HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201100010 Request of Modification, Variance, Waiver 2012-08-09 (8)SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO DISTURB CRITICAL SLOPES
The applicant has submitted a request and justification for a special exception to disturb critical slopes.
(See Attachment 1) Staff has analyzed this request to address the provisions of the Ordinance. The
request has been reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning aspects of the critical slopes
regulations. Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth- disturbing activity on critical slopes,
while Section 4.2.5 (a) establishes the criteria by which a request to disturb critical slopes is evaluated.
Under Section 31.8 (b), the Board must consider the factors, standards, criteria, and findings delineated
in Section 4.2.5 (a), but it is not required to make specific finds in support of its decision.
The critical slopes in the area of this request are man -made, resulting from the development of the
Shopper's World shopping center. Staff has reviewed this waiver request with consideration for the
concerns that are set forth in Section 4.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, entitled "Critical Slopes." These
concerns have been addressed directly through the analysis provided herein, which is presented in two
parts, based on the Section of the Ordinance to which each pertain.
Section 4.2.5(a)
Review of the request by Engineering staff:
The application for a special exception to disturb critical slopes has been reviewed. The engineering
analysis of the request follows:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
This is slope behind a shopping center. The applicant is proposing to cut into the slope and build
retaining walls to establish a commercial site and parking areas.
The critical slope disturbances are in the form of
Areas
Acres
Total site area
3.4 acres approximately
Area of critical slopes
man -made & natural
Man -made = 0.25
Natural =
6% of development
% of development
Total critical slopes area
0.25
6% of development
Total critical slopes disturbed
0.25
100% of critical slopes
Exemptions for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable alternative locations:
This disturbance is not exempt.
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
The critical slope areas contain man made critical slope areas. Please see the applicant's special
exception request for details on these areas and the percentages of disturbance.
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 -4.2:
"movement of soil and rock"
Proper wall construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will prevent any movement of
soil.
"excessive stormwater runoff'
Stormwater runoff will be increased in this area, due to added impervious surfaces, but the slopes will
be largely eliminated.
"siltation"
ATTACHMENT H
Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during construction. Proper
stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability.
"loss of aesthetic resource"
This area will be visible from the adjoining neighborhood. Most of the slopes appear to have been
created with prior grading activities.
"septic effluent"
This neighborhood is serviced by public sewer.
Based on the review above, there are no engineering concerns which prohibit the disturbance of the
critical slopes as shown.
No portion of this site plan is located inside the 100 -year flood plain area according to FEMA Maps,
dated 04 February 2005.
Based on the above review, the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the technical criteria for the
disturbance of critical slopes.
The critical slopes areas disturbed are not delineated as a significant resource on the Open Space and
Critical Resources Plan.
Review of the request by Planning staff:
This waiver will allow site improvements such as grading, and retaining walls on the site. The retaining
walls will stabilize eroding land and screen a portion of the parking area, in particular, car lights from
the adjacent properties. The disturbance of the man -made slopes is fairly minimal. The applicant has
addressed the criteria appropriately.
Summary of review of modification of Section 4.2:
Section 4.2.5 establishes the review process and criteria for granting a waiver of Section 4.2.3. The
preceding comments by staff address the provisions of Section 4.2.5(a). Staff has included the
provisions of Section 4.2.5(a)(3) here, along with staff comment on the various provisions.
Under 31.8, the Board may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 based on these
provisions, however, no specific finding is required in support of the Board's decision on the special
exception.
A. Strict application of the requirements of section 4.2 would not forward the purposes of this chapter
or otherwise serve the public health, safety or welfare;
Strict application of the requirements would prevent the disturbance of the critical slopes. The existing
critical slopes were man -made and are showing signs of erosion. Approval of this special exception
will allow the construction of a retaining wall which will reduce erosion and stabilize the slope. Staff
does not generally recommend the use of retaining walls to reduce potential erosion on critical slopes.
However, this is an unusual situation where the slopes were made in an unregulated manor many
years ago and a retaining wall is a solution to stabilize the slopes.
B. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of
section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree;
The applicant is proposing a retaining wall. This will stabilize the slopes and help prevent erosion
which furthers the purpose of the critical slope regulations.
ATTACHMENT H
C. Due to the property's unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual conditions,
excluding the proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting the disturbance of critical
slopes would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would result in
significant degradation of the property or adjacent properties; or
Denying the special exception would not prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property. As
stated previously, not allowing some disturbance of the critical slopes will allow the slopes to continue
to erode which does degrade the property.
D. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be
served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived.
Stabilization of the slope forwards the public purpose.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
Staff review has resulted in both favorable and unfavorable findings:
Favorable factors:
1. Approval will permit the stabilization of an eroding slope.
Unfavorable factors:
1. None
RECOMMENDATION OF SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR CRITICAL SLOPES DISTURBANCE:
Staff recommends approval of the special exception for critical slopes disturbance.
ATTACHMENT H
WOODSON PARRISH, ARCHITECT
Commercial & Residential Architecture
May 7, 2012
Ms. Claudette Grant
Dept. of Planning and Community Development
401 McIntire Rd.
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Dear Claudette,
On behalf of the Anvince Land Trust, I request a waiver of section 4.2 of the Zoning
Ordinance (critical slopes) for the construction of improvements as shown on the ZMA
Application Plan, dated 4/8/2012. These slopes were the subject of prior correspondence
with County Staff in 2008. At that time, we were informed that no waiver would be
required, based on a finding that the slopes are manmade, resulting from development
under a previously approved site plan.
