HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 21 1999 PC Minutesrm
gn
Albemarle County Planning Commission
December 21, 1999
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting and public hearing on Tuesday,
December 21, 1999 in the County Office Building. Members attending were: Mr. William Finley,
Chairman; Mr. William Rieley; Mr. Jared Loewenstein; Mr. Dennis Rooker; Mr. Rodney Thomas.
Other officials present were: Mr. Ronald Keeler, Chief of Planning; Mr. Eric Morrisette, Senior
Planner; Mr. Glenn Brooks, County Engineering; Mr. Steven Boller, County Engineering; Mr. John
Shepherd, County Zoning Department; Mr. Greg Kamptner, Assistant County Attorney. Absent:
Ms. Hilda Lee -Washington, Vice -Chairman.
Other matters not listed on the agenda
None were offered, and the meeting proceeded.
Deferred Item:
SDP 97-035 Calvet Virginia Company Preliminary Site Plan — Critical Slope Waiver — Proposal
for 2,576 square foot convenience store/gas station on 1.051 acres zoned C-1, Commercial.
MOTION: Mr. Rieley moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval to enter a closed meeting
pursuant to Section 2.1-344A of the Code of Virginia, under subsection 7 to consult with legal
counsel and staff regarding probable litigation regarding SDP 97-035. The motion passed
unanimously.
After the closed meeting, the Commission immediately reconvened their public meeting.
MOTION: Mr. Rooker moved, Mr. Thomas seconded approval of adoption of a resolution that to
the best of each members knowledge, only public business matters lawfully exempt from public
meeting requirements and identified in the motion that convened the closed meeting were heard,
discussed or considered in the closed meeting held. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Keeler presented the staff report, noting that each Commission member should have received
copy of a submittal by the applicant's representative, Mr. Bruce Payne. Mr. Keeler presented two
additional pieces of information to the Commission: Mr. Glenn Brooks' evaluation of Mr. Payne's
submittal; and some landscaping information related to the slope issue from Planning staff.
Mr. Brooks addressed the Commission, presenting recent photos of the site. He described the
photos, noting the view from Georgetown Green units in relation to the site. Mr. Brooks presented a
photo showing a channel that would carry all of the runoff from the site, adding that the channel is
along the property line on the back of the Georgetown Green apartments.
Mr. Rooker asked what percent of the trees in the critical slope area would be removed under the
plan proposed by the applicant.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 21, 1999
286
Mr. Brooks said that they haven't made an effort to identify that, but he surmised that about half of
the trees would be removed.
Mr. Rooker asked about the age of the trees.
Mr. Brooks responded that the trees on the slope itself are not very old, but the ones near the
property line are taller and bigger in circumference.
Mr. Rieley asked if the soil along the sides of the channel was exposed.
Mr. Brooks replied that there is some cutting in the channel, starting at where the first apartment
building starts, ranging from 2-3 feet deep. He noted that the area has been disturbed, but said that it
was difficult to ascertain whether the erosion was caused by weak soils over time, or the direct result
of stormwater discharge.
Mr. Thomas asked if the soil had been pushed into the channel.
Mr. Brooks responded that all the soil is cut and washed downstream; the only thing pushed into the
channel is leaf debris.
Mr. Rooker asked if there would be any increase in water entering the channel as a result of the
buildout of the applicant's plan.
1 Mr. Brooks replied that Engineering has not done a final design, but the applicant is required to have
no increase for two and ten-year storms.
cm
Mr. Rieley noted that the storm intervals used by the county stop at a ten-year storm, and any storms
more severe than that are not addressed by county regulations. "This site as proposed would have a
great deal more impervious area than in it's natural condition."
Mr. Brooks agreed.
Mr. Rieley said, "In that case, we could expect a great deal more runoff." He mentioned that the
applicant's plan proposes to deal with the two and ten-year storm runoffs through oversized pipes for
detention in the upper part of the basin. "Anything that exceeds a ten-year storm, there is no
detention [for] whatever, and in fact this increase — because of the increase in impervious area — we
could expect to impact the stream downstream."
Mr. Brooks agreed.
Mr. Rieley said, "There would in fact, in anything that exceeds the ten-year storm, be an increase in
runoff, an increase in impact on downstream landowners, and ultimately, an impact on the
watershed. Because all of the increase in runoff, the major impact of that is increased erosion, which
creates additional sediment that goes downstream. And sediment, as well all know, is our biggest
pollution problem in our watershed."
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 21, 1999 287
Mr. Brooks agreed. "That would be true of any site in the watershed supplying the reservoir."
Mr. Rieley noted the sand drain filter proposed in the applicant's plan to deal with runoff, and asked
Mr. Brooks to comment on its limitation in dealing with runoff relative to the frequency of rainfall.
Mr. Brooks explained that the effectiveness of the filter is contingent on its design and its size. "It's
my understanding that it's designed for our regulations for the first half -inch of runoff from the site.
