HomeMy WebLinkAboutAP201100006 Staff Report 2012-01-10STAFF PERSON: Ronald L. Higgins, AICP
PUBLIC HEARING: Tuesday, January 10, 2012
STAFF REPORT: AP201100006: Re -Store `N Station - "General
Accord" of final site plan with preliminary site
plan of December 6, 2009, as referenced in
condition #9 of SP2009 -034.
NAMED APPELLANT: Christopher Suh*
*Attachment A of the appeal application lists Anne Suh, HE &J, Inc., by
Christopher Suh, Marcia Joseph, Richard Brown and Bruce 'Kirtley as
"Additional Applicants ".
The appellants appeal the Deputy Zoning Administrator's determination of October 11,
2011, in accordance with Section 34.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. (See
Attachment A: memorandum of October 11, 2011 from Ron Higgins, Chief of
Zoning /Deputy Zoning Administrator to Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development)
Description of Property: The subject Property is known as 6115 Rockfish Gap
Turnpike (Route 250 W), Crozet, Virginia, Tax Map 55B, Parcel 1. The parcel contains
4.06 acres of land, zoned Highway Commercial (HC) and Entrance Corridor-(EC)
overlay district. It has most recently been known as the site of the proposed Re- Store' N
Station convenience store and fuel sales establishment. This proposed use received a
special use permit from the Board of Supervisors on November 3, 2010 for its water use
in the HC zoning district. (See Attachment B: Board of Supervisors' special permit
approval conditions)
The Property is currently vacant and is not served by public water or sewer. A structure
that was served by water only was removed a number of years ago, eliminating the ability
to have public water to new structures.
Backl1round of Appeal: The following is a brief history relevant to this appeal:
• 10/13/2008- Site Plan submitted for Convenience Store of 5,750 sq. ft. (not including
the second floor square footage) w /fuel sales.
• 1/15/2009- Letter of Determination stating the anticipated water use will require a
special use permit.
• 10/23/2009- Re- submittal of site plan with a total Convenience Store of 4,750 sq. ft.
(not including second floor square footage) w /fuel sales.
• 11/17/2009- New determination stating the anticipated water use for new plan will
require a special use permit.
• 12/21/2009- Special use permit (SP) application filed for water use for the proposed
Re -Store 'N Station.
o 11/03/2010- Board of Supervisors votes to approve Special Use Permit SP200900034
to allow use of more than 400 gallons per site -acre per day for the Re -Store `N
Station at TMP55B -1 with nine (9) conditions, including:
■ - condition 49 that the "Development of the site be in general accord u)ith
■ the submitted preliminary site plan dated December 6, 2009. " (emphasis
■ added). (See Attachment B)
o 12/13/2010- New preliminary site plan submitted for the proposed Re -Store `N
Station, to be located at TMP55B -1, in response to the SP approval conditions.
o 02/25/2011- Chief of Zoning (Deputy Zoning Administrator) issues memo of
determination regarding the new site plan's "general accord" with the December 6,
2009 plan and whether "footprint" limit of 3,000 sq. ft. is met.
o 03/14/2011- Mr. Richard Brown files an appeal of the Deputy Zoning Administrator's
2/25/2011 determination regarding whether the Preliminary Site Plan. Thirty -five
others add their names to the appeal by petition & e -mail.
o 05/03/2011- Board of Zoning Appeals affirms the Deputy Zoning Administrator's
determination on the "general accord" of the Preliminary Site Plan (BZA Case #
AP201100002).
o 05/10/2011- Planning Commission approves the Preliminary Site Plan for the Re-
Store'N Station with conditions.
o 06/02/2011- Petitioners filed an appeal of the BZA decision of May 3, 2011 to the
Circuit Court for the County of Albemarle. This case is still pending.
o 06/30/2011- Owner submits Final Site Plan, later revised July 14, 2011. Final site
plan proposes a structure with 4,690 total square feet (floor area, not including the
covered entrances), with the "footprint" (including the covered entrances) being 2,985
square feet.
o 08/01/2011- Architectural Review Board (ARB) approves new design/plan, with
conditions, for the 4,690 Sq. Ft. building with a 2,985 sq. ft. footprint. .
o 08/09/2011- Planning Commission approves entrance location on final site plan as
called for in their approval conditions.
o 08/31/2011- Final ARB Certificate of Appropriateness issued.
o 10/11/2011- Chief of Zoning /Deputy Zoning Administrator issues a new ;..
determination on compliance of the Final Site Plan with conditions #4 &. ##9 of
SP2009 -034, as called for on the Planning Commission approval of the preliminary
site plan.
o 11/10/2011- Petitioners file an appeal of the Deputy Zoning Administrator's
determination of October 11, 2011 regarding the "general accord" of the Final Site
Plan (BZA Case # AP201100006).
