HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800061 Legacy Document 2009-04-28COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Name: SDP2008 -61 Earlysville
Staff: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner;
Business Park - Final
Amy Pflaum, Engineer
Planning Commission Public Hearing:
Board of Supervisors Public Hearing:
May 5, 2009
n/a
Owners: 4F, LLC
Applicant: 4F, LLC
Acreage: 26.812 acres
Special Use Permit for: n/a
TMP: Tax Map 31, Parcel 21 A
Proffers /Conditions: n/a
Location: The south side of Reas Ford
Road approximately 1.1 miles west of the
intersection of Reas Ford Road and
Earlysville Road.
By -right use: LI -Light Industrial
Magisterial District: Rio
Requested # of Dwelling Units: n/a
DA RA X
Proposal: The applicant proposes the
Comprehensive Plan Designation: Rural
extension of an existing road, construction of
Area in Rural Area 1.
an 8,000 square foot building described as a
"Machine Shop ", and the creation of a
contractors storage yard. The proposal
includes requests to modify Section 4.2.3.2 to
allow activity on critical slopes, and Section
26.10(c) to allow disturbance in a landscape
buffer.
Character of Property: Property is currently
Use of Surrounding Properties: Light
developed for, and utilized by light industrial
Industrial and Commercial Office.
businesses.
Factors Favorable:
Factors Unfavorable:
Multiple — See Report
Multiple — See Report
RECOMMENDATION:
I. Final Site Plan proposal (recommendation, approval with conditions); and
II. Zoning Ordinance Waivers:
1. Waiver of Section 4.2.3.2 — disturbance of critical slopes (recommendation,
approval)
2. Waiver of Section 26.10(c) —disturbance of required landscape buffer
(recommendation, approval)
STAFF CONTACT
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA TITLE
PROPERTY OWNER
Summer Frederick
May 5, 2009
SDP 2009 -61 Earlysville Business Park - Final
4F, LLC
APPLICANT 4F, LLC
PROPOSAL
The applicant proposes the extension of an existing road, construction of an 8,000 square foot building
described as a "Machine Shop ", and the creation of a contractor's storage yard. The proposal includes
requests to modify Section 4.2.3.2 to allow activity on critical slopes, and Section 26.10(c) to allow
disturbance in a landscape buffer.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Area in Rural Area 1.
CHARACTER OF THE AREA
The property is currently developed for, and utilized by light industrial businesses.
REASON FOR COMMISSION REVIEW
In accordance with Section 32.4.2.5(c), review of the final site plan and the request to waiver requirements
found in Section 26.10(c) to allow disturbance in a landscape buffer by the Commission has been requested
by adjacent property owners (Attachment). In addition, the applicant has requested a waiver of Section
4.2.3.2 to allow activity on critical slopes.
RELEVANT PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY
TMP 31 -21A has been zoned with various Industrial Zoning Districts since the 1960's, and has been
developed with light industrial businesses consistently. Numerous site plan and subdivision approvals have
resulted in the existing development of the site.
DISCUSSION
The Planning Commission must act on each waiver request, as well as the final site plan. This staff
report is organized to address each issue separately. The items to be addressed are:
Final Site Plan proposal; and
Zoning Ordinance Waivers:
1. Waiver of Section 4.2.3.2 — disturbance of critical slopes (recommendation, approval)
2. Waiver of Section 26.10(c) —disturbance of required landscape buffer (recommendation,
approval)
I. FINAL SITE PLAN PROPOSAL
The proposed final site plan has been reviewed by the Site Review Committee for compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance of the County of Albemarle. With the approval of requested waivers, the plan meets
zoning ordinance requirements. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Final Site Plan with the
following conditions:
1. Approval of submitted Water Protection Ordinance application,
2. Final VDOT approval,
3. Final VA Health Department approval,
4. County Engineer approval of Certified Engineer's Report for noise levels.
11. ZONING ORDINANCE WAIVERS
1. CRITICAL SLOPES MODIFICATION
This 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(b) allows the Planning Commission to waive this restriction. The
applicant has submitted a request and justification for the waiver [Attachment], and staff has analyzed
this request to address the provisions of the ordinance.
Critical slopes cover approximately 4.00 acres, or approximately 15 percent, of the 26.8 acres of the
property. This request is to disturb 0.80 acres, or 20 percent, of these critical slopes. 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."