Runoff beyond that is washed through the system."
Mr. Boller commented that the device "should take the first %2 to 1 inch off of the driveways and
shunt that through the filter." He noted that the county ordinance was written based on phosphate
removal, but have been shown to be effective with hydrocarbons, adding that the filters remove
approximately 40-60% of material.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Boller and Mr. Brooks to verify the applicant's written statement that there
would be "virtually undistinguishable change in water quality and quantity" of runoff with this
development.
Mr. Brooks said that they could not verify the statement, but added, "to the extent that current
technology allows, they've done what they can." He added, "Our ordinances don't go beyond the
ten-year storm, and our erosion control technology and water quality filter technology is only 60%
effective on average."
% Mr. Rieley noted that the drainage swail has springs along the side, which make it more of an
intermittent stream, and asked the Engineers if they could identify at what point that happens.
Mr. Boller responded that he visited the site and measured the distance from the point at which it
becomes a stream back up towards the property line. "The ordinance, the buffer covers 100 feet
from the stream, and that does not take it to the property line of this site."
Mr. Rieley asked about the limitation of retaining wall height to below 5 feet, noting that the wall
along the building is essentially a 12-foot tall retaining wall if it is filled behind it.
Mr. Brooks said that he didn't know if it was filled behind it, and said that in that case it would be a
basement wall that retains soil, which is covered under the building code, and would go through the
building permit process.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Keeler about the language used in the original rezoning which described the
intent of the site as a "replacement" for the Hop -In, noting that the building currently on -site is the
old Hop -In. "It's really not a replacement, it's an addition."
Mr. Keeler said that he was not aware if the applicant every represented they were going to tear
down the old building.
Mr. Rooker asked if the proposed store would be a Hop -In, noting the statement in the original
proffer on the property that "subject property will be used for a relocation of the convenience store
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 21, 1999 288
in accordance with the general layout of the enclosed preliminary site plan." He added, "I guess the
question is whether or not it's a relocation or a new business going in there."
Mr. Keeler said that Mr. Kamptner reviewed the board minutes from the second rezoning
application, and Zoning has also been involved. He suggested that they address that concern.
Mr. Kamptner said he reviewed the minutes from both the 1981 and 1982 Board of Supervisors
meetings. He explained that the original proffer as submitted by the applicant specified the
"relocation of a Hop -In," and at the request of a Board member, that language was changed to
"convenience store" to use a more general term in the event that Hop -In was no longer the occupant.
Mr. Kamptner said that he did not see anything in the minutes whereas part of the relocation
included any agreement that the old Hop -In site would be abandoned.
Mr. Rooker asked if there was a determination made that the application made to build a new
building with a new franchise on it meets the proffer that says the subject property will be used for
relocation of the convenience store.
Mr. Kamptner said that his understanding is that determination has been supported by the Zoning
Administrator.
Mr. Rieley said he did not recall a canopy over the old Hop -In store gas pumps.
Mr. Keeler said that he did not recall if the original Hop -In had canopy over the pumps.
1*A, [Commissioners stated at their 1/11/2000 meeting that Mr. Keeler recalled no canopy over the old
Hop -In gas pumps].
M
Mr. Rieley asked if consideration had been given to the visual impact of the canopy in light of the
fact that grading on critical slopes will expose much more of the canopy to the view of the public if
no grading were occurring on the critical slopes.
Mr. Keeler said there was a period in the review last April where a meeting occurred with several
agencies, the applicant, etc. to discuss a number of issues, including lighting of the canopy. He said
that the applicant agreed to recess the lighting fixtures in the canopy, which goes beyond the
county's ordinance. Mr. Keeler said that he has concerns about the impact of lighting to the
residents of Georgetown Green, as that is a lower elevation. He added that he has not yet written his
conditions for submittal of the final plan, and that is an issue that would be addressed.
Mr. Rooker asked if the extent to which the recess would occur was known.
Mr. Keeler replied that it has been discussed with Zoning — who will actually be reviewing it — to
recess the lighting to shield it from the buildings in Georgetown Green. "We're talking about a
stovepipe kind of situation where you wouldn't actually see the bulb." Mr. Keeler said that when the
current lighting ordinance was adopted, a provision in the prior zoning ordinance was dropped, that
required shielding of lighting. "If the luminaire is at the same elevation as the bottom of the canopy,
you're going to be seeing it."
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 21, 1999 289
Mr. Rieley said he is concerned about the canopy's appearance in the daytime as well as at night.
Mr. Keeler said that the facility is not located in an Entrance Corridor, and thus is not subject to
ARB review.
Mr. Rieley said, "We are disturbing critical slopes that are going to open up the view to something,
and it seems to me that what it is we're opening up the views to are pertinent." He added that the
canopy serves for a source of lighting at night, and as a billboard. "I think the issue of the degree to
which we have a new sign that will be affected by our decision on critical slopes is a pertinent one."
