201800017 Woolen Mills Light Industrial Park Steep Slope Amendment, to rezone a
19,660 square foot area on TMP 07700-00-0040MO from Steep Slope -Preserved to Steep Slope -Managed
on the Steep Slope Overlay District Map, and as identified in the application plan found as Attachment B
of the staff report.
If you should have any questions or comments regarding the above noted action, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (434) 296-5832.
Sincerely,
David Benish
Chief of Planning
Planning Division
Albemarle County Planning Commission
April 9, 2019
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, April 9, 2019, at
6:00 p.m., at the county Office Building, Room 241, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia.
Members attending were Tim Keller, Chair; Julian Bivins; Jennie More; Daphne Spain; Bruce
Dotson; Pam Riley, Vice -Chair; Karen Firehock; and Luis Carrazana, UVA representative.
Other officials present were Leah Brumfield, Senior Planner; Amelia McCulley, Director of
Zoning/Zoning Administrator; David Benish, Interim Director of Planning; Rebecca Ragsdale,
Senior Planner; Kevin McCollum, Planner; Carolyn Shaffer, Clerk to Planning Commission and
Andy Herrick, Deputy County Attorney; and Stephanie Banton,
Call to Order and Establish Quorum
Mr. Keller, Chair, called the regular meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and established a quorum.
Public Hearing Items
ZMA201800017 Woolen Mills Light Industrial Park
Mr. Benish introduced the item, which was a proposal to amend the steep slopes overlay zoning
district to change the designation on a 19,000+ square feet area of steep slopes that are
designated as preserved slope.
Mr. Benish stated that the property is located on the corner of Franklin Street and Broadway
Street and is an industrially zoned property. He said there was a previous request for
amendments to the slope designations on the property. He added that the bullet he displayed
on the screen indicated that this was a request for one piece of slope on the property, and that
there are two other areas that would not be affected by this proposal.
Mr. Benish displayed a map of the site and said it was a map from the 2015 rezoning application
that showed the three areas that were under review at that time. He said Area A and Area B on
the map were not under consideration with this rezoning because there were not requests for
changes to those preserved slopes. He stated that the current request was for Area C, which is a
larger area than before. He said the map he had displayed showed about 27,000 square feet that
had been looked at in the previous proposal. He noted that the map showed several small green
areas which were determined not to be a 25 percent slope.
Mr. Benish indicated on the map the area that was being looked at with this rezoning. He said
the boundary for the property had expanded and he indicated where the new boundary was. He
said the map previously showed several small divots in that area and that the area being
requested for the change from preserved to managed slopes was approximately 19,600 square
feet.
Mr. Benish said the Comprehensive Plan recommended as Parks and Green Systems, an area
typically used with areas of natural resources or active parks, playgrounds, trails and other
proposed public spaces. He said a designation change was made in the 2015 Comprehensive Plan
in the Southern and Western master plan that was part of the adoption. Mr. Benish said the
change was made there because the property contains land that is in the flood plain of Moores
Creek. He said the Comprehensive Plan identified that if in the future there were different land
uses, that would be the recommendation for a rezoning.
Mr. Benish said the Master Plan also identified all critical slopes in the area and designated them
for protection, but he said the plan did not identify which slopes should be managed and which
should be preserved. He stated that it was his understanding that when the steep slopes
ordinance was adopted, it was not clear in the designation for this property that the slopes were
to be managed. He said the determination was made at a higher level. He said in some locations
it was known whether slopes were man-made, but in this case, staff did not know whether they
were or not.
Mr. Benish displayed the site on the map and said it was at the corner of Franklin Street and
Moores Creek Lane, which goes into the Moores Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. He also
showed the portion of the property that is within the flood plain.
Mr. Benish said that in the assessment of the slope area, staff had found that the slopes did have
characteristics of both managed and preserved slopes. He said in the ordinance, managed slopes
were ones that can be graded and developed upon, but there were certain design standards that
control how the development takes place. He said one of them is that retaining walls were
limited to six feet in height and another is that there were landscaping requirements for
replanting. He said two -to -one slopes are required for planted areas and if they were to be
regularly maintained or mowed three -to -one slopes would be required. Mr. Benish said there
were other technical requirements for bays and for containment of stormwater runoff.
Mr. Benish said that in evaluating the site, staff realized on a field visit that some of the slopes
designated as preserved were probably not 25 percent slopes. He said there was no field analysis
but the observation was based on walking in and seeing them. He said staff had a very general
ballpark of what the area was and said it was about 5,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet, but
that was an eyeballed figured based on the GIS system. He said it still had resulted in an area of
disturbance greater than 10,000 square feet in size.
Mr. Benish said staff found that most of the steep slopes were man-made and resulted from fill
from a railroad bed. He said staff did not know the exact source of the fill material. He said staff
was not sure if the slope contained cut -and -fill materials from the site, or whether some of it was
imported. He said it was likely a combination of both, but with a fair amount of imported
material. He said it was not a naturally occurring slope.
Mr. Benish said staff's assessment is that the slope area is unstable with a mixed quality of
vegetated cover. He said there had been some erosion and there was a lack of deep-rooted
vegetation that would protect the slope area.
Mr. Benish said the slope band, the length of area, ranged in size between 70 and 20 feet. He
said it was connected to other slope areas that abut streams, and those connections were by the
narrowest portion of the slopes but ranged in size of around 20 feet. He said the slope areas
ranged from 130 to 240 feet away from the Moores Creek floodplain.
Mr. Benish displayed a map showing the requested area of change, stating that it was a band that
was approximately 20 to 30 feet in width and that it connected to a critical slope system around
the treatment plant and the floodplain. He said he did not put the floodplain limits on the map
he was displaying but indicated it on the screen.
Mr. Benish displayed another map that showed the general area and said that by looking at it in
the field, staff found there were not 25 percent slopes within the area. He said there was not a
field run analysis but that staff felt fairly confident.
