HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201000038 Legacy Document 2012-06-28 (11)COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY
Project Name: SP- 2010 -00038 Badger Industrial
Staff: Phil Custer
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
August 9, 2011
To be determined
Owners: HMC Holdings, LLC
Applicant: HMC Holdings, LLC represented by
Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering
Acreage: 12.05 acres
Special Use Permit: Request to allow fill in the
floodplain to create more buildable area (Section
30.3.5.2.2.3 of the Zoning Ordinance)
TMP: TM 32, Parcel 5B
Existing Zoning and By -right use: Light
Location: 4257 Seminole Trail (US 29), just
Industrial (LI) — industrial, office, and limited
north of the North Fork of the Rivanna River
commercial uses (no residential use); Entrance
on the east side of US 29, directly opposite
(EC) — overlay to protect protect properties of
the intersection of Camelot Drive and US 29
historic, architectural or cultural significance from
visual impacts of development along routes of
tourist access; Airport Impact Area (AIA) —
overlay district to prevent obstructions to airport
operations and minimize adverse air port- related
impacts on properties; Flood Hazard (FH) —
overlay district to provide safety and protection
from flooding
Magisterial District: Rivanna
Conditions: Yes (SP 2010 -006 and SP 2010-
011)
Development Area:
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Community of Piney Mountain
Industrial Service -- warehousing, light industry,
heavy industry, research, office uses, regional
scale research, limited production and marketing
activities, supporting commercial, lodging and
conference facilities, and residential (6.01 -34
units /acre) and Parks and Greenways - parks;
greenways; playgrounds; pedestrian and bicycle
paths in the Community of Piney Mountain
Character of Property:
Use of Surrounding Properties:
The site is developed and includes a one -story
The Camelot residential subdivision is located
office fronting a larger industrial /warehouse
across US 29 to the northwest and the UVA
building with paving surrounding the structure.
Research Park is across US 29 to the
There is a wooded area sloping down to
southwest. Industrially zoned properties
floodplain to the south and east. The site is
including the Clayton Homes display lot and
partially screened by a 1 -story building on TM
the International Auto Sport site are situated
32 Parcel 5131 that shares a common wall
immediately to the north. The NGIC /DIA
which was subdivided in 2010.
facilities are further to the north. The North
Fork of the Rivanna is located to the east and
south, with residential uses beyond.
Factor Favorable:
Factor Unfavorable:
1. The proposal increases developable land in
1. The fill is shown within the FEMA- defined
the development areas.
.�P 2010 -38 Badger lndL[Arla�
PC Staff Report 1"we 1
SP 2010 -38 Badger Industrial
PC Staff Report Page 2
floodway.
2. The area of fill is shown on the Open Space
Plan.
3. There are some technical uncertainties with
the revised floodplain models provided by the
applicant.
4. The model shows the proposed fill raising the
flood level.
5. The proposal does not take into account for
temporary disturbance and filling of land
within the floodplain for ESC measures.
6. The fill activity would result in the disturbance
of critical slopes.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the factors noted as unfavorable, staff recommends denial of this
special use permit application.
SP 2010 -38 Badger Industrial
PC Staff Report Page 2
STAFF PERSON: Phil Custer
PLANNING COMMISSION: August 9, 2011
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined
SP 2010 -00038 Badger Industrial
PETITION
PROJECT: BADGER INDUSTRIAL (SP 2010 - 00038)
PROPOSAL: Placement of fill in the floodplain to allow expanded use of industrially zoned
property.
PROFFERS: No
EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE /DENSITY: Industrial Service -- warehousing,
light industry, heavy industry, research, office uses, regional scale research, limited production and
marketing activities, supporting commercial, lodging and conference facilities, and residential (6.01-
34 units /acre) and Parks and Greenways - parks; greenways; playgrounds; pedestrian and bicycle
paths in the Community of Piney Mountain
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes
LOCATION: 4257 Seminole Trail (US 29), just north of the North Fork of the Rivanna River on the east side
of US 29, directly opposite the intersection of Camelot Drive and US 29
TAX MAP /PARCEL: Tax Map 32, Parcel 5B
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rivanna
CHARACTER OF THE SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA
The subject parcel was developed in 1968 as Electronics Concepts, Inc., and later as the Badger
Powhatan Company. A brick -faced office fronts larger warehouse structures, and paving extends
around all sides of the building. In 2010 the original site (south of the mobile home sale property)
was subdivided to carve out a 4.75 acre parcel along the frontage of Route 29. Wooded areas and
steep slopes that descend to the North Fork of the Rivanna River exist on the east and south sides
of the property. An intermittent stream runs west to east on the property from an outlet at the
eastern edge of the fill. The stream is considerably eroded due to its urbanized drainage area
which includes the property under review, a large portion of Route 29, and Camelot Drive.