A request to allow disturbance of critical slopes must be reviewed in accord with the requirements of
Section 4.2.5. This section requires a two part analysis. Section 4.2.5(a) is a review of the technical
performance standards. If these technical standards are not met the disturbance of critical slopes
cannot be approved by the Planning Commission. If these technical standards are met the Planning
Commission may then consider the disturbance of critical slopes. The criteria for the Planning
Commission's review of the disturbance of critical slopes are found in Section 4.2.5(b). Staff presents
the analysis of the request to disturb critical slopes in two parts.
Section 4.2.5(a)2
Review of the technical performance standards:
The critical slope areas within TMP 31 -21A appear to contain both natural and man -made slopes. The
critical slopes are partially in areas of embankments that were most likely created when the existing
building on the parcel was constructed. There are also areas that appear to be stockpiles of soils and
debris. The presumably natural critical slopes are small, scattered areas on the perimeter of the site.
The critical slope disturbance is in the form of grading required for the construction of a new building
and the accompanying septic field.
Areas
Acres
Total site area
26.8 acre parcel
Area of critical slopes
4.0
15% of parcel
Total critical slopes disturbed
0.8
20% of critical slopes
Below, each of the concerns of Zoning Ordinance section 18 -4.2 is addressed:
1. "rapid and /or large scale movement of soil and rock ": Areas of critical slopes on this site are
3
small and scattered, and most disturbance involves "cleaning up" existing debris piles.
Large scale movement of soil and rock is not anticipated to occur as a result of this
construction.
2. "excessive storm water run -off': The applicant has submitted a Stormwater Management
Plan which is being reviewed for County compliance. Stormwater facilities are being
proposed to control the drainage generated by this site through above ground detention and
proper conveyance systems. Excessive stormwater runoff is not expected as a result of
disturbance of these critical slopes.
3. "siltation of natural and man -made bodies of water": The applicant has submitted an
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan which is being reviewed for County compliance. The
Plan proposes measures including a basin to capture sediment -laden run -off during
construction. These measures are anticipated to reduce sediment -laden runoff from leaving
the site. Inspection and bonding by the County will monitor maintenance of the erosion
control facilities during construction. Proper stabilization and maintenance will achieve long
term stability.
4. 'loss of aesthetic resource The disturbance of the existing critical slopes with this
development involves the removal of existing vegetation. The Open Space Plan does not
provide detail regarding natural and aesthetic resources for this area.
5. "septic effluent ": The critical slopes disturbance in the area of the proposed drainfield
involves the clean up of an existing soil and debris pile. The critical slopes disturbance does
not affect the travel distance of septic effluent.
No portion of this site plan is located inside the 100 -year flood plain area according to FEMA Maps,
dated 04 February 2005.
Based on the above review, the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the technical criteria for the
disturbance of critical slopes.
Section 4.2.5(a)3
Recommendations on the findings that must be made by the Planning Commission in order to
allow disturbance of critical slopes.
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 criteria is met:
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;
Staff believes the location of the critical slopes, the designed stormwater management facility,
along with the erosion and sediment control measures satisfy the purposes of section 4.2 to at
least an equivalent degree.
b) Alternatives proposed by the developer or subdivider would satisfy the intent and purposes of
section 4.2 to at least an equivalent degree;
The developer has not proposed any alternatives.
c) 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, prohibiting the
disturbance of critical slopes would effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict use of the
property or would result in significant degradation of the property or adjacent properties;
Denial of this modification would not prohibit or unreasonably restrict the use of the property or
result in significant degradation of the site or adjacent properties. Approval of this request would
accommodate the by -right development through the provision of light industrial business space
on an appropriately zoned parcel.
d) or Granting such modification or waiver would serve a public purpose of greater import than
would be served by strict application of section 4.2. Staff has identified no evidence that the act
of granting the proposed waiver would serve any greater public purpose that would be served by
a strict application of Section 4.2.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff review has resulted in both favorable and unfavorable findings:
Favorable factors:
1. The applicant has satisfactorily addressed the technical criteria for the disturbance of critical
slopes.
2. The measures proposed by the applicant will satisfy the purpose of Section 4.2, at least to an
equivalent degree, meeting the requirement for 4.2.5(a)3(a).