Mr. Benish displayed another map that showed the distances of the slopes from the floodplain.
He showed where the distance from the slopes to the floodplain limit was about 240 feet and
showed the closest point was about 20 feet.
Mr. Benish displayed a table with the actual criteria for the ordinance for evaluating whether the
designation of a slope should be managed or preserved. He said that was the rule of thumb
number used for preserved slopes is 10,000 square feet and said the subject property was over
10,000 square feet in area.
Mr. Benish said the fill slopes were not associated with abutting water features, such as rivers,
streams, reservoirs and ponds. He said that staff found that because of the distance and the
narrowness of the band that connected it to the other slopes abutting the flood plain, the subject
property was more disconnected section of preserved slopes. Mr. Benish said there were no hard
and fast rules in the ordinance that indicated what distances were right or wrong. He said
generally county staff looks at 100 feet for stream buffers or 200 feet in areas that were in the
water supply watershed. He said the subject slopes seemed to be in excess of 100 feet from the
flood plain .
Mr. Benish said the slopes were not natural but were manufactured. He said they were fill areas
that were primarily from construction of the railroad bed. He said the slopes were significantly
disturbed prior to 2012, a criteria that was used in the 2012 update of the ordinance.
Mr. Benish said the criteria for preserved slopes was contiguous areas of 10,000 square feet and
staff estimated the subject area were over 19,000 square feet and potentially more in the 14,000
to 15,000 square feet range. He said the slopes are identified for research protection in the
Comprehensive Plan and that the future land use recommendations are for Parks and Green
Space, with that designation made because of the continuation of the resources on the total 36
acres of the property.
Mr. Benish said staff had found that the slopes had characteristics of both preserved and
managed slopes. He said the characteristics were strong for preserved slopes given its size and
that it was connected to abutting floodplain, and because of the Comprehensive Plan
recommendation for open space. He said the primary characteristics for managed slopes were
that they were manmade slopes, and staff felt the slopes were poor to moderate quality and
relatively unstable. He said there was erosive activity and a lack of stability in the existing
vegetation.
Mr. Benish said staff's opinion was that the area is best served as being designated for managed
slopes and that the conditions for managed slopes could better address the development
conditions on the site, and staffs recommendation was approval of the request to managed
slopes.
Mr. Keller asked Commissioners if they had any questions of Mr. Benish before the public hearing
was opened.
Mr. Dotson said he had been confused about the Comprehensive Plan designation. He said at
one point it was designated as Parks and Greenspace, but at another it was indicated for
Industrial Service. Mr. Benish said that had been an error related to an effort to stay consistent
with a nearby rezoning on Franklin Street, and he had used that previous staff report as a basis
to keep the discussion points similar. He said that when that rezoning was approved, staff had
just adopted the Comprehensive Plan and it had changed the land use designation. Prior to the
2015 Comprehensive Plan, the land had been designated for Industrial Service. Mr. Benish said
he had failed to make the correction before it was initially advertised, and the accurate
designation was Parks and Greenspace.
Mr. Dotson noted that in another point of the staff report, it was stated the slopes review was
not related to a development proposal, but he understood through public comment that there
was an approved site plan. He asked for a slide showing the site plan and how these slopes would
fit in.
Mr. Benish said he could not find an electronic version of the site plan to upload because of
computer problems. He said there was an approved site plan for 113,000 square feet of building
area on the site, and he was not sure if he had a plan that showed the entire property but the
area that would be developed is the entire area not part of the preserved slopes. He said the plan
also had a road through the development, and he indicated where this was on the map. He said
there was a pad for development that came off of the Yves Delorme property that would access
this property.
Mr. Benish said the applicant has also submitted a major site plan amendment that showed
revisions, and the applicant could speak to that proposal. He said this was only the third rezoning
application after the steep slopes ordinance was updated. He said that from a staff perspective,
they had been trying to focus more on the criteria for how the ordinance was developed and
looking more on the merits of criteria rather than the development potential of what might
happen if the slopes were changed. He said staffs first step was to look at the criteria. Mr. Benish
noted that they had not asked for a lot of depth of analysis about the site. He said staff could get
further direction from the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors on how to address
future applications.
Ms. More asked if all of the 19,000 square feet area was recommended to be considered as
manufactured slopes, or if only a portion were manufactured. Mr. Benish said most were
manufactured but there were some areas that were based on natural topography or old changes
to the land, and the tight bands on the map were those associated with the fill area. He said the
volume of the fill is high, as the slopes were tall because they were stacked for the railroad. He
indicated on the map where the areas believed to be natural and that they were borderline
around 25 percent. He said he did not want people to see the 25 percent figure as a hard science
number, and they came up with that number as a ballpark. He said the area was above the
10,000-square-feet threshold that is one of the criteria.
Ms. Riley asked a question about the characteristics of preserved slopes. She said that the second
criteria was that the slopes were part of a system of slopes associated with abutting water
features. She asked for the definition of "associated with." Mr. Benish said there was not a fine-
tuned definition, but it could relate to distance or the significance of the linkage. He said that was
the gray area in the analysis. He said the system of slopes was connected to another system of
slopes that did abut the flood plain. He said they could be "associated with" by that definition,
but there was a break in the critical slopes. He said that in staffs judgment, they were not
abutting but there was no clear guidance on what "associated" meant, and that was a work in
progress.
Ms. More asked for clarification that the approved site plan does include the area in question.
Mr. Benish responded that the site plan included all the preserved slopes being maintained —
preserved and undeveloped. He said because the slopes could not be used under the ordinance,
the applicant had put open space and forest easements as a way to manage stormwater
requirements, and there are easements for the areas that are preserved slopes. He said if the
applicant were to buy additional offsite credits, they may not need the easements and could
abandon them. He said the site plan shows them undeveloped and protected as preserved
slopes.