Mr. Rieley recalled that the old Hop -In is brick, and asked if there is a commitment that the
replacement building will also be brick.
Mr. Keeler said, "We have not discussed building materials."
Mr. Rieley noted that related to building materials is the issue of the loss of aesthetic resources due
to the disturbance of critical slopes. "This is one of the factors we must consider under 18.4.2 in
granting a critical slopes waiver." He noted that some visual impact studies refer to the principle of
"inter -visibility," and emphasized how visible the slope is from Georgetown Green as illustrated in
the slides presented by Mr. Brooks. Mr. Rieley said that the slope in question and the trees on it are
in the view of Georgetown Green residents and in the view of anyone who drives on Georgetown
Road.
He mentioned that the retaining wall as previously discussed meets grade about 12 feet above floor
4 level on the back side, adding that if an additional 10-12 feet is added for the height of the building
itself, the wall is 22-24 feet tall, and 78 feet long on the back side of the building. "The view will
change from a steep wooded slope to the big rear end of a convenience store. Not a change many
people would regard as an aesthetic improvement." He asked how the extent of the impact on the
aesthetic value of the critical slopes could be measured, or how it might be appropriately mitigated
when there was uncertainty of what the building would be made of or how many trees would be
removed.
cm
Mr. Keeler responded, "I was attempting to function within the framework established by the
proffered zoning and by interpretations of that zoning by the Zoning Department." Mr. Keeler noted
that at the site review meeting on January 7t", it was stated by staff that the three areas of major
concern were: protection of adjoining residential areas from the deleterious effects of a proposed
building, including lighting and visual effects; the disposition of stormwater at this site as it is
situated in the South Fork Rivanna Reservoir watershed; and safety of on -site and off -site traffic
circulation. He said that these were the major — but not the only — issues raised.
Mr. Keeler said that it was staff that caused the reconfiguration of the building in order to address
the access issues. "The building is pretty much fixed in its location from the framework that I was
given to work in." He mentioned that the measures discussed with the applicant regarding
Georgetown Green, originally included a board fence along the property line; Mr. Keeler indicated
to the applicant that the fence would be more effective in providing protection from headlights if it
were moved up to run along the back of the parking area and tie into the building, which has been
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 21, 1999 290
M
done. He added that the recessed lighting has also been mentioned, and said that he also mentioned
using more indigenous landscaping than white pines.
Mr. Keeler emphasized, "This is a preliminary plan, and the approval of the landscape plan is
actually the last act in the approval process at the time of the final plan." Referencing an executive
summary that Commissioners had received, Mr. Keeler said that Engineering is addressing soil and
water issues, Zoning was ensuring that the plan met the provisions of the proffer, and Planning was
looking at the aesthetics in relation to Georgetown Green."
Mr. Rieley asked how the opening of the slopes would be mitigated.
Mr. Keeler responded that replanting would mitigate the building's mass effect.
Mr. Rieley noted that it would take 30-40 foot trees to mitigate a building of that size.
Mr. Keeler said, "The initial plantings won't do that."
Mr. Rooker asked if there was any discussion regarding the color and the building materials.
Mr. Keeler said there was not.
Mr. Thomas asked why there was a required 50-foot buffer, when the normal buffer is 20 feet
between commercial and residential.
Mr. Keeler replied that the original applicant proffered the larger buffer as part of his plan to entreat
the Board to approve the zoning allowing for the store's complete relocation rather than just
rezoning allowing replacement of gas pumps and parking spaces as recommended by staff.
Mr. Rieley asked if Zoning regarded this or any setback as relating to any part of the building. "Are
their parts of the building that are excluded, such as roof overhangs or porches?"
Mr. Shepherd said that Zoning would interpret the proffer such that the entire building would have to
be kept out of the 50-foot buffer.
Mr. Rieley asked, "As shown with the building wall right at the 50-foot line, we presume that's a
building with no roof overhang?"
Mr. Shepherd replied, "I believe that is correct. Because with the way the proffer is written, I think
that would have to be the way that would have to be interpreted."
Mr. Kamptner noted that with a normal setback regulation, stairs and related building accessories are
excepted from the rule.
Mr. Keeler mentioned that in Zoning Ordinance section 4.6, things that can intrude into yards
include stairs, eaves, etc.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 21, 1999 291
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Shepherd if his opinion is that everything related to the building has to be out
of the 50-foot buffer.
Mr. Shepherd replied, "I think that is the way the proffer would be interpreted .... there's an
allowance for overhangs with setbacks, but with the way [this] is proffered, I think it would have to
be interpreted more strictly than that."
Mr. Kamptner stated, "The buffer zone as proffered... envisions that there won't be any structures
within that zone." He added that he was not sure without further investigation whether that would
include overhangs.
Mr. Finley asked Mr. Rieley to summarize his major concerns.
Mr. Rieley said he would like to hear comments from the applicant and the public before
summarizing.