Unfavorable factors:
1. Denial of the waiver would not prohibit or restrict the use of the property.
The Planning Commission may grant the modification if it finds that the request has met one of the three
requirements in Section 4.2.5 (b). Staff has found that the request for modification meets one of the
three requirements, and therefore recommends approval.
2. LANDSCAPE BUFFER
Section 18- 26.10(c) provides for minimum yard requirements in industrial districts, and the allowance of
a waiver of this section by the commission as follows:
Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts. No construction activity including grading or
clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than thirty (30) feet to any residential or rural areas district.
Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9. (Amended 9 -9 -92)
Waiver by the commission. The commission may waiver the prohibition of construction activity, grading
or the clearing of vegetation in the buffer in a particular case where the developer or subdivider
demonstrates that grading or clearing is necessary or would result in an improved site design, provided
that: (i) minimum screening requirements are met; and (ii) existing landscaping in excess of minimum
requirements is restored. (Added 7- 10 -85)
DISCUSSION
Minimum screening requirements for the proposed project are set forth in Section 32.7.9.8, entitled
"Screening ", which states the following:
The following requirements shall apply to screening:
a. When required, screening shall consist of a planting strip, existing vegetation, a slightly opaque
wall or fence, or combination thereof, to the reasonable satisfaction of the agent. Where only
vegetative screening is provided, such screening strip shall not be less than twenty (20) feet in
depth. Vegetative screening shall consist of a double staggered row of evergreen trees
5
planted fifteen (15) feet on center, or a double staggered row of evergreen shrubs planted ten
(10) feet on center. Alternate methods of vegetative screening may be approved by the agent.
Where a fence or wall is provided, it shall be a minimum of six (6) feet in height and plantings
may be required at intervals along such fence or wall. (32.8.6.1, 7- 10 -85; Amended 5 -1 -87)
b. Screening of parking lots shall not be counted toward the interior landscaping requirement.
When screening is required along the frontage of public streets, the agent shall determine if
the street tree requirement has been met. (32.8.6.2, 7- 10 -85)
c. Screening shall be required in the following instances:
1. Commercial and industrial uses shall be screened from adjacent residential and rural
areas districts. (32.8.6.3.a, 7- 10 -85)
2. Parking lots consisting of four (4) spaces or more shall be screened from adjacent
residential and rural areas districts. (32.8.6.3.b, 7- 10 -85; Amended 5 -1 -87)
3. Objectionable features including, but not limited to, the following uses shall be screened
from adjacent residential and rural areas districts and public streets:
- loading areas
- refuse areas
- storage yards
- detention ponds
- recreational facilities determined to be of objectionable character by the agent other
than children's play areas where visibility is necessary or passive recreation areas
where visibility is desirable. (32.8.6.3.c.5, 7- 10 -85; Amended 5 -1 -87)
4. Double frontage residential lots shall be screened between the rear of the residences and
the public right -of -way when deemed appropriate by the agent. (32.8.6.3.d, 7- 10 -85;
Amended 5 -1 -87)
5. The agent may require screening of any use, or portion thereof, upon determination that
the use would otherwise have a negative visual impact on a property listed on the
Virginia Historic Landmarks Register. (32.8.6.3.f, 7- 10 -85; Amended 5 -1 -87)
The property is entirely surrounded by property zoned RA, Rural Area. The applicant is proposing to
extend the existing access road to provide access to the proposed Machine Shop, Contractor's Storage
Yard, and TMP 31 -21 C — a parcel that currently does not have any access. The new road extension will
disturb a portion of the required buffer adjacent to Tax Map 31 Parcels 21 B and 21 K. The buffer
adjacent to TMP 31 -21 B has already been disturbed during road construction associated with previously
approved site plans. Landscape plans for the project show the applicant plans to re- establish
vegetation within the buffer area by planting a double staggered row of 4 -5' tall White Pine and Leyland
Cypress trees, fifteen (15) feet on center. Additionally, the applicant plans to plant Village Green
Zelkova trees of 2 -2.5" caliper on the opposite side of the new road, directly in front of the proposed
parking area for the Machine Shop.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff review has resulted in both favorable and unfavorable findings:
Favorable factors:
1. The applicant has provided screening required by Section 32.7.9.8.
2. The proposed screening matches vegetation already in place where the buffer has been
previously disturbed.
3. Approval of landscape buffer disturbance allows for the extension of a public street that appears
to meet the newly adopted VDOT inner - connectivity standards.