Ms. More asked for clarification about an item in the staff report that said slopes had been
preserved by a prior county action. She said it was not a county action that showed the slopes as
preserved, but rather the site plan that indicated they would be preserved.
Mr. Benish said that was a tough one for him to grasp and that there were easements on them
that protected the slopes because they were unusable areas that need to be preserved. He said
the applicant took advantage of the fact they could not be used and placed preserved slopes on
them. He said if it were determined that they should be managed, they would have the option to
do something else and they could eliminate those easements. He said those were not easements
put on for conservation purposes to protect cultural resources or a stream buffer but utilized to
address stormwater management regulations. He said it was like a person had been convicted of
a crime but the DNA exonerated them, but the judge then stated the guilty verdict still has to be
taken into consideration. Mr. Benish said he had to take into account the easements because
they were designated as preserved.
Ms. More asked for clarification for the action taken in 2015. She said the staff report had
indicated that there were 27,731 square feet that had been part of the 2015 request that were
denied but were not part of this. She asked if that was what was considered as the prior county
action.
Mr. Benish responded that staff's assessment had been based on the general map without
looking at the rest of the area in great detail. He also said the staff report stated that further
information and analysis of the area would be needed to make a finding but because it was shown
as preserved, those areas should be treated as such. He said staff took it that the 19,000 square
feet request was a new request.
Mr. Keller asked Ms. Taylor if there was something about the timer for the public hearing.
Ms. Taylor replied that there were three minutes for the public and that at 30 seconds before the
end, the yellow light would go off and the red light would go on at the end of that time. She said
the applicant would have 10 minutes.
Mr. Keller opened the public hearing and invited the applicant to approach the podium.
Mr. Kevin O'Brien introduced himself and said he was one of the partners developing the site. He
said they were hoping and have a site plan to build a series of pad sites that end users could buy
and build upon to place businesses in a light industrial zone. He said they had a site plan that
worked around the preserved slopes and likened the plan to a jigsaw puzzle. He said it would be
more efficient if they did not have to preserve the slopes in question. He said they were
committed to preserving the slopes around the edges and that the site had a ton of green space
and more than any other on the Broadway light industrial corridor.
Mr. O'Brien said that he was hoping the Planning Commission would agree that the community
zoned this land for light industrial because there was a need for a place for light industry to
happen. He said the community elected to make an ordinance that said naturally occurring slopes
steeper than 25 percent should be preserved and if the Planning Commission recommended
approval of this zoning amendment, both of those things would be exactly true.
Mr. O'Brien said the main points were hit in the staff report and the application letter. He said
the slopes were built as a railway siding and it was not naturally occurring. He said it was a green
space but there was no significant timber but instead there were invasive species. He said in
reading the ordinance, he felt preserving the land would not further the purposes of the steep
slopes ordinance. He said it would be a squiggle of land in a light industrial park where zoning
permits buildings. He said he hoped the Commission would see the application as correcting an
error where the slope was preserved when the ordinance was updated. He said the county
looked at a lot of land in a short period of time but boots on the ground showed that the slopes
were manmade and a lot of the land is not 25 percent. He said the by -right zoning all around it
makes it not contribute to the stormwater management because everything is going to be curbed
and guttered.
Mr. O'Brien said if the amendment were approved, the countywould have a light industrial parcel
that was being used and there would be no naturally occurring slopes that would be disturbed.
Mr. Bivins invited members of the public to speak to the matter and read the rules for speaking.
Mr. Travis Pietila of the Southern Environmental Law Center said he hoped the Commission had
received the written comments. He thanked Mr. Benish for meeting with him and other SELC
staffers to discuss the proposal and visit the site. He said he appreciated the updated analysis
provided by staff before the public hearing, he said there was some key points in which SELC
disagreed.
Mr. Pietila said a similar proposal was brought for this site in 2015 and at that time, staff
evaluated a portion of the same slopes and had recommended keeping them in the preserved
category. He said as far as the SELC could tell, the only change since then related to the county's
ordinance was that the slopes were determined to be manmade. Mr. Pietila said when it came
to erosion and runoff impacts that disturbing the slopes could have on Moores Creek, it made
little difference to how the slopes were formed.
Mr. Pietila said the other obvious change was that the applicant had begun clearing and grading
in the areas of the site around the slopes. He said the SELC urged Commissioners to not let that
influence their decision fortwo main reasons. First, he said doing so would encourage developers
to disturb sites to improve their chances of getting slopes re -designated. Second, he said it was
not relevant to the factors outlined in the ordinance to guide the county's review of preserved
and managed slopes.
Mr. Pietila said the SELC believed that to the extent to which the preserved slopes criteria was
met for this application is reflected in the staff report. He said of the four preserved slope factors
that staff had found to apply, two of them are related to how the slopes are designated in the
Comprehensive Plan and had been answered by a qualified yes in the staff report. He said the
SELC saw no need for qualification and that the slopes were clearly designated and called out for
preservation in a number of ways in the Southern and Western Neighborhood's master plan,
including a specific call to preserve steep slope systems adjacent to Moores Creek. Mr. Pietila
also said that SELC believed that two factors staff had said did not apply should be counted in the
YES column. He said the currently approved site plan designated the slopes for preservation
under forest and open space easement, which seemed to clearly satisfy the factor related to
slopes being preserved by a previous county action.
Mr. Pietila said the slopes were part of a system that extended from Broadway into the Moores
Creek floodplain which should qualify them as slopes associated with a water feature. He noted
that the criteria did not refer to a system of steep slopes. He said in SELC's view, the slopes clearly
met five of the seven criteria for preserved slopes under the ordinance. He said the preserved
designation should not be taken lightly and should not be given short shrift based on the slopes
being manmade or ongoing grading activities occurring elsewhere on the site.