Determination: (See the determination memo dated October 11, 2011, for the official
determination.) The pertinent determination in the October 11, 2011 memorandum
states:
- "The Final Site Development Plan, dated July 14, 2011, remains in general accord -H,ith
the Application Plan, dated December 6, 2009. "
This determination was based on a careful review of the Final Site Developm.'ent Plan of
July 14, 2011 against the Application Plan and the conditions of approval of the Board of
Supervisors.
Grounds for Deputy Zoning Administrator's Decision: Since this was a case of the
new final site plan having to be in general accord with the plan referenced in the Board
of Supervisors' action and since there were a number of other specific details which were
changed on the new site plan to comply with the conditions of the approval, the test here
was to assure that the new final plan still conformed to the broad character of the
referenced plan. In assessing this, the major elements and their relationships to each
other on the new final plan needed to approximate those on the referenced plan. General
accord is different than an exact match (being in accord} or even mostly matching (being
in substantial accord), neither of which general accord requires. (Please see the attached
copies of the December 6, 2009 preliminary site plan with cover sheet data and the July
14, 2011 final site plan with cover sheet data.)
Also, the other conditions of the special permit needed to be considered in order to
determine that the plan was in general accord without violating those. For instance,
Condition #4 requires that "The total building footprint square footage shall not exceed
three thousand (3,000) square feet ". The Deputy Zoning Administrator determined that
the building shown on the July 14, 2011 final site plan, with a total footprint ;square
footage of 2,985 sq. ft., did meet Condition #4 and did not exceed the 3,000 Building
footprint square footage limit. The new site plan shows a building of 4,600 total floor
area square footage with a second floor of 1,915 sq. ft. As a reminder, neither this nor
any other condition says anything about the gross square footage of the permitted
building.
Appellants' Justification For Appeal: The appellants claim:
1) Second floor size (1, 915 sq. ft.) does not meet the intent of the Board of
Supervisors.
2) The determination allows modifications to the site plan out of the `scope
permitted by the Board.
3) The plan is contrary to what the Board was led to believe.
4) The Deputy Zoning Administrator is not authorized to make such
determinations.
Staff Response: Staff believes the appellants' reasons are irrelevant to the determination
of "general accord" because:
1) In response to the Appellants' claim that the second -floor size (1,915 sq. ft.)
does not meet the intent of the Board of Supervisors:
a. The finding of "general accord" is the least exacting of the; types of
accord (accord " vs. substantial accord " "general general accord )
allowing an approximation rather than requiring strict accuracy. The
Webster's Third World International Dictionary defines "dccord" as
"conformity'. That same dictionary defines "general" as "marked by
broad overall character without being limited, modified or checked by
narrow precise considerations: concerned with main elements, major
matters rather than limited details, or universals rather than particulars:
approximate rather than strictly accurate."
b. If the Board of Supervisors had intended to limit the square footage of
the second floor or the gross square footage of the building it would
have stated so in its final action and conditions. Instead, while the
Board's record reflects much discussion on the size of various parts of
the building, the Board consciously chose to address the size of the
first floor only, thus the addition of the word "footprint" to condition
#4. The Board of Supervisors speaks through its ordinances and
enactments like special permits. The plain language of the conditions
reflects the Board's intent.
c. The appellants' citation of the May 17, 2011 e -mail from an
individual member of the Board of Supervisors is not relevant to this
appeal. The ARB has since approved the same plan and building size
on which the determination being appealed was made.
2) All of the changes that have been made to the site plan and building designs
have been to bring the development in compliance with the special permit
conditions and county regulations, as evidenced by subsequent approvals.
3) The Board of Supervisors did hear that the second floor was private offices.