Specifically, grading activity undertaken according to the previously approved site plan,
has left a steep cut slope along most of the northern boundary of the property, and a steep
fill slope along two thirds of the eastern boundary. Our proposal would replace portions
of these slopes with retaining walls. These improvements, when completed, will create a
stable condition which will not contribute to movement of soil and rock, excessive runoff, or
siltation of waterways. There is no aesthetic resource at risk, and no septic system to be
considered.
We believe that a favorable finding by the Board is fully supported by subsections
4.2.5(a)(3)a. and b. and 8.2(b)(3).
I am enclosing a copy of the 2008 correspondence with supporting illustrations
Sincerely,
Woodson D. Parrish AIA, CSI, LEED AP
826 B Hinton Ave, Suite 1, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 (434) 960 -2718
Attachment I
XFINITY Connect
XFINITY Connect
RE: slopes from shopping center plan on Albrecht Place
Page 1 of 1
woodsonparrish @com cast. ne
± Font Size -
From : Amelia McCulley <AMCCULLE @albemarle.org> Thu, Apr 10, 2008 01:40 PM
Subject : RE: slopes from shopping center plan on Albrecht Place
To : woodsonparrish @comcast.net
I've asked our Senior Engineer, Amy Pflaum, to review your submittal. She concurs that these are manmade critical slopes resulting from development under the
approved site plan. Any natural critical slopes (not created by prior approved grading) will require a critical slopes waiver, but disturbance of the manmade slopes
will not.
..... ............... ................... ....
From: woodsonparrish @comcast.net [mailto :woodsonparrish @comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 4:23 PM
To: Amelia McCulley
Cc: sue @designenvirons.com; sedwards @terraconceptspc.com
Subject: Re: slopes from shopping center plan on Albrecht Place
Thanks Amelia. I think this is what we need; please see attached letter
Woody Parrish
--- --- -- - - - - -- Original message -------- - - - - --
From: "Amelia McCulley" <AMCCULLE @albemarle.org>
• I've scanned and am emailing a copy of the approved site plan for
• Shopper's World. This plan doesn't seem to show existing and proposed
• grades - or maybe I'm just having trouble following it. Hopefully it
• will help you determine whether the critical slopes were approved and
• created artificially with a site plan approved by the County. That's
• the standard to avoid critical slopes disturbance review by the Planning
• Commission.
Attachment I
littp: / /sz0080.wc.mail.comcast. net /ziinbra/h /printmessage ?id =901 &xim =1
WOODSON PARRISH, ARCHITECT
Commercial & Residential Architecture
March 27, 2008
Ms. Amelia McCulley
Community Development
401 McIntire Rd., North Wing
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Dear Amelia,
Thank you for your help finding the Shoppers World site plan. I see that it doesn't show
proposed contours for the area we're concerned with, but I think we have enough information to
overcome that difficulty.
On the following pages I have traced the originally- existing contours from the approved site
plan, and compared them to the currently - existing contours obtained from a recent survey.
To make a long story short, none of the currently- existing critical slopes we plan to disturb
existed prior to the development of Shoppers World. Although there was no detailed grading
plan for this area, comparison of the two drawings shows that the critical slopes along the
northeast and northwest property lines are the result of grading activity undertaken subsequent
to, and pursuant to, the approved Shoppers World site plan.
Please let me know if this satisfies the criteria to exempt us from the formal critical slope waiver
process.
Sincerely,
Woodson D. Parrish, AIA, LEED AP
1108 Forest St., Charlottesville, Virginia, 22903 (434) 960 -2718
Attachment I
Albrecht Place 3/27/08 Page 2
THEN - EXISTING GRADES INDICATED ON APPROVED SHOPPERS WORLS 51TE PLAN
)POSED DISTURBANCE OF
:RENT CRITICAL SLOPES
OPOSED DISTURBANCE Of
RRENT CRITICAL SLOPES
Attachment I
f
Albrecht Place
•.... ti. J :
: .. '
3/27/08
Page 3
r
•
.. .. .. �.� ::. .;.�j wig w" ".:i'• -:• ,•: .. �':�,
.
ti
we
iX
a�' vhf x;p ,'t..r ,.y1�1 i' r • Cf
1•i,-
i (�
"•iii .ii =fi :'i:,. .i;::^•
—;•tcc�j. :�F• ,. ;.f s'.'
,'C��i ` ,�� �:t:•�°;4',•A: ,..li,
'`•`N:? ::sf��;, SFr'•
.�`:._ a` .4,� t•s; a:i::•:t ;/ :•:i:Y•sic;i
�ti. p..::' :`ti��Tfi,•"fr in�.0 - h�y�..:,'.� .�t'^ r:Y: ..:i��':;i'Z' i ;'t:.:n,:,Y i:{+•
jai�.'.��L',s�+:!N° -: w:1G'•'' .,�.'rL i�^R: ,, .�j: •'1F.:.�>: n�'4_;:e :,•��•...: ::.4
_ �.' Ira z.•)'';:��v ��.1. _ - � ':t:,~ :.I" t: {ir�,� ^':i is
Contours traced over scan
i ''%;,f:,•.,a•:. of original site plan.
..... .�> iii• •*>�•O.'r 4:i. .. .. ... - .. ..... .. •: yf: ,' _iB ?'.::: ?! <. . r�.
Attachment I