Ms. Robin Hanes of 1709 East Market Street in Charlottesville said she was part of the community
response to the owners' efforts to re -designate zoning at an earlier time. She said the community
gathered in large numbers to try to dissuade them from doing that in the past. She said it was
too bad that it had come back up. She said she believed the slopes did interact with each other
to make an important protection of the way the water drains in the area. Ms. Hanes said the
slopes were steep and they might have some manmade element to them but the whole area had
been totally manipulated. She said to stir up what had been fought for as protection for the way
the water drains in the area seemed like an ongoing fight that the community, a hilly community,
was forced to revisit too often.
Ms. Hanes said builders don't seem to believe it but that trees were needed to slow rainwater
down, soak water up and cool the climate. She said if this was an area where there was less tree
growth because the soil was bad, the soil could be improved. She said the land still needed to
protect the water. She asked the Commission to recommend not changing the zoning because
the builder had totally reconfigured so much of the lot. She asked the builder to use a planning
technique that sought balance rather than filling in every inch with buildings and pavement.
Mr. Bill Emory of 1604 East Market Street in Charlottesville said he hoped the Commission would
strongly recommend retaining the preserved slopes for all slopes on the property. He said in the
five years since the steep slopes overlay zoning district was adopted, the status of the slopes on
the Franklin Street hills has been challenged twice. He said the hillside was being threatened a
second time despite the existence of an approved site plan for the construction of 113,000 square
feet of light industrial space on the site. He said that site plan respected all existing preserved
slope areas.
Mr. Emory said at the time of the Commission's discussion of this property in May 2015, it was
well known by the presenting planner J.T. Newberry that the slopes in Area C continued onto the
adjacent crescent -shaped lot then owned by Yves Delorme. He said that it was known and stated
by Mr. Newberry at the time that the railway siding existed and yet the recommendation was to
retain the managed designation because it met the majority of the criteria shown in the
ordinance. Mr. Emory asked what had changed. He said that there were many defined preserved
slopes in the county that have been augmented by human agency on which the preserved
designation has been kept. He asked why these slopes should be the exception. He said planning
and vision could make Albemarle better for all of its residents.
Mr. Emory said during the 100 year existence of the Woolen Mills as a going concern, there was
no Comprehensive Plan but a vision that industry could improve the life of residents and that
happy residents were good for industry. He said that was a time before Euclidean zoning and that
the Woolen Mills village was an example of new urbanism before the term existed, with work,
residences and recreation woven all together. He said this was an enduring vision that was
beginning to return as seen in the designation of this hillside in the Comprehensive Plan as being
Parks and Green Systems.
Mr. Emory said we were in an architectural epic which sees bottom -line structures of steel
buildings constructed on slabs. He said on the outside they were hard to read and lack
fenestration, and they floated in expanses of asphalt. He said it was ironic that we have the
knowledge of global warming but are still building Euclidean industrial neighborhoods that no
one would want to inhabit and that no one would want to reuse. He said he could imagine a
hillside village that allowed light industry but also allowed second -floor tenancy for those who
ran the businesses.
Mr. Emory said it was the time to implement the vision of the Southern and Western
Neighborhood Master Plan and time to build places worth caring about.
Mr. Mark Kavit of Charlottesville said he wanted to echo what the previous speakers had said.
He asked why it was needed to make changes to the property as far as the slopes and taking
down the trees. He said it seemed to him that the trees helped stabilize the land and to redo it
could make erosion worse. He said even the manmade parts had been there for many decades.
He said he was concerned about how close this was to the flood plain of Moores Creek.
Mr. Kavit said that in January of this year, there was a steep slope off of Avon Street going into
5`h Street and he wanted the Commission to know that there had been a collapse of the approved
slope that slid down into the road bed that had to be built back up. He said he talked to a person
who had built that hill and that person said it was way too high and steep. He said that was a
manmade slope approved by the county that slide down in three locations after heavy rains.
Mr. Lonnie Murray of 5643 Sugar Ridge Road in Albemarle County said there were two
precedents that he found disturbing. He said he was present when the decision was made to
separate land into preserved and managed slopes. He said that was a hard-fought collaboration
between environmentalists and developers to come up with that solution. Mr. Murray said the
deal had been that preserved meant preserved. He said the preserved slopes in this case were
getting a lot of attention because there was development potential and there was scrutiny on
whether they were manmade and thus should not be preserved. He said there were a lot of areas
around Fontaine that are natural slopes that should have been listed as preserved that got listed
as managed. He said if there was to be a reevaluation of slopes, this reevaluation should be on a
larger scale and not done piece -meal.
Mr. Murray said the other thing that troubled him is that there was a conservation easement on
the property. He said he sat on a board that managed conservation easements specifically for
stormwater. He said easements are supposed to be permanent and last forever. He said if the
county were to vacate the easement, it would set a terrible precedent. He said if there was a
local mitigation bank for stormwater, that might be different. He said stormwater credits would
be purchased well outside the region.
Mr. Murray said both the Rivanna and Moores Creek had an active TMDL on them for
contamination so anything that happens in the area must make conditions better and not worse.
He said this should be the ultimate criteria. He said there should be things done like managing
invasive species, planting native plants and improving stormwater conditions. He said that does
not seem like what was being proposed.
Mr. John Frazee of 1404 East Market Street in the Woolen Mills neighborhood which he said was
uniquely positioned to include both the city and the county. He said he was excited about the
development that was happening at the Woolen Mill and was glad that the namesake for the
community was going to be renovated in a meaningful and respectful way that is adherent to the
regulations there to make sure things were done in a way that supports both the economic and
the possibility that the landmark is something that would be revived and looked upon people as
a model. He said that when he looked at what is going in the steep slopes designation, both in
2015 and in 2019, he said he recognized that the value of the property had probably increased
quite a bit due to the Woolen Mills development.