However, after being asked if this should be part of the conditions, the Board
consciously chose not to so impose specific conditions on the use or size of
the second floor.
4) In deciding appeals of official determinations, the Board of Zoning Appeals is
limited to considering the correctness of the determination. Challenges to the
authority of the determining officer are beyond the purview of the BZA.
Nevertheless, for this Board's information, the Deputy Zoning Administrator
has been delegated authority by the Zoning Administrator to issue any official
determinations, among other things. The appellants have previously cited
other determinations made by the Deputy Zoning Administrator regarding this
case and have not made the same objection to those. Virginia Code § 15.2-
1502 (B) defines a "Deputy" as "a person who is. appointed to act.as a
substitute for his principal, in the name of the principal and in his behalf, in
matters in which the principal himself may act; ..." It is not clear where the
statute "specifically prohibits" delegation of discretionary authority.
Conclusion: Staff respectfully recommends that the Board of Zoning Appeals affirm the
Deputy Zoning Administrator's determination of October 11, 2011.
Attachments:
Attachment A —Determination Memorandum of October 11, 2011.
Attachment B - -Board of Supervisors' special permit approval conditions.
Attachment C — Appellant's Attachment I explanation.
Attachment D — Reduced copy of December 6, 2009 Preliminary Site.-Plan.
Attachment E — Reduced copy of July 14, 2011 Final Site Plan.
Attachment A — ]Determination Memorandum of October 11, 2011.
`tRGI1�P
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development
From: Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning/Deputy Zoning Administrates
Division: Zoning Administration
Date: October 11, 2011 .
Subject: SDP2011 -043, Re- Store' N Station Final Site.Plan — Official Determination of
Compliance with SP2009 -034 Conditions #4 & #9
I have carefully reviewed the latest version of the Final Site Development Plan for the Re- Store'N
Station, dated July 14, 2011 as well as the "Application Plan ", dated December 6, 2009 which is referenced in
the November 3, 2010 Board of Supervisors' approval conditions for SP2009 -034. I have been asked in the
Planning Commission's conditions of May 10, 2011 to confirm that the building size satisfies condition #4 of
SP2009 -034. I have also been asked whether this Final Site Plan is in general accord with the December 6,
2009 Application Plan, in satisfaction of condition #9 of SP2009 -034. My conclusions regarding these two
conditions are as follows,
4) The total building footprint square footage maximum of 3,000 sq, ft. is met with the proposed final
plan, which shows a total footprint (including the covered entrances) of 2,985 sq, ft.
9) The Final Site Development Plan, dated July 14, 2011, remains in general accord with the
Application Plan, dated December 6, 2009.
If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have a right to appeal it within thirty (30) days of this
notice, in accordance with Virginia Code § 15.2 -2311. If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination
shall be final and unappealable,
An appeal may be taken only by filing an appeal application with the Zoning Administrator and the
Board of Zoning Appeals, in accordance with § 34.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, along with a fee of $240 plus the
actual cost of advertising the appeal for public hearing. Applications for Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's
Determination are available at the Department of Community Development located at 401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 or online at www.albemarle.or /cg dapps. This form applies to the appeal of a
decision of the zoning administrator or any other administrative officer pertaining to the Zoning Ordinance,
Section 34.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, which contains the regulations pertaining to the filing of an appeal W the
Board of Zoning Appeals, is located in Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code and it may also be reviewed
online at;
Bill Fritz 2 October 11, 2011
http://www.albemarle.orgtu
pload/images/Forms Center/Departments /County Attorney /Forms /Albemarle Coun
tv Code Ch18 Zoning34 Appeals.pddf
cc; Andrew H. Herrick, Esq.
Richard E. Carter, Esq.
somas J. Aldous, Jr., Esq.
Marcia Joseph
Richard Brown
Bruce Kirtley
Jeffries II LLC
i
i
"
i
Attachment B'- -Board of Supervisors' special permit approval conditions.
