CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF REPORT REQUEST FOR A WAIVER: CRITICAL SLOPES

Transcription

1 CITY OF CHARLOTTESVILLE DEPARTMENT OF NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AFF REPORT REQUE FOR A WAIVER: CRITICAL SLOPES PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: April 12, 2010 Project Planner: Brian Haluska, AICP Date of Staff Report: April 4, 2010 Applicant: Chachibaba LLC Applicant s Representative: Robby Noll Current Property Owner: Chachibaba, LLC Application Information Property Street Address: 1600 Monticello Avenue Tax Map/Parcel #: Tax Map 60 Parcel Total Square Footage/Acreage Site: 17,424 square feet (0.40 acres) Comprehensive Plan (Land Use Plan) Designation: Mixed Use Current Zoning Classification: HW Highway Corridor/Entrance Corridor Overlay District/Special Use Permit Tax Status: The City Treasurer s Office reports that there are no delinquent taxes on this property. Applicant s Request Chachibaba LLC is requesting a waiver from the requirements of (b) of the City Code relating to the protection of critical slopes to allow for construction of a mixed use building. Critical slopes make up approximately 0.08 acres of the site, or 20%. A waiver would allow the applicant to construct a 16,959 square foot mixed use building with 23 parking spaces. The proposed site is located at 1600 Monticello Avenue, and has been previously developed. 1

2 Vicinity Map ONEHENGE AVE AVE DIAN DRUID AVE AVE ROUGEMONT AV QUARRY CAA ALTAVIA AVE QUARRY RD MONTICELLO AV RD CLYDE MONTICELLO RD LINDEN AVE KNOLL S HARTFORD CT WATERBURY DANBURY GREENWICH MILFORD TER RIVES EAS PL ² KEYO NO SCALE Standard of Review Section (b)(1) states the purposes and intent of the ordinance in the following critical slopes provisions: 1. To protect and conserve steep hillsides and flood plain areas; and, 2. To recognize the increased potential for soil erosion, sedimentation, water pollution and septic disposal problems associated with the development of critical slope areas. The code mandates that no building, structure or improvement, nor any earth disturbing activity to establish such structure or improvement shall be located on slopes of twenty five (25) percent or greater, except as may be permitted by a Any person may request the Planning Commission to modify or waive the requirements of these critical slopes provisions. The Commission may grant a modification or waiver upon making one or more of the following findings: 1. That a strict application or requirements would not forward the purposes and intent of 2. That the alternative proposed by the developer would satisfy the purposes and intent of these critical slopes provisions to at lease an equivalent degree; 3. That, due to unusual size, topography, shape, location, or other unusual physical conditions of a property, one or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of such property or would result in significant degradation of the site, or adjacent properties; or, 4. That granting the proposed modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be served by a strict application of the requirements of these critical slopes provisions. 2

3 No modification or waiver granted by the planning commission shall be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, detrimental to the orderly development of the area or adjacent properties, or contrary to sound engineering practices. In granting a modification or waiver, the planning commission may impose such conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare and to insure that a development will be consistent with the purpose and intent of these critical slopes provisions. Project Review / Analysis The applicant has provided information in the attached steep slopes waiver application for each item discussed below. : 1. A strict application of requirements would not forward the purposes and intent of these critical slopes provisions The applicant is proposing construction on a site that has been previously developed. The critical slopes on the site sit between the parking lot on 1600 Monticello, and a condominium complex to the south. Considering the photographs of the critical slopes presented by the applicant, it appears the slopes are an area of the site serves as a buffer between the two developments. Concerns about erosion or other impacts are mitigated by the fact that the stormwater control system implemented with the Monticello Overlook site is already collecting any runoff from this particular area of critical slopes. The stated purpose of the steep slope ordinance is to protect against increased erosion and accelerated stormwater runoff. Staff struggles to find any reason where the strict application of the critical slopes ordinance in this instance will serve to protect against erosion or any of the other purposes for which the ordinance was drafted. 2. The alternative proposed by the developer would satisfy the purposes and intent of these critical slopes provisions to at least an equivalent degree The applicant proposes to construct the building on a portion of the site containing steep slopes, and to landscape the remaining portion. The applicant cites this contribution as meeting the standards of the steep slope ordinance to an equivalent degree. Staff is inclined to agree with the applicant. Given the relatively small amount of impact to the steep slope area from construction activity, and the new landscaping that will be installed, the steep slopes on the site appear to be improved by the project. 3

4 3. Due to unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual physical conditions of a property one or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of such property or would result in significant degradation of the site, or adjacent properties Staff can find no unusual physical conditions on the property required to approve a waiver under this finding. 4. Granting the proposed modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be served by a strict application of the requirements of these critical slopes provisions. The applicant cites improvements to the Belmont neighborhood from a more aesthetically pleasing structure on the site, the increase in affordable housing units as well as diversity of housing type, and improved landscaping of the site. Staff interprets the waiver for a public purpose to apply to public facilities or other situations where the City Council has, through their ability to review all public projects, weighed the cost of disrupting critical slope areas against the public good of the project. This project does not meet that definition. Staff Recommendation The applicant needs to meet at least one the four above findings for a waiver to be granted: On Finding 1: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission use this finding for a On Finding 2: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission not use this finding for a On Finding 3: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission not use this finding for a On Finding 4: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission not use this finding for a 4

5 Suggested Motions 1. I move to approve the request for waiver of the requirements of the critical slopes building located at 1600 Monticello Avenue based on a finding that [use at least one of the following four findings]: A strict application of requirements would not forward the purposes and intent of The alternatives proposed by the developer would satisfy the purposes and intent of these critical slopes provisions to at least an equivalent degree; Due to the unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual physical conditions of a property one (1) or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of such property or would result in significant degradation of the site, or adjacent properties; Granting the proposed waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be served by a strict application of the requirements of these critical slopes provisions. 2. I move to approve the request for waiver of the requirements of the critical slopes building located at 1600 Monticello Avenue based on a finding that [use at least one of the following four findings]: A strict application of requirements would not forward the purposes and intent of The alternatives proposed by the developer would satisfy the purposes and intent of these critical slopes provisions to at least an equivalent degree; Due to the unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual physical conditions of a property one (1) or more of these critical slopes provisions would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of such property or would result in significant degradation of the site, or adjacent properties; Granting the proposed waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than would be served by a strict application of the requirements of these critical slopes provisions. with the following conditions.. 3. I move to deny the request for waiver of the requirements of the critical slopes building located at 1600 Monticello Avenue because we do not find that the granting of such a waiver would satisfy the purpose and intent of the ordinance, nor has the applicant met any of the four (4) criteria necessary for the granting of such a 5