HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP200800058 Review Comments Special Use Permit 2009-03-11ALg�,��
1'IRGINZ�
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
March 11, 2009
David Wyant
4685 Garth Road
Crozet, VA 22932
RE: SP200800058 Harris Garage
Dear David:
We have had an opportunity to review the concept plans and application for SP 2008 -54 Harris Garage, an
amendment to SP 2001 -49. Review comments from the following agencies, divisions, or departments are
included in this correspondence:
A.
Planning Division
B.
County Engineer
C.
Building Official
D.
VDOT
E.
Zoning
As there are now multiple review comments, they have been organized in the following manner in order to
assist you with the re- submittal and with our next review:
• The comments provided on December 10, 2008, are copied below as reference.
• The responses to the concept plan /information submitted in February 17, 2009, are in italics.
• A check -off list and space for comments has been provided
• When changes are made to the Concept Plan that was submitted on February 17, as a result of these
comments, please cloud them in, so that they can be readily distinguished.
A copy of the re- submittal schedule is enclosed. It is important to submit all of the information/changes at
the same time. Please provide one reduced size plan (11" X 17 ") and nine (9) full -sized copes of the
Concept Plan and nine (9) copies of any correspondence. The receptionist in the Community
Development Department will date stamp the materials in and forward them to me for distribution. Please
note that the date of the re- submittal will determine the public hearing schedule.
C:\ inetpub \wwwroot \cityviewlazerfiche_ integration \tempdocholder\29095.doc
-1-
A. The Planning Division comments:
Dec. 10, 2008: Describe all activities that will take place within the proposed carports. We will not be
able to recommend any vehicle repair or storage of parts, materials, or /equipment under the carports.
March 5, 2009: This has not been done.
Next re- submittal:
❑ Included on Plan
❑ Information provided in letter
Comments:
Dec. 10, 2008: Delineate existing landscape screening (type, location, size) and proposed landscape
screening.
March 5, 2009: The existing landscaping is not screening the garage and the exterior parking area
from the street or from the adjacent neighbors, as intended. A condition of approval to require
additional evergreen landscape materials for screening will be recommended. [NO ACTION
REQUIRED AT THIS TIME]
Dec. 10, 2008: Review the conditions approved with SP 2001 -49 and make any changes requested
with this application.
March 5, 2009: Change to #13 was included. [NO ACTION REQUIRED AT THIS TIME]
Dec. 10, 2008: Although the vehicle storage for personal vehicles would be along the access driveway
to the garage and outside the special use permit boundary, it is recommended that landscape screening
from the road and from the adjacent property to the north be provided with this special use permit.
See #2 above. [NO ACTION WILL BE REQUIRED AT THIS TIME]
Dec. 10, 2008: Include the square footage / acreage of the area designated for the special use permit.
March 5, 2009: This will be needed. Also, the square footage of the existing building should have
been approx. 1936 square feet, according to the approved concept plan approved with SP 01 -49. The
plan shows that the original building having approx. 2100 square feet. The dimensions/ total square
footage should be shown on the plan.
Next re- submittal:
❑ Added to Plan
❑ Information provided in letter
Other:
C:\ inetpub \wwwroot \cityviewlazerfiche_ integration \tempdocholder\29095.doc
-2-
March 5, 2009: Additional Comments:
1. In order to enclose the outdoor lift and to provide for enclosed storage, the Zoning Division
permitted an addition to the building (1,496 square feet) to the 1,936 square foot building that was
existing at the time SPOT -49 was approved. Although this nearly doubled the interior space approved
by the approved special use permit, there is currently a lift located outside next to the building
addition and there is also storage located outside the building. If this lift is to be made part of the
special use permit, it should remain on the plan and the Site Development Data on Sheet I should
include the lift.
Next re- submittal:
❑ Added to Plan
❑ Information provided in letter
Other:
2. During a site visit, two items that are not shown on the plan were observed: a tall metal chimney
and a red, shed -like structure. Both were located on the east side of the building. Please explain
the functions of these structures and, show them on the plan. If they are not to be demolished, they
should be included on the concept plan so that they become can part of the operation, if it is
approved.
Next re- submittal:
❑ Added to Plan
❑ Information provided in letter
Other:
3. General Notes (2009) section on Sheet 1: No. 3 states that lighting is not being proposed.
However, Nos. 5 and 6 in the General Notes section gives restrictions on the lighting. Please
provide clarification or make corrections.
Next re- submittal:
❑ Added to Plan
❑ Information provided in letter
Other:
C:\ inetpub \wwwroot \cityviewlazerfiche_ integration \tempdocholder\29095.doc
-3-
4. The Site Development Data on Sheet I indicates that there are five (5) Bays. The original building
indicates that it contains three bays; the building expansion was only allowed to have one bay;
where is the fifth bay? .
