HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200400023 Staff Report 2004-09-04STAFF PERSON: YADIRA AMARANTE
PLANNING COMMISSION: 9/7/04
SDP 04 -023: FAULCONER CONSTRUCTION OFFICE AND SHOP FINAL SITE PLAN
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL: The applicant is requesting approval of a Final Site Plan to construct a
15,540 s.f maintenance shop, 3 (three) 4,320 s.f pole barns for storage, 1 (one) 6, 064 s.f office building
and 1 (one) 7,024 s.f office building, in phase 2, for the purpose of operating a contractor's office and
equipment storage yard, (Attachment A).
The property, described as Tax Map 58, Parcel 37 contains 27.37 acres, and is located in the Samuel
Miller Magisterial District on Morgantown Road [Route # 73 8] approximately 1 -1/8 miles west from the
intersection of Morgantown Road and Route 250 at Ivy. The property is zoned LI, Light Industrial and
the Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 3, (Attachment B).
CHARACTER OF AREA: Parcel 37 is currently a heavily wooded vacant lot with several small
streams flowing throughout which drain into Ivy Creek. The parcel is located within a small industrial
park which is currently occupied by a child daycare center, and several commercial/warehousing facilities.
The area immediately surrounding the industrial park contains the Virginia L. Murray Elementary School
to the east, small residential parcels to the north, large vacant and/or residential parcels to the west, and a
C & O railroad line to the south. All the parcels surrounding the industrial park are zoned RA, Rural
Area.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY:
1970: On July 16, 1970 the Board of Supervisors (BOS) heard ZMP- 129 -W.T. Dettor, Junior, a request
to rezone 48 acres from A -1 Agricultural to B -1 Business and 12 acres from A -1 Agricultural to RS -1
Residential. Since this proposal involved a major element of the upcoming Comprehensive Plan adoption
(the establishment of the Ivy Community and subject parcel within an area recommended for heavy
industrial uses) the subject parcel was rezoned to B -1 Business and RS -1 Residential. Also heard this day
was CU- 140 -W.T. Dettor Jr., for a conditional use permit to allow a wholesale food distribution
warehouse in the B -1 Business zone approved above.
1970: The first Comprehensive Plan of Albemarle County was adopted in 1970. That plan shows the
establishment of the Community of Ivy to be developed with areas of high, medium and low density
residential, a central shopping and business district, and light and heavy industrial uses. There was an area
immediately west of State Route 676 on State Route 738 which was slotted for heavy industrial uses.
1975: On October 22, 1975 the BOS heard and approved ZMP -332: William T. Dettor, Jr., a request to
rezone TMP 58 -37 and 37B (parcel 37 is subject parcel) from A -1 Agricultural, RS -1 Residential, and B-
1 Business to M -2 Manufacturing. Mr. Dettor requested the rezoning in order to expand on his
established warehouse business on Parcel 37B. At the time the Comprehensive Plan suggested that this
area, because of its access to rail transportation, be developed as heavy industry. With a favorable
recommendation from the Planning Commission (PC), the BOS approved the request to rezone the
parcels to a less intense M -1 Manufacturing instead of the M -2 Manufacturing zoning requested.
1977: The Comprehensive Plan continues to show Ivy as a growth area and recommends industrial uses
within its boundaries.
1980: In 1980 there was a comprehensive rezoning of the County. The subject parcel was rezoned to the
new LI — Light Industrial zoning district. Both the M -1 zoned property and 200' A -1 zoned buffer strip,
approved under ZMP -332 above, were designated for LI on the proposed 1980 zoning map and
approved as such.
1982 (and as amended in 1984, 1985, and 1986): The Comprehensive Plan downgrades Ivy's status from
Community to Village. This amendment to the Comp Plan acknowledged that many of the growth goals
of the previous decade's Comp Plans had been fulfilled and recommends a significant reduction in the
land area designated for growth within Ivy as well as recommending only low density residential and
commercial uses within its boundaries.