With TMP 32 -5131, the 12.05 -acre parcel anchors the southern end of a block of industrial land
situated along US 29 opposite Camelot Drive. To the north, a mobile home sales business and an
auto distribution warehouse facility are located on industrial property. Further north, the NGIC /DIA
facility includes large office buildings off of Boulders Road. Residential developments of varying
scale (including the Camelot subdivision on the west side of US 29 and Rivers Edge to the
southeast across the North Fork of the Rivanna) are located in the general area. (See Attachment
A, GIS Aerial Photograph)
SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting a special use permit to allow fill in the floodplain to expand the
developable land of the existing parcel. For all practical purposes, no expansion of the existing site
can be achieved without filling in the floodplain which currently climbs about halfway up the
approximately 20ft tall slope on the east and south ends of the storage area surrounding the
warehouse building. The applicant is proposing to fill approximately an additional 180ft into the
floodplain to the east and south for a total length of 900ft around the parcel. The new plateau would
accommodate a new 40,OOOsf (or larger) warehouse, associated parking, and necessary
stormwater management facilities. (See Attachment D)
In addition to the need for a Special Use Permit for filling within the floodplain, the proposal also is
contingent on a waiver of 18 -4.2 for the disturbance of critical slopes along the eastern and
southern slopes of the property.
PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
This property has the following relevant history:
SDP - 0000119: Electronics Concepts, Inc.: Site plan approved 7/10/1968.
SDP - 000025: Sprinkler Systems Building Addition: Site plan approved 5/10/1973; service drive
approved 5/28/1974.
SDP - 000026: Badger Powhatan Parking Lot: Site plan amendment for additional parking approved
12/18/1975.
VA- 1977 -066: ATO Properties (Badger Powhatan): Variance for reduction in sign setback approved
11/10/1977.
SDP - 1992 -82: Badger Powhatan: minor amendment for snack bar building signed 12/6/1992.
SUB - 2010 -13: A 2 -lot subdivision for parcel 5B was approved on 4/2/2010. The action divides the
parcel along a line that runs north /south through the building. The auto body shop is proposed for
the western part of the building and the site.
SP- 2010 -06: Baugh Auto Body: Special Use Permit to allow reuse of an existing building for an
automotive repair shot; Approved 9/8/2010
SP- 2010 -11: Baugh Rental Car Outdoor Storage: Special Use Permit for outdoor storage of rental
cars associated with the auto body shop reviewed with SP- 2010 -06. Approved 9/8/2010
CONFORMITY WITH THE PLACES29 MASTER PLAN /COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Future Land Use Map in the Places29 Master Plan shows two designations on this site.
(Please see Attachment B GIS Comprehensive Plan Areas) The first is Office /Research &
Development (R &D) /Flex /Light Industrial, with which the proposed use is compatible.
However, the east and south sides of the property are designated Privately Owned Open
Space /Environmental Features because there is a combination of natural features in these areas,
including the stream, the 100 -year floodplain, and steep slopes. These features are also shown on
the Places29 Parks & Green Systems Map, along with a proposed trail along the stream.
As indicated on page 4 -13 of the Master Plan, examples of the only types of primary and secondary
uses expected in areas designated Open Space are: public, semi - private, or private parks or
recreational fields; greenways and blueways; and trails and paths.
As stated on page 4 -25 of the Master Plan, "This designation on the Parks & Green Systems Map
combines significant clusters and contiguous areas of steep slopes, the 100 -year floodplain, and
stream buffers with larger areas of privately owned open space in existing developments.... Where
this designation extends onto private property, it indicates that steep slopes are present and
disturbance should be avoided."