Next re- submittal:
❑ Added to Plan
❑ Information provided in letter
Other:
B. December 10, 2008: The County Engineer has requested information to assess the request to
disturb critical slopes. The following link is to the primer on critical slope requests:
http: / /www. abemarle. org /upload/ images /forms_ center / departments /community _ development /fortns /d
esign_ standards_ manual/ CountyEngineersCommentary _9_Critical_Slopes_Waivers.pdf
March 5, 2009: The new stormwater release channel is shown releasing onto neighboring property. An
easement will be needed to the stream.
Stormwater management improvements are needed for added impervious area. See the buffer plantings
recommended with the critical slopes waiver review.
The critical slope waiver request has been reviewed. The engineering analysis of the request follows:
• Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
The two areas of critical slope disturbance consisted of a large wooded slope leading down to the stream
on the rear, eastern property line, and a steep wooded slope behind the building on the northern property
line. The applicant has already disturbed these areas in violation of the ordinance and existing special
use permit plans. The applicant is proposing to stabilize the northern slope behind the building with seed
and a small wall at the toe, and to leave the eastern slope as -is.
Areas Acres
Total site 3.23 acre parcel
Critical slopes 0.3712% of site
Critical slopes disturbed 0.3 81 % of critical slopes
• Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable
alternative locations:
This disturbance is not exempt.
• Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 -4.2:
"movement of soil and rock"
The slopes have not been properly constructed. They are slightly steeper than 2:1 in places, which is
not inherently stable for most soils in Albemarle. The slope in back of the building is an exposed cut.
The slope down to the creek is slightly convex, with exposed boulders and debris, and a light covering
of new grass. It does not appear to have been properly compacted. The northeast corner is loose fill
with rubble and exposed rebar placed amid the trunks of small trees which will likely die.
"excessive stormwater runoff"
Stormwater runoff has been increased in these areas with steeper slopes than original, less vegetation,
and more impervious area behind the building.
"siltation"
Most siltation has already taken place. Long term stability may be an issue.
C:\ inetpub \wwwroot \cityviewlazerfiche_ integration \tempdocholder\29095.doc
-4-
"loss of aesthetic resource"
This area is visible from the surrounding properties.
"septic effluent"
This does not appear to be an issue, but the applicant has provided no information on this topic.
Based on the review above, if the Planning Commission approves the request the following conditions are
recommended;
1. The eastern facing slope above the creak must be reshaped to a uniform grade not steeper than
2H.1 V, covered with erosion control matting, and permanently seeded.
2. The retaining wall proposed in the rear of the building must be at least 3' high, and topsoil,
matting, and permanent seed or mulch and shrubs must be applied to the cut slope for adequate
stabilization.
3. To provide stormwater management and replenish the buffer, the entire buffer area within the
property should be planted in accordance with the Chesapeake Bay Riparian Buffers Modification
and Mitigation Guidance Manual. (The applicant is referred to the Restoration Establishment
Tables in Appendix D, calling for canopy trees at 6' centers, understory trees at 4' centers, and
shrubs at 18" centers.) These should be bonded as a guarantee of survival for at least 5 years.
C. The Building official has offered the following comments:
Change the notation 'Building Permit # 200702650NNR" to Building Permit Application #
200702651NC.
This has not been done.
Change the notation 'Building Permit # 200702652NNR" to Building Permit Application #
200702650NC.
This has not been done.
Next re- submittal:
❑ Added to Plan
❑ Information provided in letter
Other:
D. The Virginia Department of Transportation has requested the following information:
• Trip generation data needs to be shown.
• The existing entrance needs to be addressed for its adequacy.
• More specific comments to the entrance have been provided with the site plan SDP 2008 -157 (see
attached).
This has not been done.
Next re- submittal:
❑ Added to Plan
❑ Information provided in letter
Other:
E. Zoning Division has submitted the following comments:
The special use permit amendment application in conjunction with a site plan amendment, are
C:\ inetpub \wwwroot \cityviewlazerfiche_ integration \tempdocholder\29095.doc
-5-
intended to abate the current zoning violation. (Please see the inserted Notice of Zoning Violation.)
Based on our observations on July 16th and 23rd, we found the following violations of conditions of the
prior special use permit:
1. Automobiles are being repaired outside the garage.
Condition #11: All repairing or equipping of vehicles shall take place inside the existing
garage, with the exception of vehicles being repaired on the vehicle lift located adjacent to
the garage;
2. There are materials, vehicle parts, equipment and junk outside (such as in the area of the
exterior vehicle lift located adjacent to the garage).