Mr. Frazee said the environmental impact of changing the designation was still the same in 2019.
He said the very nature of modifying these things was based on criteria that could be considered,
but he said he was concerned about all of the development that could occur in the area. He said
there was much potential but if there was not a meaningful respect for previous decisions, it
could be very dangerous. Referring to Mr. Benish's comments about DNA evidence, he said this
could condemn the steep slopes.
Mr. Sean Tubbs of the Piedmont Environmental Council said if this community were to succeed
in growing in a smart way, it will require true collaboration between the city of Charlottesville
and Albemarle County. He said that spirit of cooperation was embodied in many ways, such as
the memorandums of understanding between the city and the county recently signed. Mr. Tubbs
said he was disappointed that the application before the Commission did not live up to the
standard of that spirit of cooperation and he wanted to explain why.
Mr. Tubbs said this piece of land was in a critical location for both the city and the county. He
said he did not have a specific recommendation on the slopes designation, but it was crucial to
remind the Commission of some of the previous planning that had happened at the site and
previous cooperation. He said the higher aspirations of planning must be implemented
application by application.
Mr. Tubbs said there was a similar rezoning for this land in 2015 and as part of that rezoning
there had been a joint meeting with the Charlottesville Planning Commission. He noted that Mr.
Keller was at that meeting but Ms. Firehock had been absent. He said there been turnover. He
said three of the City Planning Commissioners at that time are still on that and that it would have
been interesting to know what they thought of this proposal, and to be informed by the possible
impacts that would come with more intense development at the site. He noted that the map
being displayed indicated the location of a trailer park on the Charlottesville side of the border,
and that those trailers were likely not long for this world given all the changes that had occurred
in the area since 2015.
Mr. Tubbs said he was concerned that the Character of the Area section of the staff report did
not indicate any substantial changes between the staff report from 2015 and 2019. He offered
several examples of what changes had occurred, such as Charlottesville rezoning land at the
former H.T. Ferron Plant and that 150 residential units are proposed for that location. He said
Albemarle had adopted the economic development strategic plan which called for an economic
development planning exercise for the area called the Broadway Blueprint. Other changes
included the signing of the MOU's, the Woolen Mills redevelopment and the Thomas Jefferson
Planning District Commission's completion of the first phase of the Rivanna River Plan.
Mr. Tubbs said there was a lot of intense activity in the area and both communities must be
working together because without communication there would be distrust. He said the only way
to get to the parcels in the county were through the city so making sure there would be
coordination would be a good thing. He asked why there had been no joint meeting scheduled
with the Planning Commission, stating that there had not been a joint meeting since October
2016 and he hoped one would be scheduled in the near future.
Mr. Keller invited Mr. O'Brien to come back up for a summary.
Mr. O'Brien said there were a few points made that he wanted to address. He said there was a
lot of difference between this plan and 2015. He said there were different owners and that his
group was not the one that put forward that plan. That plan had involved entrance and egress
off of Franklin Street and removing all of the buffer between the zone and the residential zone.
He said the former plan had involved blasting and building one large 60,000 square foot
warehouse. He said the current plan preserves all of the naturally occurring slopes on Broadway,
Franklin, and on Moores Creek Lane.
Mr. O'Brien stated that they would only enter through the areas that do not require disturbing
the slopes, and the current plan was terraced as opposed to being flat, meaning they will work
with the contours of the land. He said the land was perhaps best suited for an idyllic vision of a
village where you can live and work, but this town and county has designated it for light industrial
and they bought it because it had that designation. He said that they had moved forward in good
faith to make the best plan to develop that as a resource for the city and to make a living and to
preserve the character of the hillside. They had studied the plan before and found problems with
it so they did not put it forward.
Mr. O'Brien noted that Mr. Emory had mentioned that the village of Woolen Mills was created
because there was light industry in the region and Belmont was created for the same reason. He
said it would be good for the county and the city to have more places close in where people can
have light industrial sites so people can walk to work. He said on the whole this property being
efficiently developed might prevent sprawl and people having to do work on land that is currently
pristine and rural. He said he understood that everyone loves trees and that the site would be
five acres under development and nine acres under development. He said the land was a strip of
borrowed material and gravel that was dumped there by the railroad that had a bunch of weeds
growing on it. He said after all the by -right development was completed, this land would not
better function than all the other preserved slopes below it. He said the county's rules required
him to put curb and gutter all around it.
Mr. O'Brien said the environmental impact of removing the slope would be close to zero if not
nil. With regard to a comment about the visual impact, the land would not be visible from
anywhere. He said if the slopes were recognized as a railroad embankment at the time the
ordinance was created, they would have been designated as critical slopes.
Mr. Keller asked Commissioners if they had questions.
Mr. Dotson said that it was a fact that there was an approved site plan he asked Mr. O'Brien if he
would develop that plan if this rezoning were not granted, Mr. O'Brien responded. Mr. Dotson
asked Mr. O'Brien how he thought it might be a better decision to approve the rezoning and what
improvements that would bring.
Mr. O'Brien responded that it would eliminate retaining walls that are required at the base and
top of those slopes. He said the grades of the whole park would be gentler and there would be
less travel way to get around the area meaning less pavement. He said there would be better
circulation in the site which would make it more useful to the industry that hoped to locate there.
Mr. Dotson asked what benefits would come from having the site be terraced. He asked if it was
because of a line of preserved slopes. He asked if it would be turned into a larger pad if it was not
terraced.
Mr. O'Brien said the railroad dropped gravel on an existing slope. He demonstrated how that was
a 25 percent steep slope. He said because the land was a hill, it would still be terraced. He said
the site plan did not show blasting and level the slopes as the previous plan had done. He said
their plan has different elevations at different levels. He said terracing would allow for there to
be more efficient use of the land so they could build more buildings with less or the same impact.