Unfavorable factors:
1. At the time of installation, replacement vegetation will not exactly match existing vegetation in
height or density, but the nature of the plantings will, in time, equal or exceed the existing
screening.
Staff believes proposed landscaping addresses screening issues to the greatest extent possible under
the current zoning regulations, and therefore recommends approval.
SUMMARY:
In conclusion, the Planning Commission will need to act on the final site plan proposal and waiver
requests. The issues that were presented above are listed below:
Final Site Plan proposal(recommendation, approval with conditions); and
Zoning Ordinance Waivers:
1. Waiver of Section 4.2.3.2 — disturbance of critical slopes (recommendation,
approval)
2. Waiver of Section 26.10(c) — disturbance of required landscape buffer
(recommendation, approval)
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Final Site Plan (reduced)
B. Location /Detail Maps
C. Applicant Justification of Critical Slopes Modification
D. Applicant Justification of Waiver of Buffer Disturbance
E. Adjacent owner letters
N
N
M
e- M C7 ry
r Q
M r O N
r N r
c
LL
r
M
lie
� T w� _ � M
N
M rri �4 LL'
r
C?
Cl)
C •- r r Q
• vi M M T w
r r
r
Wr f r
L o " TL Co
C-
PT") r� N N
W r 1
W m
Co
M
r m T Ns
r O M r
M � M
trf CD .,
i r J
Q N
r O r
M
t O M
=O
M U M N
Q Co
r N Q M
N O r
O U N O p
M 00
N -N
N O U N "W
O O M r r r O
M M N Map N W M
O r O r r
N� M N M
M E• J O O r
N
O __ M C = M CD N
N
'j ' N u
00 O N E� O N
N N�N N N/�
M M CD
0 0 0 0
7
-r
M -
N_ �
N
N r 7
r M
M
N
M
N
r
N
T — N N
M N
N9 M
n
N
IL
\ M r
N
2
J
W
O U N
N r
M
Q M 1 ^!�
°r U
(/� N
{LL N
On A
LO
d'
M
N
M
i
r ¢_
O
M
a a �
m
N
CD
C')_ Attachment B
zo
N�E
•_
�g
m u
�' '� x '?
E U
0Z
❑6 I !❑ I I
�. I
I❑
p
to r- 00 n
v:
CO--- Co �
r
❑ r
U_ M M c n M
/rE�
T C„�
O
o p CN
cn N
M
r O
M M
N
c� f�
P
cn
R� M
cr,) M,
M 00
t ,.
M
0
J � � _ M
eF Q r e O N.
-_ f-
M M
O M r
00
M
m
M 00
T
N,LL
ry
T Co
MM
M
OR�M
00
M i
m M
Q r 2
r
r N
O.
T
N
r
look-' M
Of
T
N
r'
T
N
r (n
N
N
M
e- M C7 ry
r Q
M r O N
r N r
c
LL
r
M
lie
� T w� _ � M
N
M rri �4 LL'
r
C?
Cl)
C •- r r Q
• vi M M T w
r r
r
Wr f r
L o " TL Co
C-
PT") r� N N
W r 1
W m
Co
M
r m T Ns
r O M r
M � M
trf CD .,
i r J
Q N
r O r
M
t O M
=O
M U M N
Q Co
r N Q M
N O r
O U N O p
M 00
N -N
N O U N "W
O O M r r r O
M M N Map N W M
O r O r r
N� M N M
M E• J O O r
N
O __ M C = M CD N
N
'j ' N u
00 O N E� O N
N N�N N N/�
M M CD
0 0 0 0
7
-r
M -
N_ �
N
N r 7
r M
M
N
M
N
r
N
T — N N
M N
N9 M
n
N
IL
\ M r
N
2
J
W
O U N
N r
M
Q M 1 ^!�
°r U
(/� N
{LL N
On A
LO
d'
M
N
M
i
r ¢_
O
M
a a �
m
N
CD
C')_ Attachment B
In terms of specifically addressing key criteria in the consideration of critical slope waivers we
have the following to offer:
Rapid and /or large -scale movement of rock or soil.
