HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200600081 Legacy Document 2006-10-25o� .aLm
L r12Glist''
ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING
STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SDP 06 -081 Black Cat
Staff: David Pennock, Allan Shuck
Service Station Preliminary Site Plan
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Hearing:
October 3, 2006
Not applicable
Owners: Virginia Oil Company, Inc.
Applicant: Frayser White, III
Acreage: approx. 13.64
Rezone from: Not applicable
(2.08 ac. C -1, 11.56 ac. RA)
Special Use Permit for: Not applicable
TMP: Tax Map 94, Parcels 38 and 39
By -right use: split -zoned RA, C -1, with
Location: southwestern corner of the I -64,
Entrance Corridor overlay
Black Cat Road (Route# 616) interchange
Magisterial District: Scottsville
Proffers /Conditions:
Requested # of Dwelling Lots: n/a
DA— RA — X
Proposal: Applicant proposes to construct a
Comp. Plan Designation: The
convenience store with fuel pumps. The
Comprehensive Plan designates this property
current plan requires waivers for critical slopes
as Rural Areas in Rural Area 2.
disturbance and disturbance of the buffer
between zoning classifications.
Character of Property: This property is
Use of Surrounding Properties: Adjacent to
mostly wooded with varying terrain. There is a
multiple residential properties and agricultural
cemetery on the south end of the site.
uses, as well as Interstate 64.
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
Section 4.2.5 — disturbance of critical slopes
Section 4.2.5 — disturbance of critical slopes
1. Relatively small area of disturbance
1. Extensive grading in rural areas
2. Visible site in Entrance Corridor
Section 21.7.3 — buffer disturbance
Section 21.7.3 — buffer disturbance
1. Applicant owns most of property on both
1. Vegetated buffer doesn't meet minimum
sides of zoning boundary
requirements of Ordinance
2. RA area is undeveloped
Section 32.4.2.6 — Site Plan approval
1. Groundwater report not submitted
2. Recommend Preliminary ARB review
RECOMMENDATION:
Zoning Ordinance Waivers:
1. Waiver of Section 4.2.5 — disturbance of critical slopes (recommendation, denial)
2. Waiver of Section 21.7.3 — clearing of buffer between incompatible zoning
classifications (recommendation, denial)
Other Actions (Zoning Ordinance):
3. Section 32.4.2.6 — Approval of the preliminary site plan recommendation, denial
STAFF CONTACTS:
PLANNING COMMISSION:
SITE PLAN:
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
David E. Pennock, AICP, Allan Shuck, EIT,
Margaret Maliszewski
October 3, 2006
SDP 06 -081: Black Cat Service Station
Virginia Oil Company, Inc.
Frayser White, III
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL:
Request to construct a convenience store with fuel pumps (Attachment A). The current plan requires
waivers for critical slopes disturbance and disturbance of the buffer between zoning classifications. The
plan covers portions of two properties, described as Tax Map 94, Parcels 38 and 39, zoned C -1
(Commercial) and RA (Rural Areas) within the EC (Entrance Corridor). The proposed building is
approximately 6,500 s.f. within the 2.08 acres of commercially zoned property. Extensive grading is
proposed within the remainder of the properties, which are zoned RA, Rural Areas. All properties are
located in the Scottsville Magisterial District at the southeast corner of Black Cat Road (Route# 616) and
Interstate 64 (Attachment B).
CHARACTER OF AREA:
Currently, the site is mostly wooded. Some portions have been timbered and cleared, predominantly in
the Rural Areas zoned piece of the property. There is a cemetery on the southern property line. The
applicant is not proposing any disturbance within the limits of the cemetery.
Adjacent parcels along Black Cat Road are heavily wooded. Single - family homes are on several
properties across Black Cat Road from this parcel.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY: (see Attachment D)
ZMA 122: Harriette Brown — 2.08 acres of property rezoned to B -1 Business in 1970.
1980 — Countywide Comprehensive rezoning — B -1 zoning changed to C -1, Commercial.
SUB 000 -019: Elizabeth Anderson — This subdivision combined properties and created TMP 94 -38.
Zoning of the properties was not changed.
ZMA 05 -001: Dominion — This request was to rezone 13.66 acres of RA and C -1 property to L -1, Light
Industry. The case was withdrawn prior to completion of review.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Areas in Rural Area 2. This property is
located at an Interstate interchange. According to the Land Use Plan for Interstate Interchange
Development within the Comprehensive Plan, Route 616 (Black Cat Road) is not recommended for
development (Attachment Q. However, the property has been commercially zoned since 1970.