Mr. Loewenstein asked if Mr. Brooks' statement in his memo regarding siltation, "the site will
require frequent inspection to ensure compliance with erosion control regulations," was referring to
the construction phase.
Mr. Brooks replied that it was.
Mr. Loewenstein asked Mr. Brooks to explain his statement that compliance after that time would be
I*WW monitored in the normal way.
M
Mr. Brooks replied that after construction, when the county releases the erosion control bond, there
is no more monitoring.
Mr. Rooker asked how the county could be assured that the sand filter would continue to function to
improve the water quality before it leaves the site.
Mr. Brooks responded that there is a maintenance agreement that the applicant is required to enter
into with the county, which is recorded as a legal document to run with the land, and requires a
yearly maintenance inspection and report filed with the county. "In addition to that, with these
underground systems, we've been asking that the applicants have a maintenance contract with a
company that cleans these systems on a yearly... basis."
Mr. Rieley asked if an agreement had been made for this property.
Mr. Brooks replied that there is a standard agreement prepared by the county attorney's office.
Mr. Rieley asked if County Engineering had the authority to require the contract.
Mr. Brooks answered, "I believe we do. We've required that of storm scepter systems on a few
other sites in the county."
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 21, 1999 292
M
Mr. Finley asked if the primary purpose of the sand filters is for water quality benefits.
Mr. Brooks said that the filtration system is strictly for water quality benefits; the water has to filter
through the sand layers.
Mr. Fred Payne, the applicant's representative, addressed the Commission. Mr. Payne emphasized,
"This is not a rezoning. This is a use that is permitted by right in the C-1 district ... it has one and
only one use." He added, "This is C-1 property that can be developed for a convenience store.
Moreover, it cannot be developed for anything other than a convenience store. Moreover, it cannot
be developed for anything other than a convenience store substantially as shown on the proffered
plan."
Mr. Payne continued, "This is a site plan review and ... there is a statutory standard for this ... your
review must relate to the provisions of the ordinances that apply to this." He added, "We're dealing
with the art of the possible as set forth in the county's ordinances. That is the scope of your review."
He mentioned that every one of the regulations the Commission is considering was in existence
when the rezoning was done: the critical slopes requirement, the runoff control ordinance, and the
soil erosion ordinance.
Mr. Payne added, "If people don't want to see the back of a building, the property can be bought.
And we'll be glad to sell it."
Mr. Payne said that the color of the building and things like that "are really totally immaterial." He
said that the building is not in the Entrance Corridor, and is not subject to ARB control.
He further emphasized that it is in the interest of the developer to make this site attractive, because if
it is not attractive, it's not going to attract customers.
Mr. Rooker asked if the developer was planning anything specific to make the site attractive.
Mr. Payne responded that this is a very early stage in terms of specifics, and an architect has not yet
designed the site. He added that the landscape provisions of the ordinance are specific. Mr. Payne
said that the developer addressed the fence issue at Mr. Keeler's suggestion to address the lights
shielding from Georgetown Green.
Mr. Rooker asked Mr. Payne to explain how the planting scheme will mitigate the aesthetic
detriment on the property and on the critical slope area.
Mr. Payne said that it is difficult to categorize the slope as an aesthetic resources, noting that none of
the trees are more than 20 years old because it is an artificial slope. He said that the applicant is
proposing to replace the trees with landscaping in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance,
adding that staff has not yet offered specific recommendations about what should be planted. Mr.
Payne noted that the applicant currently plans to put white pines in.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Payne if the applicant would be flexible about the size of the trees.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 21, 1999 293
Mr. Payne said, "The ordinance I think specifically addresses those things."
Mr. Rieley said, "We're talking about mitigating a special condition which is a critical slope
waiver....you say you're flexible in species. Are you flexible in size as well."
Mr. Payne responded, "I don't really know quite what you had in mind ... if we knew that, we might
be able to address it more readily." He added that Mr. Keeler's suggestion was to try to introduce as
many indigenous species as possible to make it look natural.
Mr. Rooker said it would be helpful if Mr. Payne would address the issue of size, because the trees
being removed are being described as small. "When I walked that site, I didn't come away with that
impression at all."
Mr. Payne said he felt confident that the recommendations Mr. Keeler would make would be
reasonable. He stated that the applicant was limited somewhat because it would not be possible to
get large machinery on the slope.
Mr. Keeler stated that the size of the landscaping in the landscaping provisions of the site plan
ordinance was set in part on survivability, and smaller trees often perform better than larger trees.
He added that another standard would be to use the size required by the ARB, which is generally
larger. Mr. Keeler said once a certain size is reached, equipment will have to be brought in to do the
planting, and mentioned that with the Pantops Shopping Center rezoning, that applicant was required
to screen the building from Monticello within a period of 15 years. In that application, staff
recommended species and varieties to accomplish that.
Mr. Keeler added that if the Commission wants the Hop -In site screened with large trees, the result
may not be the indigenous type of planting.
Mr. Finley asked where the 15-year time frame had come from in the Pantops case.