The proposed development is not very aggressive in terms of grading. Existing underground
utility lines limit, to a great degree, the amount of earthmoving that can take place. Certain
critical slope areas of disturbance involve the removal of debris piles that have accumulated
over a period of years. In other areas only a small degree of disturbance at the fringe of
critical slope areas is required to accomplish lesser slopes that result in usable land. Still
other areas involve removal of manmade, uncompacted fill slopes that now meet the
definition of "critical" yet require alteration if improvements are to be constructed above them.
A manmade earthen levee that supports a woodland vehicle trail is located immediately to
the south of the proposed area of disturbance. The drainage pipe that transects the levee is
to be modified so that the area behind the levee can be used for stormwater management.
This impoundment is to also play a significant role in the erosion control program for this
development. Any unplanned movement of rock or soil should be contained within the limits
of work by this facility.
Any areas disturbed by grading shall be surface roughened and seeded and mulched for
stability.
Excessive stormwater run -off.
The majority of the critical slopes within the limits of work reside above the areas to be
graded, therefore no additional runoff is proposed to impact these areas. Run -off from the
disturbed areas of the site are to be handled in a variety of ways. Based upon the proposed
grading, location of the disturbed area relative to other improvements, and the topographic
conditions the runoff encounters as it flows downstream, overland flow is conveyed in grass
swales, rip- rap -lined ditches, formal underground storm sewerage, or allowed to travel over
convex grass areas where it does not concentrate. All runoff ends up being directed to the
stormwater management basin.
Siltation of natural and man -made bodies of water.
The creation of the stormwater management pond should preclude downstream impacts
from silt. This facility will initially serve as a sediment basin and it is the most downstream of
a series of erosion control measures proposed. Run -off from the limits of work must pass
through the basin and, thereafter, travel the course of a drainage channel several hundred
feet to an abandoned lake bed. The damn for the lake still exists, but the lake was drained
years ago due to a drowning incident. The original creek flows through the former lake bed
and significant volunteer growth has established itself in the basin. Should any solids be
carried this far they should be filtered out of the flow by this dense vegetation.
Loss of aesthetic resource.
The critical slopes to be disturbed cannot be seen from off -site due to terrain and buildings.
Having said that, those slopes that are pleasant to look at are those that are being
preserved.
In the event of septic system failure, a greater travel distance of septic effluent.
There is only one proposed facility and that will have a single bathroom in it. It's main use is
a shop and office for a contractor. It will use very little water; roughly an amount equivalent to
a single residence, on any given day. It will utilize a previously approved drainfield site near
Attachment C No
the building that is not located in a critical slope area. Slopes in the drainfield area are 7 %-
8%. Following the direction of slope, it is roughly 400' from the proposed drainfield to the
former lake site and the creek that flows through it.
You are already in possession of our site plan submission. These drawings accurately depict
both the existing and proposed conditions for the property as well as the envisioned
improvements and the location of existing critical slopes. In our estimation all of the impacted
slopes appear to be manmade, created as a result of building construction in the 1960's, fill
being placed over time in low spots, evolution of debris and soil stockpiles, and the recent
construction of the Foster Well & Pump facility. There may be minor exceptions to this, so
you may want to see the site first hand to make your own determination /confirmation.
Our evaluation of the impacted slopes seems to indicate that there is little intrinsic value in
the slopes as they exist, and that permitted alteration of them will not adversely impact the
health, safety, and welfare of the community or remove a valued resource within the county.
The applicant is seeking to create additional land inventory for light industrial use by small
business. In order to do so he must alter the topography of the site and impact slopes that
had been created by earlier development of the property. This request, when viewed in
conjunction with the proposed site plan, seems reasonable and worthy of the County's
serious consideration.
We thank you for your time, and let us know if we can provide any further data for your
review.
xc: Donnie Foster
Enclosure: Plan Sheets
Attachment C 1�
23 February 2009
Ms. Summer Frederick
Albemarle County
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Earlysville Business Park; Landscape Buffer Waiver Justification
Dear Summer:
Please allow this letter to serve as a formal request for a waiver to permit land disturbance within the
30' -wide buffer that is to be maintained between industrial and rural lands, as outlined in County Code
Section 18- 26.10c.
In April of 2008, our office submitted a final site plan pertaining to the above referenced property.