REASON FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW:
There are several reasons for Planning Commission review:
This application has been requested for review by staff on behalf of many adjacent property owners who
verbally requested such a review during the Site Review Committee meeting. The Planning
Commission must review the preliminary site plan for approval in accordance with Section 32.4.2.6. In
addition, two waivers are necessary for the approval of the proposal as submitted (Attachment D). The
2
applicant is requesting waivers in order to disturb critical slopes on the property, which requires approval
by the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 4.2.5. The grading activities would also impact
the required undisturbed buffer between C -1 and RA zoning classifications. Disturbance of this buffer
requires approval by the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 21.7.3.
STAFF REVIEW OF WAIVER REQUEST — SECTION 21.7.3
21. 7.3 Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts: No construction activity including
grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural
areas district. Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9
Except, the commission may waive this requirement in a particular case where it has been demonstrated
that grading or clearing is necessary or would result in an improved site design, provided that:
a. Minimum screening requirement are met; and
b. Existing landscaping in excess of minimum requirements is substantially restored;
Significant grading is proposed within nearly the entirety of the 20 foot buffer. This grading constitutes
more than 20 feet of fill in some places. The Zoning Ordinance allows for a waiver, as specified above,
only in cases where the minimum screening requirements are met or restored. The screening required by
Section 32.7.9.8 can be a fence, wall, vegetation, or a combination. In cases where vegetation alone is
proposed, a double staggered row of evergreen trees 15 feet on center or double staggered row of
evergreen shrubs 10 feet on center within a screening strip not less that 20 feet in depth is required.
There are several problems with the proposed plantings:
The applicant is proposing plantings within a strip approximately 20 feet in depth in most places.
However, this buffer is almost entirely on the RA zoned land, rather than on the C -1, as required.
Adjacent to the cemetery, the buffer is within the C -1 zoned property. However, the depth of the
planting strip in this area is reduced to approximately 15 feet. The plant separation is also reduced
in this area to approximately 12 feet on center.
Within the buffer, Eastern Red Cedars are proposed, which are on the County's list of approved
screening trees. However, when required for screening, the minimum standards in Section 32.7.9.5
require that evergreen trees be at minimum 4 to 5 feet in height, rather than the 24 inches proposed
by the applicant.
Typically, buffers of this type are along property lines. However, despite the split zoning of the
property, the specifications in the ordinance regarding separation of uses are the same. In addition,
strategies in the Comprehensive Plan relating to development in the rural areas include recommendations
to minimize impact on agricultural and forestal resources in order to protect natural and scenic resources.
Staff does not feel that the requirements for granting a waiver of this type have been demonstrated. Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission cannot grant this waiver at this time, as the minimum
requirements of the Ordinance are not being met.
REVIEW OF MODIFICATION OF SECTION 4.2.3 TO ALLOW ACTIVITY ON CRITICAL
SLOPES:
DISCUSSION:
Critical Slopes Waiver:
Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth - disturbing activity on critical slopes, while
Section 4.2.5(b) allows the Planning Commission to waive this restriction. The applicant has submitted
a request and justification for the waiver (Attachment D), and staff has analyzed this request to address
the provisions of the ordinance.
Critical slopes cover approximately 0.98 acres, or 0.79 percent, of the 12.46 acres included in this
request. This request is to disturb 100 percent, of these critical slopes. The critical slopes in the area of
this request do not appear to be man -made. 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 each pertains to.
The Open Space Plan is the primary tool used by staff to identify aesthetic resources. The maps in the
rural areas are compiled in a Concept Plan. This is a composite map that indicates the resources that are
of some significance or are part of a system forming a significant resource, such as a stream valley or
mountain range. The Concept Plan shows this area as part of an Entrance Corridor, as was previously
noted. Based on the content of the Open Space Plan, staff opinion is that the critical slopes on this site
represent an aesthetic resource.
Section 4.2.5(a):
The engineering analysis of the request follows:
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
The critical slope area, within TMP 94 -39, appears to be natural slopes. The critical slope disturbances
are in the form of site plan construction and grading; accessways, stormwater facilities, drainfields and
structures.
Areas
Acres
Total site in Project
12.4675
Critical slopes
Approx.
0.98
Approx. 0.79% of
development
Critical slopes disturbed
0.98
100% of critical slopes
Below, each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 18 -4.2 is addressed:
1. "movement ofsoil and rock ": Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative
stabilization with approved erosion control measures constructed within the standards of
Virginia Erosion and Sedimentation Control Regulations will prevent any movement of soil.
2. "excessive stormwater run- off ": Stormwater runoff will be controlled by the drainage /
stormwater management plan required for this site.