Mr. Keeler said that as part of the modifications that were part of that Planned Development, the
Board could apply conditions to those modifications.
Commenting on the retaining wall height, Mr. Payne said that the building is subject to the
provisions of the uniform statewide building code, which preempts county regulation. He added that
the building will comply with the building code. Mr. Payne emphasized that the runoff provisions of
the water protection ordinance and the soil erosion ordinance were developed over many years, and
they give specific criteria as to what is to be done — such as the 10-year storm levels. "We have no
indication that that's not appropriate in this case." He added, "There's never been a commercial
property for which a 25% slope waiver was requested that was not granted."
Mr. Payne concluded, "We think we've done what we can do with this site in the way that the
county's ordinance ... require us to do it. You can't do it another way. If you can't do this, you can't
do it at all."
Public comment was invited.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 21, 1999 294
Ms. Pat Hurst, representing her neighbors at Georgetown Green, addressed the Commission. Ms.
Hurst said that they just learned the day before the meeting that the project was going forward, and a
lot of the neighbors' preparation has been last-minute. She explained that Georgetown Green is a
family -type neighborhood, and is not a rental property area. Ms. Hurst noted that the neighborhood
is surrounded by Albemarle High School on one end, and the Hop -In site on the other.
Ms. Hurst outlined eight issues as identified by Georgetown Green neighbors: the runoff drainage
(all of which is on the Georgetown Green property); the sewage pumping station (which already
exhibits problems by putting raw sewage into the stream; traffic problems; noise & general activity;
lights; building aesthetics; questionable drawing of the survey; and possible decreasing property
values.
Mr. Michael Sprinkle of Georgetown Green addressed the Commission. He said that upon review of
the site plan, the back of the building from the basement up to the hard surface is 20 feet. Mr.
Sprinkle said that large trees would need to be planted to screen the building from his property. He
expressed concern that there would be gasoline pumps allowed within 200 feet from the beginning
of the spring that feeds the creek. Mr. Sprinkle mentioned that his well will be just 250 feet from the
gasoline tanks. He added that the general runoff from the site and its proximity to the water supply
is also a major concern.
There being no further public comment, the matter was placed before the Commission.
Mr. Thomas asked if there were codes in place to protect the distance from gasoline tanks being
located from wells.
Mr. Kamptner responded that Albemarle County does not have a well -head protection ordinance.
Mr. Morrisette mentioned that with above -ground petroleum tanks, the Health Department and the
State requires 100 foot setback from wells.
Mr. Keeler said that these tanks are underground, so those standards would not apply.
Mr. Rooker commented, "It's a tragedy that we are faced with what we're faced with here. Without
speaking to the merits of this particular application for a waiver from critical slopes, we've got a
convenience store/gas station being built in the reservoir near streams, on what would amount to
about 80% slopes that are going to be completely filled for the purpose of building the entire
convenience store building on top of an area that used to be critical slopes. It's adjacent to
residential areas, it's adjacent to properties with wells. I think it's just a tragedy that we're faced
with this application at all."
Mr. Rieley agreed. He thanked Mr. Rooker for bringing the application to the attention of fellow
Commissioners.
Mr. Rieley said, "It's clear that no matter how we eventually decide this matter, there are a lot of
serious issues that are intertwined with the critical slopes waiver, and my view is it certainly should
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 21, 1999 295
never have been on the Consent Agenda to begin with." Mr. Rieley thanked the Planning and
Engineering staffs for meeting with him to review the history and technical issues involved with the
requested waiver.
Mr. Rieley said he supported staff s recommendation 18 years earlier that only the gas and the
parking from the old Hop -In be relocated on the adjacent property in compensation for the widening
of Hydraulic Road. He noted that the Board's decision at that time to rezone the property has now
forced the county to deal with the rezoning. He added, "I'm not certain that we're obliged to
sanction a plan in which new elements have been added — like this canopy which is in full view of
the very view that is being opened up by the same critical slopes that this waiver is being applied for,
in which the quantity of the runoff beyond this arbitrary 10-year cutoff point is indeed increased."
Mr. Rieley said that because this is a discretionary matter, it is a legitimate issue to consider, noting
that Engineering has confirmed the filtering is only effective for 40-60% of the runoff.
Mr. Rieley emphasized that there would be a "gross diminution of the aesthetic quality of this area as
a direct result of the imposition on these critical slopes," adding that "all of this impact would be
accomplished or exacerbated through this wholesale reshaping of virtually all of the wooded critical
slopes on this property — slopes which I believe contain trees 40-50 feet tall." He added that neither
staff nor the applicant have adequately addressed the diminution of the critical slopes.
Mr. Rieley emphasized that the applicant's argument that the Commission must approve the waiver
associated with this particular preliminary site plan because failure to do so would render the site
unbuildable is "simply erroneous." He added, "I believe that a plan could be developed that is
*ftwl substantially in compliance with plan references in the rezoning procedure that would have much
less impact on critical slopes, and less associated impact on the environmental and the aesthetic
assets that we're charged to protect."