Plans call for the development of a new site contractor's office and yard, as well as the preparation of
a large area that can serve as contractor storage yards. The site plan proposes extension of a future
public road that will serve not only the proposed light- industrial development shown on the site plan,
but also an adjacent 10 -acre, landlocked parcel that is zoned RA. Phase 1 of this road, referred to as
Driller's Lane, was planned and constructed as part of a site development proposal that enabled the
construction of a new facility for Foster Well & Pump. Its development included grading and
landscaping within the 30' buffer. The current site plan includes the final phase of this road's
development, the alignment of which is a direct extension of the Phase 1 improvements. Extension of
the landscape installations that provide screening are also a part of the development proposal.
In order to respect the current alignment of the first phase of Driller's Lane, and to ensure that no spite
strip is created between the industrially -zoned land and the RA parcel to be served, some degree of
grading and improvements need to occur within 30' of the property boundary. Exhibits that reflect the
grading and landscaping proposed in this area are attached. On these documents you will notice that
there are three parcels that are relatively close to the roadway alignment. Two of these are owned by
the Applicant. The middle parcel is not and it does not share any frontage along the boundary of the
industrially -zoned land, rather, a property corner resides on the boundary.
We hope you find this request worthy of your consideration and approval. Please let us know if we
can provide any further data for your consideration.
Sinc el I
i
Mark . eller, P esident
Terra Concepts, PC
cc: Donnie Foster /Nick Hahn
enclosures: Plan Exhibits
Attachment D 12
CIVIL ENGINEERING • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTtiRE
224 Court Square • Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 • Office 434 - 295 -4005 • Fax 434 -295 -2103 • w' "m %terraconceptspc.com
(I juauIq3T8j��
�
°~
|
/ |
|/
/.
.
./
/ �/.
'//
/
1116 11
J11,
�� ! ♦ ,,, ,,� `i!,' .� I� f I f 1 +�, �`+Y-t ��,rs,�� Il
I 1 U I, J
r,
x 1 ��
X, '-
X1' 1
It
All
j
r '
s
, - .. CG m •
/,I1 I I
`90
v Attachment D
Jason and Jeanette Altman
441 Reas Ford Rd.
Earlysville, Va. 22936
Attn: Summer Frederick
Senior Planner
Zoning and Current Development Division
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Rd., North Wing
Charlottesville, Va. 22902 -4596
Re: SDP200800061 Earlysville Business Park — Final
Tax Map 31, Parcel 2 1 A
Dear Ms. Frederick,
March 4, 2009
As adjacent property owners, we would like to request a planning commission review of
the above referenced file. Our property is parcel 20 on tax map 31. Thank you for your
attention to this request.
Sincerely,
r
Jason and Jeanette Altman
Attachment E
bil
April 9, 2009
Summer Fredrick, Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Community Development Department
Zoning and Current Development Division
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP200800061 Earlysville Business Park -Final
Tax Map 31, Parcel 2 1 A
Ms. Fredrick:
Please review and present to the Board this letter and our letter of July 26, 2007 regarding
several issues of concern particularly those expressed in paragraph (2) of the letter. A
copy of the July 26, 2007 letter is attached for your convenience and review.
During the previous construction project mature evergreen trees were removed and
replaced with trees approximately four feet in height. Removal of more trees in our
opinion contravenes the provisions of Sec. 32.7.9 of the zoning ordinance.
One need only view the supposed "buffer" installed in a previous project by applicant.
The trees, planted I or 2 years ago and do not provide any screen from the industrial
park. (See photos attached).
To remove the natural screen provided by the existing tall evergreens will not:
a) Meet a comprehensive plan related to natural resources...;
b) Promote the public health safety and welfare;
c) Conserve energy by providing shade and wind breaker;
d) Provide pervious area to reduce runoff and re- charge groundwater;
e) Improve air quality;
f) Minimize noise, dust and glare;
g) Promote public safety by controlling views and circulation patterns;
h) PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE APPEARANCE AND VALUE OF THE
NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES;
i) Provide the necessary habitat for birds and wildlife.
We believe that the TREES SHOULD NOT BE REMOVED.
The project can and should be accomplished by diverting the road a short distance to
avoid destruction of the trees.
1(p
Attachment E
Once again a screen is critical to our basic right to quiet and healthy enjoyment of our
properties.
Also troubling is the lighting situation. If one were to view the shipping warehouse at
night, it would be evident that the provisions of Sec. 4.17.4 of the ordinance have been
violated. Bright lights and flashing red and green lights spew across our properties and
into the sky. Strict adherence to the ordinance should be required and enforced.