3. "siltation of natural and man -made bodies of water": There are no existing streams located
on the property. An existing stream is located on the adjacent property just to the north of
TMP 94 -39. Inspection and bonding by the County will ensure siltation control during
construction. Proper stabilization and maintenance will ensure long term stability.
4. "loss of aesthetic resource ": This site is visible from Interstate 64, Black Cat Road (State
Route 616, and adjoining property owners. The site has existing wooded areas throughout
the property. It appears that the loss of aesthetic resources will be necessary with the
proposed plan. Also, a buffer is required between the rural area and the development area
portions of TMP 94 -39. This buffer is not to be disturbed. The applicant is proposing
construction activities throughout this buffer area.
5. "septic effluent ": Septic systems or drainfields are proposed in this project. This site is not
accessible to the public sanitary sewer system.
0
This site does not drain into a waterway that is a public drinking water supply for Albemarle County.
No portion of this site plan is located inside the 100 -year flood plain area according to FEMA Maps,
dated 04 February 2005.
The preliminary site plan shows excessive grading activities, with some fill areas exceeding 20 feet, on
the rural area portion of TMP 94 -39 that is not required to support the preliminary site plan. Also, the
plan shows excessive offsite grading on the adjacent parcel, TMP 94 -38, disturbing critical slope areas
for a drainfield.
Based on the above review, there are engineering concerns which prohibit the disturbance of the critical
slopes as shown on the plans. Engineering does not recommend approval to this critical slope waiver.
Section 4.2.5(b):
Staff has included the provisions of Section 4.2.5b here (in italics), along with staff comment on the
various provisions:
b. The commission may modify or waive any requirement of section 4.2 in a particular case upon finding
that: (Amended 11- 15 -89)
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, or that alternatives proposed by
the developer would satisfy the purposes of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree; or
(Added 11- 15 -89)
Based on the location within the Entrance Corridor and the comments provide in the Engineering
review above, it is staff's opinion that strict application of the requirements set forth in Section
4.2 acts to forward the purposes of the chapter in this case.
2. Due to its unusual size, topography, shape of the property, location of the property or other
unusual conditions, excluding the proprietary interest of the developer, the requirements of
section 4.2 would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or would
result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. Such modification or waiver
shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the
area, or to adjacent properties, or be contrary to sound engineering practices; or (Added 11 -15-
89)
Because of the relatively small areas of critical slopes on the site, this plan could potentially be
redesigned to avoid critical slopes areas. However, as most of the critical slopes are within the
C -1 zoned portions of the property, some reduction in scale would likely be necessary, especially
given the scattering of slopes through that area. The requirements of the Ordinance do not
unreasonably restrict the use of the property.
3. Granting such modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than
would be served by strict application of section 4.2. (Added 11- 15 -89)
There are no immediately identifiable reasons that would be considered of greater import.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis of the Open Space and Critical Resources Plan and on the review of the
engineering criteria presented above, staff opinion is that the critical slopes proposed for disturbance via
this site plan are in a sensitive area. Extensive grading is proposed throughout, which will reshape the
entirety of the property. The intent of the strategies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan regarding
development in rural areas is to minimize disturbance of scenic, natural, and agricultural resources.
Staff recommends denial of the requested waiver.
STAFF COMMENT REGARDING SECTION 32.4.2.6 — PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN:
This project has been reviewed by the Site Review Committee (see attachments E -H). There are outstanding
issues that prevent approval of the preliminary site plan, even with approval of the above referenced waivers.
Section 32.5.7 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that any required draft groundwater management plan must
be submitted in conjunction with the submittal of the preliminary site plan. This information has not been
received. In addition, the project has not been reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB).
Although a Certificate of Appropriateness from the ARB is not required until final site plan, staff has
recommended that a preliminary review by the ARB should be pursued for this project. This site is in a
highly visible location and design changes are possible. If so, such changes might require redesign of the
site, which would in turn require the preliminary site plan to be amended, if previously approved.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff has reviewed this request for compliance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and, with or
without the requested waivers, recommends denial of the preliminary site plan. Items that need to be
corrected are listed below:
1. A Tier -III or Tier -IV groundwater study must be submitted, as further explained in David
Swales' comments of July 28, 2006.
2. The current design is not possible without the previously discussed waivers.
3. Staff recommends a preliminary review by the Architectural Review Board, as detailed in
Margaret Malisewski's comments of August 4, 2006. A Certificate of Appropriateness is
required prior to final site plan approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Preliminary Site Plan
B. Vicinity Map
C. Land Use Plan Interchange Development
D. Letter from Applicant Requesting Waivers
E. Engineering Review — 8 -31 -06
F. VDOT Site Review Comments — 8 -14 -06
G. Health Department Comments — 8 -10 -06
H. Various Short Site Review Comments
31