In
Mr. Rieley said he has no interest in using the critical slopes provision of the ordinance to stymie the
legitimate use of the property — which is in fact a convenience store. "But I believe the applicant has
an obligation to satisfy the environmental and aesthetic concerns that are spelled out clearly in the
ordinance." He added that he could not support the waiver until those concerns are addressed.
Mr. Rooker agreed, pointing out that the code regulation governing the waiver is discretionary. He
mentioned that there are at least two areas under Section 4.2 that have not been adequately addressed
by the application. Referencing Section 4.2.5.3, Mr. Rooker noted that the Commission "may
impose such conditions as it deems necessary to protect the public interest" in granting any such
modification. "I think that there are conditions that could be imposed that would deal with the
problems that have been raised." He concluded that as applied for, he is not prepared to support the
application.
Mr. Finley pointed out that in Section 5.2.5.3, the imposing of conditions goes along with the
granting of the waiver. He asked Mr. Rieley about the loss of aesthetic resources.
Mr. Rieley said, "I think the loss has to be viewed within the context of what views it is going to
open up or reveal, and so it's not going to be opening up the view to what's there now. It's going to
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 21, 1999 296
be opening up the view to a 24'x78' blank wall of unknown material and a canopy over gas pumps
that supposedly are a replacement, but there was no canopy in the original."
Mr. Kamptner clarified that the loss of the resource is in the context of the disturbance of the critical
slope, not the use itself of the property.
Mr. Rooker asked if the Commission is limited in its purview for imposing conditions, given the
standards already outlined in the ordinance.
Mr. Kamptner said that conditions can be imposed to the extent that a particular impact is not
addressed by county ordinances.
Mr. Kamptner asked Mr. Brooks if the potential increased runoff from the property is connected to
the critical slope or to the development of the property.
Mr. Brooks replied, "All of it. Everything generates runoff."
Mr. Finley clarified that the ordinance only stipulates protection for ten-year storms.
Mr. Rooker reiterated his question as to whether the Commission had the leeway to go beyond what
is required in the ordinance through imposing conditions.
Mr. Kamptner said, "I think you can if there is a particular impact that is not addressed by the
)%fte ordinance, and you need to address that particular impact."
M
Mr. Thomas asked, "Does it satisfy the pollution in accord with current provisions of the Virginia
Department of Transportation drainage manual?"
Mr. Brooks replied, "Yes, it does."
Mr. Rooker asked if the Commission could impose a standard beyond the ten-year storm as a
condition for the property.
Mr. Kamptner said that the Board has not determined legislatively that runoff above a ten-year storm
level should be subject to a particular standard.
Mr. Loewenstein said he was also concerned about the runoff issue and loss of aesthetic resources.
"If we were going to try to find a way to impose conditions on approval of this waiver that would
address that, because I also don't think that's been addressed by this application as we have it, how
should we do that?"
Mr. Rooker suggested a condition that the building — front, sides and back — be a brick building, to
help diminish the negative impact on the aesthetic resource. He pointed out that the building this
replaces was a brick building. Mr. Rooker suggested that the plantings along the back and front of
the property be much larger caliper as what is required by the ordinance. Regarding the water
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 21, 1999 297
quality issue raised, Mr. Rooker said he was unsure based on what staff has said, what the
4AWW Commission's legal parameters are for imposing a condition to address that.
Mr. Rieley said that the addition of a canopy causes him concern as it "relates directly to the loss of
the screening of the trees that exist on those critical slopes. The diminution of aesthetic resources
directly related to the views that are going to be opened up to this canopy."
Mr. Rieley stated that it is understory that is going to prevent the 50% slopes from eroding, and
suggested including a shrub layer in the landscaping plan. He agreed with Mr. Keeler that the
plantings should look like a deciduous forest, with large trees, and said that if big equipment would
be accessing the site for cutting the slopes, it could also access the site to plant big trees. Mr. Rieley
said that the sand filters only work if they are well maintained, and emphasized the need for a
maintenance contract with an acceptable maintenance company that could be reviewed by
Engineering. He also expressed his desire for the building to be brick.
Mr. Kamptner clarified that the uniform statewide building code prohibits zoning from designating
use of a particular building material. He said that brick by color could be specified.
Mr. Rieley suggested having an ARB member look at the plan; Mr. Kamptner said that the design
planner on the Planning staff could review it.
Mr. Rooker said, "I think it's imperative that the building not stick out like a sore thumb to the 300
and some residents that are immediately behind it."
IWW Mr. Kamptner asked if the restrictions would be applied to the back of the building, the part visible
from Georgetown Green.
Mr. Rooker said that he was referring to front, sides and back, as most of the property is visible from
Georgetown Green. He noted that other Calvet stations are brick. Mr. Rooker said that he would
like to discuss Mr. Rieley's suggestion for a condition prohibiting the canopy.