1989: Ivy Village is fully developed as recommended by previous Comprehensive Plans and is no longer
designated as a growth area.
2001: Application for SDP 01 -037 — Faulconer Construction Office and Shop Preliminary Site Plan was
received on April 23, 2001 and later withdrawn on November 11, 2002.
2001: In June of 2001 the Director of Planning and Community Development requested an Official
Determination of Use to find if the proposed "Faulconer Site Plan" and its represented uses are consistent
with a Contractor's Office and Equipment Storage Yard. On June 26, 2001 the Zoning Administrator did
opine that the activities proposed for the new site in Ivy, are currently permitted by right in the LI zoning
district. On July 23, 2001 abutting property owners appealed this decision to the Board of Zoning
Appeals (BZA). On September 11, 2001 the BZA affirmed the Zoning Administrator's opinion. That
decision was restated in a letter to appellants dated October 2, 2001.
2003: Application for SDP 02 -128 — Faulconer Contractor's Office and Equipment Storage Yard
Preliminary Site Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 4, 2003. The Planning
Commission denied applicant's requests for Critical Slope Waiver, Curvilinear Parking Waiver, and One
Way Circulation Waiver but deferred action on the site plan to give the applicant an opportunity to bring
back an amended site plan.
2003: On February 5, 2003 the Board of Supervisors amended the Zoning Ordinance text to allow
Curvilinear Parking and One Way Circulation by right.
2003: On September 23, 2003 the Planning Commission granted a Critical Slopes Waiver request with
conditions and approved the Preliminary Site Plan (SDP 02 -128 — Faulconer Contractor's Office and
Equipment Storage Yard Preliminary Site Plan) also with conditions.
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
At the September 23, 2003 meeting, the Planning Commission requested that the Final Site Plan come
back before them for review and action in accordance with site plan processing procedures set forth in
Section 32.4.3.6 of the Zoning Ordinance.
STAFF COMMENT:
At its meeting on September 23, 2003 the Planning Commission approved a Critical Slope Waiver
request and approved the Preliminary Site Plan. Both approvals were conditional. Listed below are those
2
conditions in italicized print. Below each condition is staff s commentary on how the Final Site Plan
submission addresses each individual condition.
Critical Slopes Waiver Conditions
1. The 30 foot buffer, which runs along the western /northern side of the property, shall be
increased to a 50 foot buffer. The same activities that are prohibited in the existing 30 foot
buffer are prohibited in the additional 20 foot buffer.
Sheet 3 of the site plan (Attachment A) shows that a 50' buffer has been accomplished by tightening up
the reconstructed slopes along the western boundary of the parcel. Since no construction activity was
ever proposed along the northern boundary of the parcel, no physical adjustments were necessary in order
to accommodate the 50' buffer.
No construction, grading or tree clearing is shown within the 50' buffer on the Site, Stormwater
Management, or Erosion and Sediment Control Plans.
2. The grading for the roadway to access the site shall be minimized as much as feasible with
guidance from the Engineering staff.
At the September 23, 2003 meeting, the Commission expressed concern about the proposed roads and
the impact road design would have on critical slope and stream buffer disturbance. Specific concerns
were the widths of the roads as well as the grades of the reconstructed side slopes.
The 2002 Preliminary Site Plan depicted a 24' wide access road with 3:1 reconstructed slopes. The road
connecting the office area with the shop area also averaged 24' in width with reconstructed slopes of
about 5:1.
The Final Site Plan now shows 18' wide access and connector roads with reconstructed slopes at 2:1
reducing the amount of critical slope disturbance and stream buffer encroachment.
3. The applicant to ensure that no additional critical slopes are disturbed by the reconfiguration of
the site plan, which includes protecting the stream buffers.
4. This waiver is limited to the critical slope disturbance shown on the September 3, 2003
Preliminary Site Plan.