Staff believes that filling in the floodplain to expand the use of the property is not compatible with
the Places29 Master Plan.
COMFORMITY WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY
The County's Economic Development Policy contains several objectives and strategies that speak
to the need to balance the need for economic development with preservation of natural features
that contribute to the quality of life for residents and workers in the County:
OBJECTIVE I: Base economic development policy on planning efforts which support and
enhance the strengths of the County.
STRATEGIES:
SP 2010 -38 Badger Industrial
PC Staff Report Page 4
1. Protect through diligent growth management efforts the County's distinctive
natural and man -made qualities to maintain its attractiveness as a place to live and
work. Support those projects that meet the intent of the Neighborhood model form of
development, i.e., offer a mix of uses and a balance of jobs -to- housing in our
development areas.
2. Maintain the relationship of high quality schools and public services and an
outstanding level of natural and cultural amenities to positive economic development,
and maintain these attributes.
OBJECTIVE IV: Consider fiscal impact as one indicator of positive economic development,
along with environmental impact and standard of living impact.
STRATEGY:
2. Recognize that County residents place importance on job opportunities and
economic growth, but not at the expense of the protection and preservation of water
quality and quantity, natural resources, farmland, historic areas, and open space.
Staff believes that filling in the floodplain to expand the use of the property is not compatible with
the Economic Development Policy because it runs counter to many of the environmental caveats
expressed within the policy.
STAFF COMMENT AND DISCUSSION - SPECIAL USE PERMIT
Staff addresses each provision of Section 31.6 of the Zoning Ordinance:
31.6.1 Special Use Permits provided for in this ordinance may be issued upon a finding by
the Board of Supervisors that such use will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property,
The model provided by the applicant shows that the proposed fill will raise the floodplain on
adjacent properties. Engineering has discovered issues with the model that must be addressed
before a complete analysis can be provided with any degree of confidence. Please see Attachment
H for a list of issues Engineering has discovered with the model.
that the character of the district will not be changed thereby and
The warehouse use meets the requirements of the Light Industrial Zoning District as long as no
hazardous material listed in section 18- 27.2.1.17 is stored on site.
that such use will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance,
Section 30.3.01 of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the purpose of Flood Hazard Overlay District:
It is intended that the flood hazard overlay district hereby and hereafter created shall be for the
purpose of providing safety and protection from flooding. More specifically, these provisions are
intended to restrict the unwise use, development and occupancy of lands subject to inundation
which may result in: danger to life and property; public costs for flood control measures and /or
rescue and relief efforts; soil erosion, sedimentation and siltation; pollution of water resources; and
general degradation of the natural and man -made environment.
It is further intended that these provisions shall be adequate for qualification and continuation of
Albemarle County on the regular program of the National Flood Insurance Program as administered
by the Federal Insurance Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
To these ends, provisions have been developed in accordance with regulations governing the
regular program.
Further along into this portion of Zoning Ordinance (30.3.03.2), more guidelines are written:
In order to comply with the requirements of the regular program of the National Flood Insurance
Program, no construction or other development shall be undertaken without prior issuance by the
zoning administrator of a development permit. The purpose of such permit shall be to determine the
effects of the proposed construction or development on the flood carrying capacity of the water
course. No development permit shall be issued for any use, structure, activity, fill, new construction,
substantial improvements or other development which in the opinion of the county engineer would
result in any increase in flood levels during the occurrence of a one hundred year flood discharge.
In making such determination, the county engineer shall obtain, review and reasonably utilize any
base flood elevation and floodway data available from a federal, state or other source and may
request assistance from the Federal Insurance Administration, the United States Army Corps of
Engineers and such other qualified agencies and persons as he deems appropriate.
An important issue to recognize with this application is that the proposal shows fill within the
approved FEMA floodway, which is not allowed by -right or by Special Use Permit in Section
30.3.05.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. (See Attachment C SP 2010 -00038 Sheet 2 of 3) The
applicant has acknowledged this conflict and has stated that he feels that the current floodway line
in the FEMA model is incorrect and intends to submit a Letter of Map Revision to FEMA to modify it.
The applicant wishes the county to act on the application based on the condition that FEMA will
approve the relocation of the floodway line closer to the river bank. Staff has been informed by the
County Attorney's office that this is possible procedurally but Staff does not feel that it is appropriate
to act until input or approval from FEMA is given.