Mr. Kamptner said that it would be helpful for the record to establish a connection between not
having a canopy and the disturbance of critical slopes.
Mr. Rieley said, "I think there is a direct connection because the disturbance of the critical slopes is
what's going to open up this canopy to full view on both the Georgetown Road side and much of the
Georgetown Green side."
Mr. Loewenstein stated, "It's also going to open up a view of the building."
Mr. Finley said that a canopy is needed for service stations.
Mr. Rooker asked about limitation on hours of operation, and wondered if there was a "reasonable
nexus" between the critical slopes decision before the Commission and the hours of operation. He
added that the critical slopes disturbance will remove a large number of sizeable trees, revealing the
lights of the property to the nearby residential areas.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 21, 1999 298
Mr. Thomas agreed that it was a good idea for Commissioners to discuss the hours of operation.
Mr. Rieley asked Mr. Kamptner if he felt the connection between the slopes disturbance and the
hours of operation was valid.
Mr. Kamptner replied, "Given the existing zoning and the proximity of these other uses, if this was a
flat piece of property, all the trees could be removed."
Mr. Keeler said, "All the trees could be removed; they'd be required to replant a percentage under
the canopy provisions."
Mr. Kamptner emphasized, "The record needs to have something that distinguishes that fact in this
case because of the critical slopes, and similar with the canopy. Because of the by -right use that's
allowed here, if this was a flat piece of property, the people in Georgetown Green would see ... the
building and the canopy, and anything else on the property — subject to the replanting requirements
of the ordinance."
Mr. Keeler clarified that all the trees could be removed except for the 20-foot strip buffer. He
mentioned several situations where stores and gas stations had to replace their tanks, and the ARB
adopted design standards for canopies, which the Commission could use in this case. "That's
intended to apply on Entrance Corridors, and I've always been reluctant to take that legislation and
apply it somewhere else, but if you believe that in order to overcome the aesthetic issue, I don't see
why you can't do that."
Mr. Rieley asked if that could be done for the canopy, it could be done for the entire building.
Mr. Keeler responded that it would be the Commission's decision as to whether those standards
could be applied to the whole building.
Mr. Rieley said, "Because of the 20-foot buffer, and the fact that the critical slopes are what elevate
this site, this in fact will have a lot more impact than if it were a level site."
Mr. Thomas stated that the canopy is not as much of an issue as the replanting of the screen behind
the building to protect the residential sections. "I don't personally have a problem with the canopy
at all. I think the maintenance of the contract of the sand filters should be one of our conditions to
protect the water ... the building itself ... I think the developer would probably want to make the
building as appealing to the public as possible." He added that the project is a good way to infill,
and added that he could support the application, with conditions addressing the sand filter, the
appearance of the building, and the planting of larger trees behind the building.
Mr. Finley asked if the applicant was required to have a maintenance contract that goes on record.
Mr. Keeler replied that that is handled in the Engineering Department, and noted Mr. Rieley's
discerning between a maintenance agreement and an actual executed contract with a maintenance
company.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 21, 1999 299
Mr. Brooks said, "There's a distinction there. Our ordinance speaks to a legal agreement to provide
maintenance and inspection. It doesn't speak to getting a contract with a maintenance company that
we assume would be more competent than the property owner going out and doing it."
Mr. Kamptner said that as part of Engineering's approval of a stormwater management BMP plan
can require monitoring and reporting and specify the method and frequency of the monitoring,
specify the format of the report and the frequency for submitting the report.
Mr. Brooks responded, "That speaks to the forms that we require to be turned in for the annual
inspection, but it doesn't specifically speak to a contract with a commercial agency that cleans sand
filters."
Mr. Kamptner noted, "As part of the approval of the stormwater BMP plan, the program authority
[Engineering] has the ability to impose conditions to assure compliance... with the plan and
determine whether the plan provides effective stormwater management, require that the monitoring
and reporting state the method and frequency of the monitoring and state the format of the report and
the frequency for submitting reports."
Mr. Finley said, "If they're in violation, they're subject to legal action, fines and otherwise."
Mr. Kamptner stated that it falls under the water protection ordinance, and there are mechanisms
within that to enforce it. He suggested to Commissioners that they express what they want to
address this to be implemented by the program authority through the stormwater management BMP
plan."
Mr. Finley asked fellow Commissioner if they agreed with Mr. Thomas's summation of necessary
conditions.
Mr. Rieley replied that the canopy also needs to be addressed in some fashion, agreeing with Mr.
Keeler's suggestion that it be reviewed under ARB standards.
Mr. Keeler offered wording for a condition that the Design Planner review the canopy.
The Commission discussed specific wording for additional conditions, to address the building color,
the maintenance of the sand filter, Design Planner review of the canopy, the planting plan including
the preservation of the existing oaks, and the hours of operation.
Mr. Keeler asked for clarification on the hours of operation, whether the hours included all hours or
just those open to the public.