He said it was a win -win.
Mr. Dotson asked if the rezoning would allow more buildings.
Mr. O'Brien responded that it would.
Ms. More noted that the applicant had owned the land when the original site plan was approved,
and she wanted to understand why this was not an issue then and why this had come back.
Mr. O'Brien said the site had been heavily wooded and covered in brambles. He said the maps
had told them they would not be able to design anything on a preserved slope and they agreed
with that. He said when they got the building and grading permits, they began to clear the land
and discovered railroad ties indicating it had been a railroad on a sliver of manmade slope. He
said they went to the county and broke the site plan into two phases and that they had proceeded
with phase one.
Mr. O'Brien said if the rezoning was not approved, he would proceed with building the site plan
on record but if it was approved, they would build something better.
Ms. More said it struck her as odd that the railroad bed wasn't noticed prior to any moving of
dirt going on.
Mr. O'Brien responded that they noticed the railroad bed when they were clearing and grubbing
the site. He said this had been a long process. He said they had to find a way to keep working.
Ms. Spain noted that a member of the public had said there was a conservation easement on the
property.
Mr. O'Brien said that was a misnomer and that county rules allowed developers to offset the
impervious area that would be put down by putting open space easements on areas that would
be left green. He said when they put in the site plan, they weren't allowed to clear and grub until
the site plan was approved. He said it made sense to put the land under an open space easement
because if not they would have had to have spent money to do something offsite. He said he
believed in keeping the preserved slopes as preserved.
Mr. Keller closed the public hearing.
Mr. Dotson asked Mr. Herrick about the question of vacating easements and a statement had
been made that easements were for perpetuity.
Mr. Herrick said the applicant had stated that the term open space easement was a misnomer.
Mr. Herrick said the exact terms of the easement had not been presented to his office but if this
a stormwater based forest open space easement, that would be a different animal then the
typical conservation easement. He said the application did not affect that open space easement
and that is why it has not been discussed or before the Commission.
Mr. Dotson asked if the county would hold the easement.
Mr. Benish said the engineering department would review the plans and receive them. He said
they would need to achieve certain requirements from the ordinance to attain stormwater
approval. He said those could be done on -site or done with off -site credits. He said part of that
factor is to preserve open space areas. He said this easement is established with an agreement
with the engineering department. He said they could be revised if alternatives were approved.
Mr. Dotson asked if there would be a tax benefit with the open space easement as in with a
conservation easement. Mr. Benish said the stormwater management plan would need to be
amended to the satisfaction of the county engineer. He said he believed there was a clause that
allowed for adjustments of the easements.
Ms. Spain asked when the Comprehensive Plan designation had been changed to Parks and Green
Systems.
Mr. Benish said it had happened in 2015 along with adoption of the Southern and Western
Neighborhood Plans. He said the recommendation was embedded in that master plan.
Ms. Firehock said she had various credentials including being a certified erosion control inspector,
degrees and experience in natural resources management. She said her expertise is in water
quality stream buffer management, and so on. She said when looking at the site, the Commission
should look at the purpose of the preserved slopes ordinance. She stated it was to protect the
integrity of the landscape, to prevent erosion and to protect water quality.
Ms. Firehock said someone in the audience had stated that it did not matter how the slopes were
formed and they should be protected. She said she could agree with that to some degree but in
this case, she had seen tremendous amounts of bare soil on the site. She said she had pictures
showing all of the exposed soil. She said it was unsolidated rough fill and had been a railroad bed.
She said the problem with the material was the instability and that a native tree planted on the
slope would give way because it would be like planting in a pile of gravel.
Ms. Firehock said the slope was eroding rapidly at a high rate because it is steep due to artificial
construction. She said it was made of poor rubble and dump material that did not have any
cohesion in place.
Ms. Firehock said if the objective was to protect the water quality of Moores Creek, the best thing
would be to disturb and stabilize it by taking outthe unnatural and improperfill material, planting
it with native soil, and then planting it to stay in place so that the end result would result in a
better condition. She noted that the area did have hackberry trees, native species with
tremendous wildlife value. Ms. Firehock said these were also not trees you would want in a
developed site because they spread their limbs into open space and the berries drop. She said
the hackberry was not suitable for this site.
Ms. Firehock said she did not find that the site was supporting a diversity of native species, was
not natural, and did not possess integrity.
With regard to a comment about surveying all of the land under the ordinance for a more
accurate map, Ms. Firehock said that with a 721 square mile county, it was not possible to do a
full field survey of all of that land. She said these kinds of applications would come up again. She
said if it was a manmade slope that took on characteristics of a preserved slope and was stable,
she would be leaning in the other direction. She said in this case, the Rivanna River and Moores
Creek would be better served by reconstructing the slope.
Ms. Riley asked Ms. Firehock if she thought the slopes had more characteristics of a managed
slope.
Ms. Firehock responded they were absolutely manmade and that you could see the railroad bed.
She said she had picked up coal from the site. She said groundhogs on the site had helped with a
soil profile by digging pits and throwing material out around their dens. The material was the
same material as on the top.
Ms. Spain said she agreed approving the soil would be the best outcome but that was not the
decision before the Commission. They were faced with either allowing the development to
proceed or not.
Ms. Firehock said that under the managed slope ordinance, it would not take them out of any
slopes designation. She asked Mr. Benish what happened when a slope was changed from
preserved to managed.
Mr. Benish said there were design standards and once it was designated as managed, the
developer would have to meet certain design standards for retaining walls, which have to be
terraced at a maximum height of six feet. He said the cuts and fills need to be two percent slope
and vegetated with shade trees. He said if the slopes were to be regularly maintained and
mowed, the slopes would have be three -to -one slopes. He said the slopes associated with the
railroad were in the range on one and a half to one slopes.