We the undersigned adjoining property owners request the opportunity for three of our
members to speak at the April 21 s` hearing.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Respf�ly,
Thomas J. Mancuso
Catherine A. Mancuso
Nancy J. Fisher
Ledford Carpenter
Luis Gutierrez
Gayle Gutierrez
Roger Ingenthron
Carole Ingenthron
William Leaning
Clare Leaning
Attachment E
Thomas J. Mancuso
90 Graemont Lane
Earlysville, Virginia 22936
July 26, 2007
Patrick Lawrence, Senior Planner
County of Albemarle
Community Development Department
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: SDP2007 -00047 Earlysville Business Park (Expansion)
Mr. Lawrence, in further reference to this application, we wish to offer some important
points to consider.
1) What, if any, action has been taken to cause "Drillers Lane" to be dedicated and
accepted for maintenance by the county? We have been advised by our attorney that a
site plan, unlike a subdivision plat, is not a proper mechanism for creating a public road.
Since this road is not depicted on a subdivision plat, we have been advised that it must be
separately dedicated and therefore accepted, as a matter of legislative discretion, by the
board of supervisors, not the planning commission. The cul -de -sac of this road
encroaches on, and apparently is designed to provide access for TMP 31 -21c, owned by
the applicant, but zoned RA. Case law requires the road to be a dedicated public road in
order to access the RA property from the LI property. Therefore, the approval of the
public road is essential to the legality of the site plan as proposed. (Capelle v Board of
Supervisors of Orange County).
2) It is critical that the landscaping plans comply with the provisions of zoning ordinance
Sec. 32.7.9. We have not seen these plans and respectfully request a copy of the detailed
landscaping plan. We note that the plan must comply with the Landscaping and
Screening requirement under Section 32.7.9. The purpose of this is to provide for
materials intended to:
a. Insure development with the goals of the comprehensive plan related to natural
resources and with the plan's environmental and land use standards;
b. Promote the public health, safety and welfare;
c. Conserve energy by providing shade and wind breaks;
d. Provide pervious area which helps to reduce run -off and to re- charge groundwater;
e. Improve air quality;
f. Minimize noise, dust and glare;
g. Promote traffic safety by controlling views and circulation patterns;
h. Protect and preserve the appearance and value of the neighboring properties
(emphasis added).
Attachment E
11T
We believe that proper and adequate landscaping is absolutely essential to provide at
least minimal protection to our residential properties from this industrial development.
It is noted that the later subsections provide more detailed guidance on this issue.
3) The ordinance also requires a lighting plan which is intended to protect adjacent
properties - particularly residential properties- from glare, pursuant to Sections 4.14.3
and 4.17.4. ( "Dark Skies Ordinance ").
As you are aware, a lighting plan is typically a subset of the site plan,
and should be considered in conjunction with the landscaping plan,
especially in light of the attenuative effects of landscaping screening.
We would like to be able to secure a copy of this plan. A proper lighting plan is
especially critical to protect our properties since we are already experiencing unpleasant
and disturbing light intrusion onto our properties from the most recently developed phase
of development on this industrial property.
Moreover, because this is an industrial facility, Sec. 4.14 requires a certified engineer's
report concerning certain issues, including such things as noise, glare, etc.
We would request a copy of this report.
4) We note the presence of wells in the location of the proposed building/parking area as
shown on the "existing conditions" plan. As you probably know these are environmental
test wells.
An effective screen is critical to our basic right to quiet and healthy enjoyment of our
properties.
Mr. Lawrence, we are very concerned that the proposed plan will resort to the status of
SDP - 2005 -144 whereby the applicant has failed to comply with Sec. 32.7.9 of the
ordinance.
Once again, we thank you for your close attention to this matter.
Respectfully,
Thomas J. Mancuso
Catherine A. Mancuso
Nancy J. Fisher
Ledford Carpenter
Na
Attachment E
Karen A. Farber
Steve Miller
William H.D. Leaning
Clare F. Leaning
Roger Ingenthron
Carole Ingenthron
Luis Gutierrez
Gayle Gutierrez
ZO
Attachment E
EXISTING BUFFER
TO BE REMOVED
SIZE OF NEW BUFFER TREES
EXISTING BUFFER
REPLACEMENT BUFFER
DEAD BUFFER TREE
NEW EXISTING
REPLACEMENT BUFFER
DEAD BUFFER IFREE
Attachment E