CONDITIONS FOR RE-STORE "N STATION SPECIAL USE PERMIT
FINAL
1. The applicant shall Install and maintain a meter on the wellhead to monitor water consumption.
Prior to Installation, the model of the meter shall be subject to approval by the Zoning
Administrator in conjunction with the County Engineer. Results of daily water consumption shall
be made available within forty -eight (48) hours of a requestfrom the Zoning Administrator;
2. Water consumption from all wells on site shall not exceed 1,625 gallons per day In the
aggregate;
3. The applicant shall install and maintain a tamper - proof, flow restriction device limiting water
flow to not more than 1,625 gallons per day, Prior to installation, the model of the flow
restriction device shall be subject to approval by the Zoning Administrator in conjunction with
the County Engineer;
4. The total building footprint square footage shall not.exceed 3,00 square feet;
5. The hours of business operation shall not exceed sixteen (16) hours per day;
6. There shall be not more than seven (7) pump stations and twelve (12) nozzle dispensers, with
not more than eight (8) nozzles forfour (4) pump stations for gasoline (or equivalent fuel), with
not more than two (2) nozzles for one (1) pump station for diesel fuel (or equivalent fuel), with
not more than one (1) nozzle for one (1) pump station for off -road diesel fuel, and with not
more than one (1) nozzle for one (1) pump station for kerosene fuel;
7. If rainwater is collected from rooftops of the pump station canopies or the building, It shall be
stored In a lined underground storage tank and utilized for on- site.landscaping purposes only;
8. Overnight customer parking on -site shall not be permitted between the hours of 12:30am and
4:30am. The applicant shall post signs indicating no such overnight parking in such places
designated by the Site Plan Agent as a condition of final site plan approval; and,
9, . Development of the site shall be in general accord with the submitted preliminary site plan
dated December 6, 2009. Permitted modifications may include those required by the
Architectural Review Board, those necessary to satisfy the conditions of this special use permit,
and additional landscaping /screening approved by the Site Plan Agent.
Attachment C — Appellant's Attachment B explanation.
ATTACHMENT B
Petitioners appeal the Official Determination of Compliance with SP2009 -034 Condition
#9 (the "Determination," Exhibit 1) issued October 11, 2011, by Ron Higgins, Chief of
Zoning /Deputy Zoning Administrator. The Determination concludes that the Final Site
Development Plan for the Re- Store'N Station dated July 14, 2011 (Exhibit 2) remains in general
accord with the December 6, 2009 Application Plan (Exhibit 3), in satisfaction of special use
permit condition #9 of SP29009 -034, which read as follows (the "Conditions" being attached as
Exhibit 4):
9. Development of the site shall be in general accord with the submitted
preliminary site plan dated December 6, 2009. Permitted modifications may
include those required by the Architectural Review Board, those necessary to
satisfy the conditions of this special use permit, and additional
landscaping /screening approved by the Site Plan Agent.
The Determination is erroneous for the following reasons:
(1) The Board of Zoning Appeals is required by statute to consider the intent of the Board
of Supervisors. Va. Code § 15.2- 2309(1) states that the Board of Zoning Appeals "shall consider
the purpose and intent of any applicable ordinances, laws, and regulations in making its
decision" (emphasis added). The Board of Supervisors intended that the scale of the building be
reduced. This is more than clear from the Minutes of the Board of Supervisor's Regular Meeting
held on October 13, 2010 ( "Oct. Minutes," Exhibit 5) and the Minutes of the Board of
Supervisor's Regular Meeting held on November 3, 2010 ( "Nov. Minutes," Exhibit 6). In fact,
the minutes are so filled with a discussion of scale that it would be difficult to concisely repeat
all of the discussion within this writing, and an attempt to do so will not be made. See the
October Minutes and the November Minutes.
The Determination ignores the intention of the Board of Supervisors and approves an
increase in the scale of the building. The second floor changes from a partial second floor to a
frill second floor, which increases the height and presence of the building. The second floor
almost doubles in size from 1,000 square feet to 1,915 square feet. The building's first floor to
second floor proportions are changed from a 5:1 ratio (4,750 square feet first floor and 1,000
square foot partial second floor) to a 3:2 ratio (closer to a 1:1 ratio).
In approving the conditions, Ms. Mallek, Chair of the Board of Supervisors, said aM
change in the square footage of the project would need to come back to the Board of Supervisors.
(Nov. Minutes, p. 28.) She specifically stated "square footage of the project ". Her statement was
not limited to just the building footprint. She was very clear. The Determination usurps the
authority and intent of the Board of Supervisors by allowing a change in the square footage
without Board of Supervisors' approval.