Even ignoring the issue with the existing floodway line, commentary can be provided on the
proposal's conflict with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. As noted in the commentary regarding
the Comprehensive /Places29 plan, the proposed fill is shown within an area marked as open
space. Open spaces are generally located in areas where there are natural resources to be
protected.
The proposal also shows an increase to the flood elevation upstream of the site. Based on staff
analysis, approval of this permit would be contrary to the purpose and intent of the ordinance and,
in fact, it would be in direct conflict with letter of the ordinance. This request cannot be approved
because it is in direct conflict with the provisions of Section 30.3.03.2.
with uses permitted by right in the district,
The warehouse use meets the requirements of the Light Industrial Zoning District as long as no
hazardous material listed in section 18- 27.2.1.17 is stored on site. However, for the reasons stated
above, approval would be inconsistent with uses permitted by right in the Flood Hazard Overlay
District.
with the additional regulations provided in section 5.0 of this ordinance,
There are no additional regulations in section 5.0 for this use.
and with the public health, safety and general welfare.
At this time, staff cannot conclusively state that the proposed fill would not negatively affect the
public health, safety and general welfare. Generally, it is not good engineering practice to allow fill
within the floodplain. Specifically, the floodplain models submitted by the applicant show an
increase to the existing flood elevations all along the river. Most importantly, the flood elevation at
the bridge shows an increase of more than 2ft between the existing model and the model modified
by the applicant. (See Attachments F and G) However, this jump in elevation occurs not when fill
is added, but when the new cross - sections (9.73, 9.6, and 9.54) are included in the model. The
reasons for such a jump are unclear and staff has requested that the applicant explain this
considerable increase in flood elevation.
Staff cannot find that this request is in harmony with the intent to protect the health, safety and
general welfare of the public.
STAFF COMMENT AND DISCUSSION - CRITICAL SLOPE WAIVER REQUEST
The request for a modification has been reviewed for both the Engineering and Planning aspects of
the critical slopes regulations. Section 4.2.3.2 of the Zoning Ordinance restricts earth - disturbing
activity on critical slopes, while Section 4.2.5(a) allows the Planning Commission to waive this
restriction. The applicant has submitted a request and justification for the waiver (Attachment E),
and staff has analyzed this request to address the provisions of the ordinance as outlined in 18-
4.2.5.a.2. Staff's recommendation for this waiver request is detailed under the subheader Section
4.2.5.a.3.
Description of critical slope area and proposed disturbance:
The applicant is requesting a waiver to disturb critical slopes to develop the parcel in accordance
with the application plan (Attachment E). The disturbance to critical slopes is needed to provide
additional buildable area for a 40,OOOsf warehouse (which could be much larger), parking, and
stormwater management areas. The majority of the slopes being disturbed are grassed, manmade
slopes that were constructed after the approval of SDP -025. (See Attachment D) These slopes are
roughly 2:1, and may be steeper in some areas. A small portion of the critical slope disturbance
occurs in naturally occurring slopes within the intermittent stream channel.
Areas
Acres
Total site
12.05 total acres approximately
Critical slopes
2.24 ac.
18.6% of site
Critical slopes disturbed
1.28 ac.
-57% of critical slopes
Exemptions to critical slopes waivers for driveways, roads and utilities without reasonable
alternative locations:
Staff finds none of the proposed critical slope disturbance to be exempt.
Compliance with Zoning Ordinance 18 -4.2:
"movement of soil and rock"
Proper slope construction, control of drainage, and vegetative stabilization will minimize any
movement of soil. Before construction occurs an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan must be
approved by the county. However, the proposed limit of fill leaves inadequate room for sediment
control measures such as diversion dikes and sediment traps. These measures will likely require fill
which is prohibited unless acknowledged by this special use permit or is out of the floodway. Staff
is concerned that proper Erosion and Sediment Control measures cannot be established with the
current layout.
"excessive stormwater runoff'
A stormwater management plan must be approved for this project prior to construction. The plan
will collect as much of the runoff as possible and direct it to Stormwater Management facilities. The
rainfall falling on the newly created slopes will not be considerably more excessive than the runoff
on the existing slopes.