Staff has compared those critical slopes shown on the approved Preliminary Site Plan to the critical
slopes shown on the Final Site Plan dated August 18, 2004 (revision) and finds that no additional critical
slopes, associated with building and parking lot construction, are being disturbed. Staff concludes that the
implementation of the 50' buffer zone does not necessitate disturbance of additional critical slopes.
Staff did notice some minor changes in stream buffer disturbance from the 2003 Preliminary Site Plan.
These disturbances are mostly for the construction of BMP facilities (biofilters, detention basins, outfall
culverts etc.). Staff has concluded that these encroachments are a result of stormwater management
facilities designed to meet our Water Protection Ordinance and not a result of any reconfiguration of the
site due to the required 50' buffer zone. Staff offers that these minor encroachments are compensated by
reduced buffer encroachments as a result of minimized road widths, steeper road side slopes, re- design of
the biofilter/basin for the shop area and proposed vegetated enhancements of the stream buffer on the
northern side of the property.
Preliminary Site Plan Conditions (The following noted approvals are conditioned on approval of
3
the Final Site Plan by the Planning Commission)
1. The outfall from the proposed oil /water separator will require a permit through the Department
of Environmental Quality (DEQ). An alternate would be a zero discharge system that would
require period transport of wastewater to a treatment plant. The DEQ permit or anew zero
discharge system will be required for final site plan approval.
A Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) general stormwater permit for industrial
activity has been issued by the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).
2. [18- 32.7.4.3, 17 -203] An erosion control plan, narrative, computations, application and fee.
3. [17 -203, 17 -303] A stormwater management plan, computations, application, fee, and
maintenance agreement.
4. [17 -322] A stream buffer mitigation plan.
S. [18 -4.14] A certified engineers report.
All these plans and reports have been received by the County and reviewed and approved by County
Engineering staff.
6 [18- 32.5.6(n)] Show the location of all outdoor lighting on the plan.
7. [18- 32.6.66)] Provide a description and photograph or diagram and show the location of each
type of outdoor luminaire that emits 3, 000 or more initial lumens. Please be aware that
installation of such luminaires in the future that are not shown on this plan shall require an
amendment to this plan.
8. [18- 32.6.66)] [4.17.4(b)] Include a photometric plan on the site plan demonstrating that
parking area luminaires are in compliance with 4.17.4 b.
This lighting information is shown on the plan and has been reviewed and approved by County Zoning
staff.
9. [18- 4.15.13] Be aware that all signs will require separate permits under 4.15 of the zoning
ordinance.
This condition is a standard warning that the applicant is aware of
10. [18- 32.6.6(i)] Submittal and approval of a Landscape Plan in conformance with Section 32.7.9
of the Zoning Ordinance. The Landscape Plan shall include a tree conservation plan.
Landscape and tree conservation plans have been submitted to the County and reviewed and approved by
County Planning staff.
11. [18- 32.7.5.3] Health Department approval of all well and drainfield locations.
The Health Department has approved all well and drainfield locations shown on the plan.
12. [18- 32.7.3.3] Submittal and approval of a plat dedicating r -o -w of Morgantown Road.
This plat was submitted to the County and reviewed and approved by Planning, Engineering, and VDOT
staff.
13. [18- 32.5.6(i) The proposed road servicing the development must have an approved road name
labeled on the final site plan.
The road has been labeled Dettor Place, a name approved by E911 staff.
DISCUSSION:
The Site Review Committee has reviewed this request and finds that it complies with the provisions of
El
the Zoning Ordinance as well as all conditions of Preliminary Site Plan approval and conditions of the
Critical Slope waiver approval.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, Preliminary
Site Plan approval and recommends approval of the proposed Final Site Plan (SDP 04 -023: Faulconer
Construction Office and Shop Final Site Plan) with no conditions.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Reduced Final Site Plan dated August 18, 2004 (revised)
B. Vicinity Map
STAFF PERSON: YADIRA AMARANTE
PLANNING COMMISSION: 9/7/04
SDP 04 -023: FAULCONER CONSTRUCTION OFFICE AND SHOP FINAL SITE PLAN
ADDENDUM TO STAFF REPORT (9/7/04)
On August 2, 2004 County staff had a meeting with residents of the Ivy Community and the Albemarle
County School Board.