Ms. Firehock said that meant they were extremely steep. Mr. Benish agreed.
Mr. Benish said there were also certain criteria for how the bottoms of the fill slopes would come
together in cut and fill areas. He said there had to be a ten foot separation and that there were
requirements for reverse slope benches for drainage purposes.
Mr. Benish said under a preserved slope, the developer would have to leave the slopes alone
except remove dead species.
Ms. Spain asked how given conditions of the managed slope, how could that be converted to
buildable land.
Mr. Benish said that it would allow them to adjust the slope and regrade it. He said reconstruction
standards create sound replacements.
Ms. Firehockfurther described the conditions of the existing slopes and said the developer would
need to reduce the steepness of the slope. She said the existing slopes are not stable and are
contributing to erosion.
Ms. More asked for clarification that if it were to stay preserved, there could be no changes. She
said there had been a comment about retaining walls and asked under what scenario that would
happen.
Mr. Benish said if it remained preserved, retaining walls would be built up to where the preserved
slopes are designated, but the slopes themselves could not be touched except for minimal
maintenance.
Mr. Bivins thanked Ms. Firehock for her expertise and knowledge on the subject. He also thanked
everyone who sent in letters with concern. He said he aligned himself with Commissioner
Firehock and believed the slopes should be moved from a preserved slopes to a managed slopes.
He said when he visited the site it felt like an abandoned piece of property with tires, concrete
and other things that had been thrown away. He said the owner had no sense whether the land
had been preserved, not preserved, or managed.
Mr. Bivins said if the property were left like this, it would continue to be a place where people
would dispose of unwanted items. He said it is a railroad bed that looked like it had been
abandoned. He said the ground felt soft and unstable and did not feel like it was a place that
would ensure being left to its own care.
Mr. Bivins said if the county is trying to recreate a space that is open for economic development
then leaving the space unchanged would not add to the economics and the livelihood of the
community. He said many people calling for the designation to remain the same might be
surprised and disappointed about how the strip of land would look if preserved.
Ms. More asked about the question of whether changing the designation would set a precedent.
She said when she looked at the charts, regardless of how attractive or stable the slopes were,
staff had provided boxes to check. She said she would argue that under preserved slopes, there
were boxes she and others would have checked. She asked staff for advice when developers
come forward in the future and insist their slopes should remain preserved.
Mr. Herrick said each rezoning is site specific and in cases where the question is managed versus
preserved slopes and in each case the Commission looks at characteristics of individual sites. Mr.
Herrick said Mr. Benish included within his staff report and his presentation a checklist that
analyzed the specifics of this site. Mr. Herrick said it may be helpful for future applicants to look
back and see past decisions that have been made but every site is unique as to whether it was
created by humans or was naturally occurring. He said the precedential value is limited.
Ms. More said that was part of the reason why she was conflicted, and she appreciated the points
about what would be preserved if it stayed in the preserved category but said she felt all of this
was part of a bigger contiguous area. She said she echoed public comments that had been made
that maybe partners that could have been brought in to weigh in. She said staff had done a good
job but she said there were some stakeholders present who had strong opinions. She said she
was not an expert on whether this was better for the stream or if it should be left the way it is.
She said there were people she would have liked to have heard more from.
Ms. Riley thanked Ms. Firehock for her site visit which she said leant validation to the staff report.
She said she thought the finding she was hearing is that overall its was manmade and that it was
not stable. Ms. Riley said she was struggled in the staff report with this being a judgment call
about what the quality of the slope, specifically related to soil conditions, stability and the
usefulness in storm runoff. Ms. Riley said she was convinced these were not stable slopes and
she agreed with Ms. Firehock that the Commission should move to relabel them as managed
slopes.
Mr. Keller said his initial response from the site visit was the same as Ms. Firehock's. He said he
has wrestled with this because of the concern of whether this would set a precedent. He said
there had been another slopes application at the last meeting and the public reviewed the
vegetation and the hydrology because they are all related.
Mr. Keller repeated a previous comment from another meeting that staff and the Commission
needed to talk with Supervisors about how to proceed with the ordinance now that there have
been a couple of applications. He said the county is better off with a steep slopes ordinance but
that these applications are showing up more often.
Mr. Keller said that if the Commission had seen the site plan for the whole site and saw how there
could be other solutions to this modification of the contours that could possibly have remediated
or possibly better answered some of the questions that have been heard from the public related
to hydrology and vegetation. He said that approach would have been preferable. He said the fact
that the Commission did not have the site plan has been an area of question since Mr. Dotson
brought it up.
Mr. Keller said managed slopes can have cultural resource value that was significant, and that
could even conceivably even be the case with this application. He said there could be a working
of a trail that was at grade, but it got all convoluted because of the way these applications are
worded right now.
Mr. Keller said he thought these slopes were managed and could be reworked and the design
can give a better solution to the hydrology and the vegetation on site than leaving them
preserved.
On the subject of precedent, Mr. Dotson said he recalled a time when the county adopted for the
development area preserved and managed slopes, it had been pointed out that this was GIS level
for prevision and it was expected people would come forward if they had better information. He
said this was a good precedent to examine in greater depth.
Ms. Spain said she valued Ms. Firehock's expertise, but she was sympathetic to the resident who
said he thought it had been settled in 2015 and with people who wanted the Comprehensive Plan
designation of Park and Green System, even though it wasn't zoned that way. She emphasized
that it was difficult for people to understand the difference between the Comprehensive Plan
and zoning, and there had been neighborhood engagement with the proposal — so people in the
neighborhood who may have gone to the site review thought that this had been settled.
Ms. Spain stated that if they decided tonight to change it from preserved to managed, she felt
that it would make it hard for the public to trust the government. She said that when they were
in the situation, they needed to be aware that they needed more educational effort to say how
the managed slopes could be improved over the preserved slopes — and Ms. Firehock had done
that. Ms. Spain added that there may be pushback from people who thought it was a settled
issue and thought they had contributed to the Comprehensive Plan — but now the Commission
was doing something contrary to that.