Condition #12: The outdoor storage of parts, equipment, machinery and junk is
prohibited;
3. There are 14 — 25 vehicles (more than the 10 permitted) located outside the enclosed structure
Condition #13: No more than a total of ten (10) vehicles associated with the
public garage use shall be located outside any enclosed structure. All vehicles
associated with the public garage use shall be parked only in the gravel parking
area shown on the plan titled "SP 01 -49 Harris Garage Concept Plan, " which is
made of part of these conditions. "Vehicles associated with the public garage
use" include, but are not limited to, the vehicles of the public garage customers;
and the vehicles of the owner or occupant of the property, or any other person,
that: (a) are inoperable vehicles within the meaning of section 3.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance; (b) are being or will be repaired, equipped, restored, refurbished, or
painted; (c) are having or will have body work performed on them; or (d) are
having or will have their parts or equipment removed, to be used in the repair or
equipping of other vehicles or to be sold;
4. The parking area has been expanded beyond the gravel parking area shown on the plan
referred to in condition #13.
In addition, there are several site plan violations, including the need for a critical slopes waiver for fill
on critical slopes.
The Notice of Violation dated August 29th was not appealed and is therefore final and un- appealable.
The submittal of a special use permit and site plan to abate the violations do not automatically serve to
stay any further enforcement proceedings.
Because the site plan is integral to the special use permit (and will be part of that approval) in a case
such as this, my comments will include both items.
1. I recommend a revision to condition #11 to clarify permitted activities within the existing
carports within the parking area. This revision should simply state "No repairing or equipping
of vehicles shall be permitted within the carports." Vehicle restoration is considered repairing
or equipment of vehicles.
2. I recommend a revision to condition #13 that allows no more than 15 vehicles related to the
business (customers and employees) and that requires any non - business or personal vehicles
to be parked within the parking area designated. I also request that the applicant revise the
plan to tie down the personal parking area on the ground, preferably with a surveyed location
or at least with some area and location measurements. The purpose of this is to clarify the
administration of this requirement and eliminate questions in the event of future expansion.
3. It may be advisable to require screening on this property between the parking for personal
vehicles and the adjoining property line.
4. Please review the critical slopes waiver concurrently with the special use permit. That then
gives us direction and will streamline the site plan review.
5. The plan does not indicate the location of the existing septic field and it should. Is it in the area
of the fill? If so, Health Department review should be obtained.
6. Please be aware that the existing garage contains an additional work bay than the prior special
use permit plan proposed. This should be stated in the record for this application. This is due
to a building addition to accommodate the exterior lift. Please include a condition of approval
that limits the number of service bays. This is in an effort to clarify the limitation of the intensity
C:\ inetpub \wwwroot \cityviewlazerfiche_ integration \tempdocholder\29095.doc
-6-
of this use. It is similar to conditions that limit enrollment in a school or sanctuary size in a
church.
7. The plan shows a proposed easement on the adjoining property to accommodate the existing
entrance and driveway. Evidence of this easement should be provided by the applicant.
8. Please note on the plan what the three bold lines are on the perimeter of the garage area.
March 10, 2009: These comments are provided for the revised plan dated February 15, 2009.
Please consider the following comments:
1. The current plan does not address screening along the side property line between this property
and TM 8, Parcel 39B1 Lawson.
2. (My comment from comments on December 12, 2008): The plan does not indicate the location of
the existing septic field and it should. Is it in the area of the fill? If so, Health Department review
should be obtained.
3. Please indicate the dimensions of the building. An approximate square footage may be
problematic.
4. Revise the plan to show the orange structure on the side of the building.
5. The applicant is advised that any vehicle chassis in their personal parking is considered an
inoperative vehicle. A maximum of two are allowed and they must be covered / shielded from
public view.
Please be certain that the special use permit conditions include:
1. Revision to condition #13 that is clear about numbers of business vehicles;
2. New condition which requires certain remediation work to be done promptly and allows for a
bond to be held for 5 years as suggested by County Engineer. The reason for this is twofold: a)
instead of allowing the full two year time period for a special use permit since there are current
violations that are being addressed, we will want remediation work (such as treatment of critical
slopes and replanting in the stream buffer) to be done as soon as possible; and b) because the
Ordinance only allows us to hold a site bond for one year, extending it to 5 years for the
replanting can be done by the Board as part of the special permit approval.
3. Include a condition which clearly states what is approved. For example, a certain number of bays
and /or size of building.
F. The Water Resources Manager has submitted the following comment:
March 05, 2009: Thank you for the Tier III Groundwater Assessment. So as to review the
impact of the requested use on groundwater, please send information on the present well
(i.e. yield, depth, location) and a justified projected water usage for the facility.
Next re- submittal:
❑ Added to Plan
❑ Information provided in letter
Other:
C:\ inetpub \wwwroot \cityviewlazerfiche_ integration \tempdocholder\29095.doc
-7-
If you have any questions, please call me at 434/296 -5832 extension 3249.
Sincerely,
Joan McDowell
Principal Planner, Rural Areas
C:\ inetpub \wwwroot \cityviewlazerfiche_ integration \tempdocholder\29095.doc
-8-