Some residents expressed concerns that noise levels at the site will exceed those required by Section 4.18
of the Zoning Ordinance. The most often cited item of concern was the anticipated sound of large
machinery and truck engines.
The certified engineer's report submitted by Faulconer simply states, "Normal operations at the project
site are not anticipated to violate Albemarle County's noise ordinances" (p.17) and that "vehicle idling
will be limited, and vegetation and distance should dissipate sound" (p.21). While these types of
statements, accompanied by the engineer's certification, are generally acceptable, the fact that it is being
raised as a concern calls for an explanation of the technical reasoning or data behind them.
The Zoning Ordinance contains exemptions for construction activities, transient sounds from
transportation, and warning devices (18- 4.18.05). The sound of motors on -site, and under repair, would
not seem to be exempted.
It is worth noting that the County primarily accepts the certified engineer's report as fact and does not
independently analyze their findings. Instead, any discrepancies between the certified engineer's report
and actual noise levels on the property are handled through the County's enforcement procedures which
are usually complaint generated.
The applicant's engineers are present at tonight's meeting and are prepared to address these concerns.
ATTACHMENTS:
I. 9/3/03 Memo from Engineering staff regarding noise level concerns
31
Attachment I
A
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development, Current Development Division
En ing eering Plan Review
To: Roudabush, Gale & Assoc., Inc. (fax 296 -5220)
Williamsburg Environmental Group, Inc. (fax 757- 229 -4507)
Faulconer Construction (fax 295 -0508)
From: Glenn Brooks
Subject: Faulconer site plan, certified engineer's report
Date: 3 Sep 2004 (Friday)
The County had a meeting yesterday with Ivy residents regarding the Faulconer site plan. I want to bring to your
attention a concern which was raised at that meeting. You will likely be asked to answer this concern at the Planning
Commission meeting scheduled for next Tuesday.
The residents are concerned that noise levels will exceed those required by the Zoning Ordinance, section 4.18. The
most often cited item was the anticipated sound of large machinery and truck engines. The certified engineer's report
simply states, "Normal operations at the project site are not anticipated to violate Albemarle County's noise
ordinances" (p.17). It goes on to say that vehicle idling will be limited, and vegetation and distance should dissipate
sound (p.21). While these types of statements, accompanied by the engineer's certification, are generally acceptable,
the fact that residents are raising questions may call for an explanation of the technical reasoning or data behind them.
I have looked into the residents' concerns, and they seem to have some validity. My brief research indicates the
average truck engine is approximately 90dBA. The required decibel level at the property line during the day is 60dbA
(Zoning Ordinance 18- 4.18.04). From the layout on the site plan, it appears possible that engine noise could take
place as close as 80 feet from a property line, which could bring the sound level down to between 60 and 70 dBA.
However, there are so many variables (topography, vegetation, the condition of the motor or muffler, whether multiple
machines are operated at once) as well as the addition of repair machinery, hydraulics, etc., that heavy reliance is
placed upon operations and zoning enforcement. Regarding the certified engineer's report in general, I discussed
previously with Toni Small the reliance upon "good housekeeping ", "training ", and "operations" as less reliable, and
less desirable than permanent physical measures.
It is worth noting that the County has not closely examined vehicle noises with zoning clearances and certified
engineer's reports in the past. The Zoning Ordinance contains exemptions for construction activities, transient sounds
from transportation, and warning devices (18- 4.18.05). The sound of motors on -site, and under repair, would not
seem to be exempted.
Thank you in advance for looking into this before our meeting on Tuesday.
Copy: file
File: Faulconer noise levels.doc
7