"siltation"
Please see "movement of soil and rock" section.
"loss of aesthetic resource"
Approximately half of these slopes appear on the Open Space plan as an area of critical resources.
Staff opinion is that the proposed disturbance of critical slopes, shown in the Open Space Plan as a
critical resource, will result in the loss of aesthetic resource.
"septic effluent"
This development will be served by public sewer.
Section 4.2.5.a.3 Findings
The commission may grant a modification or waiver if it finds that the modification or waiver would
not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, to the orderly development of the area, or
to adjacent properties; would not be contrary to sound engineering practices; and at least one of the
following:
a. 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;
The strict application of section 4.2 will forward the public purpose by preventing the loss of
aesthetic resources and minimizing the potential for soil and rock movement.
b. Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes
of section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree;
No alternatives have been proposed.
c. Due to the property's unusual size, topography, shape, location or other unusual conditions,
excluding the proprietary interest of the developer or subdivider, prohibiting the disturbance
of critical slopes would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or
would result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent properties; or
The property is already developed. Denial of this request would not prohibit or
unreasonably restrict the use of the property.
d. Granting the modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than
would be served by strict application of the regulations sought to be modified or waived.
Staff can identify no public purpose that would be served by granting this waiver.
Staff is unable to recommend that any of the findings of the ordinance can be made. Staff
opinion is that approval of this request may result in the movement of soil and rock and will
result in the loss of aesthetic resources. For these reasons staff recommends denial of the
critical slopes waiver.
SUMMARY
Staff has identified the following factors favorable to this request.
Factors Favorable:
1. The proposal increases developable land in the development areas.
Staff has identified the following factors unfavorable to this request.
Factors Unfavorable:
1. The fill is shown within the FEMA- defined floodway.
2. The area of fill is shown as a resource in the Open Space Plan.
3. There are some technical uncertainties with the revised floodplain models provided by
the applicant.
4. The model shows the proposed fill raising the flood level.
5. The proposal does not take into account for temporary disturbance and filling of land
within the floodplain for ESC measures.
6. The fill activity would result in the disturbance of critical slopes.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
In order to approve this request the provisions of Section 31.6.1 (for the special use permit) and the
provisions of Section 4.2.5(a) have to be adequately and affirmatively addressed. Staff analysis is
that approval of this request would be inconsistent with the provisions of Section 31.6.1 and 4.2.5(a)
as outlined in the unfavorable factors comments above and therefore staff recommends denial of
both requests.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION
Two actions will be required by the Planning Commission. The Board of Supervisors does not need
to act on the Critical Slopes Waiver.
A. Action on the Critical Slope Waiver
I. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to move to approve this critical slope waiver:
Move to approve the critical slope waiver associated with SP 2010 -00038 (with any
conditions deemed necessary).
II. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to move to deny this critical slope waiver:
Move to deny the critical slope waiver associated with SP 2010 -00038 based on the finding
that the waiver would:
SP 2010 -38 Badger Industrial
PC Staff Report Page 9
-be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, to the orderly development of the area,
or to adjacent properties; and /or
- be contrary to sound engineering practices; and /or
-all four of the considerations listed in 18- 4.2.5.a.3.a -d.
B. Recommendation of the Special Use Permit
I. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend approval of this special use permit:
Move to recommend approval of SP 2010 - 00038.
II. Should a Planning Commissioner choose to recommend denial of this rezoning:
Move to recommend denial of SP 2010 -00038 based on the factors unfavorable as identified
by staff or Move to recommend denial for the following reasons:
ATTACHMENTS
A. GIS Aerial Photograph
B. GIS Comprehensive Plan Areas
C. SP 2010 -00038 Sheet 2 of 3, dated 6/1/2011
D. SP 2010 -00038 Sheet 3 of 3, dated 6/1/2011
E. Applicant's critical slope waiver request letter
F. Bridge Cross - Section, Existing Flood Model
G. Bridge Cross - Section, Applicant's Flood Model
H. Engineering memo from the review of Applicant's floodplain models, dated July 15th, 2011
I. Review Letter provided to Applicant after 2nd submittal, dated July 6th 2011
SP 2010 -38 Badger Industrial
PC Staff Report Page 10