Ms. More commented that with the 2015 request, there was 2,700 square feet of the current
request that was part of the previous request that was denied, and it had been noted that the
field run topography had shown portions of these areas as less than 25 percent grade, it was
difficult to know if that was a more comprehensive characteristic within the system as observed
in Area A, or if it was indicative of only minor modifications along the edges of the system as
observed in Area B.
Ms. More said that without additional information, staff found it appropriate to maintain the
preserved slopes, and that perhaps should have been a catalyst for them to look at it more
closely. She stated that the applicant had not provided more detailed field run information for
this area, which she would have liked to see, so there was no specific measurement of area. She
added that she appreciated Ms. Firehock's input, but there could have been more information
provided and she was wasn't sure if this addressed just the steep slope issue or the stability of
the entire piece in question.
Mr. Benish responded that it was primarily regarding the amount of steep slopes, and the
additional information was requested by staff and could have been provided by the applicant. He
said that after their analysis of the site, staff felt it was a little less essential in this case than in
others — and as a general rule, the county strongly encouraged as much assessment as possible
by the applicant.
Ms. More stated that with the language provided after 2015, it was a bit misleading to members
of the community who participated in that — and it was unfortunate to have it be part of staff's
finding at the time but now be revisited.
Ms. Riley moved to recommend approval of ZMA 2018-17 Woolen Light Industrial Park Steep
Slopes Amendment to rezone a 19,660-square-foot area from steep slopes preserved to steep
slopes managed on the steep slopes overlay district map and as identified in the application plan
found as Attachment B of the staff report. Mr. Bivins seconded the motion.
Ms. Firehock suggested adding a clause that as designs for the managed slopes were developed,
consideration should be given to use of native hardwood species and native plants.
Ms. More stated that she would not support the application, partly because she did not know if
the Commission could require that. She said that she also felt there were community partners
and stakeholders who could have helped and may have arrived at a different conclusion.
Mr. Benish said that the best way to treat the condition would be a recommendation to move
forward, and that would be brought to the Board of Supervisors and allow staff in the meantime
to get with the applicant to see if they wanted to make an adjustment to their rezoning. He said
that if they took this as a recommendation moving forward, as part of the action recommending
approval, staff will get with the applicant and county attorney and see how it should be codified.
Mr. Bivins expressed uneasiness about opening every decision up to an outside public hearing,
and if he were a property owner that had received a lot of input, he might be inclined to leave it
as a preserved slope and do nothing. He stated that the motion going forward would help
mitigate damage to the environment while also talking about what kind of planting should be
there — so there would be a net benefit from the community as opposed to a potential owner
not doing anything. Mr. Bivins emphasized that this meeting is part of the public engagement,
and he found the letters received to be extremely helpful.
Ms. Firehock pointed out that there was still a water protection ordinance in place, regardless.
Mr. Bivins agreed that it was still there, but if this had taken place in their offices, they wouldn't
have had the conversation happening now. He emphasized that the water would still be
protected, and the applicant would still have to have the conservation easement. He stated that
the developer now knows there are many people expecting the project to need a different level
of care, which may not have happened if they had said they were leaving it as is.
Ms. Firehock responded that her issue was whether the slope was part of a system of slopes
associated with or abutting a water feature, and they do not have an exact measurement of that
— so given the issue of the impaired water stream and confluence with Rivanna, she would have
liked to have heard more from the groups that were working to improve the quality of the
streams.
Ms. Spain commented that there are excellent groups in the community with great knowledge,
but not everyone who wrote a letter to the Commission stood on the slope and looked at the
rate of erosion. She said that they could revisit the conversation as they got more survey data
and more information.
Ms. Firehock said that her only point was that there was a missed opportunity for people to go
onsite, as well as possible interaction with the City.
Mr. Keller stated that he agreed with Ms. FirehocWs points, and obviously steep slopes with this
and EcoVillage have risen high on the list, so under New Business he would be making that
recommendation.
The motion carried 4-2, with Ms. More and Ms. Spain dissenting.
ORDINANCE NO. 19-A(
ZMA 2018-00017
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING MAP
FOR TAX MAP PARCEL 07700-00-00-040B0
WHEREAS, the application to rezone .45 acres (19,660 square feet) of preserved slopes to managed slopes
within the Steep Slopes Overlay District on Tax Parcel 07700-00-00-040BO is identified as ZMA 2018-00017 Woolen
Mills light Industrial Park, Steep Slope Amendment ("ZMA 2018-00017"); and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2019, after a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended approval of ZMA 2018-00017; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2019, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors held a duly noticed public
hearing on ZMA 2018-00017.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Albemarle, Virginia, that upon
consideration of the transmittal summary and staff report prepared for ZMA 2018-00017 and their attachments,
including the revised Application Plan, the information presented at the public hearing, any written comments
received, the material and relevant factors in Virginia Code § 15.2-2284 and County Code § 18-30.7, and for the
purposes of public necessity, convenience, general welfare and good zoning practices, the Board hereby approves
ZMA 2018-00017 with the Application Plan entitled "ZMA 201800017, Zoning Map Amendment for Woolen Mills
Light Industrial Park, TMP 07700-00-00-040B0," prepared by Meridian Planning Group, LLC, 440 Premier Circle,
Ste 200, Charlottesville, VA 22901," dated December 17, 2018.
I, Claudette K. Borgersen, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of an Ordinance duly
adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of to as recorded below,
at a regular meeting held on
Clerk, Board of County Supervisors
AYe- Nay
Mr. Dill
Mr. Gallaway
Ms. Mallek
Ms. McKeel
Ms. Palmer
Mr. Randolph