Mr. Rooker stated that he envisioned the hours of operation as hours open to the public.
Mr. Shepherd asked if the lights would be turned off when the store was closed.
Commissioners agreed that some security lights should remain on.
Albemarle County Planning Commission — December 21, 1999 300
,035 •N.th the
oval °f SDY 9, o ty
econded appz e pzogza aavu 1iy 10`1
vrensteiz� s Y plan'trrispectedln�s °f the
°ved,z �0e nageme tB sand f',ort tb°se f n S z�°�ltOz
as 0 ez a ave to zep the p
ez to
b and azt of
1p1`� Nfz �tizons' °f the StOthe 0�n auth°�tyvided as p th tie
O`t cony oval zeAuzz ogza ise Pz° ce `Nl laz'z'ez
oli0�lrg 0f kbe a�prg� sha,1 to the pz 0khez� accpzda� �esignP
p s paw Y ee satisfy a aUthozlty as °sed caA° 130'a, aid be
(1) (COe son oz he pCogments• oftve plop VTax
VIevi es svoxx
a spectiz o fling zeAuzz fez zevieu ty p zchzte Nake � khe c should bsbe�ez
and zep esignpa 0f the Co its coioz is adeA esl`Nhl ve shy' a>>be
shy>>be �ska�dazds zelatizon t° azy site pled duovs tze ez ° f Kati 11atiz°� sh
�heze desz$n ang �n eiiznln and d shmb day the insta In its ale
ad°pkedof the b`I 0� the pz evezgzee� ouidbe a o Yeats • meantime xzsy gs
zevie`N ees sh°`N o f -atly e Thew sh 'Nitbzn t`N n i� the s e that p site
0f tz kyle a>>pezerage ezosi° uXd e� uz f tzee °n� ez 0f r
e nuznbez es a mzx of 3 c fete CO° o e f10m staff sh° c1uskez ° the c°zn loon
Th ed sped i�zmum de comp is the s1 p pIaning P feet from constzuc
�3i znzx ked at a wi>> Azov at it pzoteclardsca-10 sezeena100AN 50 n dn�ing
fan that kh of a axlzn caked °kectz0
phe tzees such a`Naa pz0ving z0vides bite 0aki°ve tzee pz tizon `
done iaezakjon °f s z0nthat 'PTO
and a`N k sha11ha se 'ice st Stole
cpz'sl in a f a zed -Oa semen e stole °z bouts khe
angel jc�sd°nbie tezea c e
th va on e�ze tb°s
amclu ezk`1 neat etaln d • tiz0n f oz t on ale defzned as e ku�ed
pe lfcaliy z h zs 0f oUzaof °pezatz sty lghts �ii1b
n° °n h zs v
veze sz 01 5.00 am his excepk foc sec
p� pnb,,c is and szgnage bg
,1 eXtemta Y1 h0 ITS.
P e
non °p d•
heSte ,sabUsinessHpezes
�e d°s�o
N'AS entee
rated
sspzesm
ed at 8 35 P
W BUsi�e o nevl bras, n add°uTn
heze•Nas n the meeti . g' lmbe
T n�heTbnsiness'
beingWa e C11
f Vv
eren° V, (�Creta
MOTION: Mr. Thomas moved, Mr. Loewenstein seconded approval of SDP 97-035 with the
following conditions: the program authority
royal of the Management BMP plan,
I As part of the approval he Store require the owner to have the sand filter inspected
o e findings of the y
() (County Engineering) shall r q
to the program authority and to report lan's monitoring
a person or firm satisfactory rovided as part of the p
inspection to the program authority as otherwise p
and reporting requirements.
canopy in accordance with the
(2) There shall be Designrin
of the County Architectural Review Board, and Design Planner
adopted design standards er review of the proposed
review of the building in relation to its color.
The number of trees shown on the preliminary
site plan is adequate; the trees should be
uld be
(3) _ xture of native evergreen and deciduous r erg f nich shrubs beneath
mixed species a mr
lete coverage within two years. The installation shall be
Planted at a minimum of 3" caliper. There should be a s time. In its
the trees that will provide comp
done in such a way that it protects the slope from staff should ensure that plantings are
do of a landscaping plan,
consideration of approvingA cluster of trees on -site,
arranged in a fashion that provides maximum screening.
and a white oak located about 50 feet urin construction and be
from the corner of the
including a double red-oakprotection
property near the waterline easement shall have tree
specifically retained.
convenience store or service station aftereri to
(4) o
There shall be no hours of operation for the operation are defined as those hours the store is op
p.m. or before 5:00 a.m.; hours of op
the public.
na e lights except for security lights will be turned off during
(5) All external lights and srg g
non -operating hours.
Old Business resented.
There was no old business p
New Business resented
There was no new business p
ere being no further business, the meetingadjourned at 8:35 p•m•
Th of , i j 0
V. Wate Cilimberg
Secretary
301
Albemarle County Planning Conunission - December 21, 1999