The Board of Zoning Appeals previously heard a similar appeal in this matter on a
separate site plan. After that decision, the site plan went before the Board of Architectural
Review, which rejected the scale of the building allowed by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms.
Mallek made clear that she disapproved of the Board of Zoning Appeals' decision and supported
the Board of Architectural Review's decision when on May 17, 2011, she wrote an email stating,
in part, "I am so glad that the [Architectural Review Board] was paying attention to the [Board of
Supervisor's] discussion and the intent to reduce the scale and impact" (Exhibit 7).
Because the discussion of the Supervisors and the Conditions they created umnistakably
demonstrate their *intent to reduce the scale of the building, the Supervisors clearly did not intend
that the owner be allowed to transfer square footage from the scaled -down bottom floor of the
building to the top floor.
(2) The Determination is erroneous because it approves of modifications to the
Application Site Plan, dated December 6, 2009 (the "Application Plan "), that were clearly
outside the scope of those permitted by the Supervisors. Condition number 9 specifically
allowed the following modifications: "Permitted modifications may include those required by
the Architectural Review Board, those necessary to satisfy the conditions of this special use
permit, and additional landscaping /screening approved by the Site Plan Agent." These permitted
modifications were all approved by the Board of Supervisors for the reasons given below. Other
modifications, specifically a change in the square footage, were not allowed (as per Ms. Mallek)
and cannot now be made in the name of "general accord ".
Before the Board of Supervisors approved the Conditions and granted the special use
permit at its meeting on November 3, 2010, Mr. Dorrier, a Supervisor, asked about the language
in Condition number 9 that refers to permitted modifications, including those required by the
Architectural Review Board. He was concerned that the Condition seemed "open- ended." (Nov.
Minutes, p. 27.) The responses to Mr. Dorrier's concern, which follow and which came from the
County staff and from the fellow board members, are the best indication of what was intended.
(a) Ms. Frederick, a senior planner, explained that this Condition was included in
case the Architectural Review Board required additional landscaping for the
property line that fronts Route 250, or for slight movement of the building
footprint and any modifications they may require. (Nov. Minutes, p. 27.
Emphasis added.)
(b) Ms. Mallek, chair of the Board of Supervisors, noted that this flexibility was
requested by Jeffries because there were several things it wanted to do, such as
the fence, that were not covered in the original application. (Nov Minutes, p. 27.)
(c) Mr. Fritz, Chief of Current Development, said that the purpose of Condition
number 9 was to provide that flexibility so that the best design possible is
achieved without the applicant coming back before the Board. (Nov. Minutes, p.
27.)
(d) Ms. Mallek said any change in the "square footage of the project" would need
to come back to the Board. (Nov. Minutes, p. 28.)
(e) Mr. Rooker pointed out that without Condition number 9, Jeffries would have
to come back and change the special use permit to accommodate changes required
by the Architectural Review Board. (Nov. Minutes, p. 28.)
2
The Supervisors and the staff made clear to Mr. Dorrier that Condition number 9 was not
intended to be "open ended ", but was instead intended to allow some flexibility so that additional
screening could be provided and so that if the County required changes, the owner could comply
with those changes and not have to come back to the Board of Supervisors to approve changes
that the County itself required.
An increase in the size of the second story of the building from 1,000 square feet to 1,915
square feet was clearly outside the realm of "general accord" with the Application Plan. The
Supervisors did not require that the Final Plan be in general accord with the expectation that the
owner would then be allowed to transfer square footage from the scaled -down bottom floor of
the building to the top floor. The landowner was not permitted to nearly double the size and
scope of the second floor of the building in exchange for a reduction of the building's footprint.
(3) The owner's sleight of hand should not be rewarded. The owner led the Board of
Supervisors to believe that the second floor was to be a family office associated with the
convenience store on the first floor. On the Application Plan, the second floor was shown to be a
partial second floor of 1,000 square feet. At the October Board of Supervisors meeting
discussing the conditions, the representative of the owner, Ms. Jo Higgins ( "Ms. Higgins "),
responded to a question of Mr. Rodney Thomas of the Board of Supervisors about the second
floor as follows, "The building has a dormered roof with 1,000 square feet of family offices
located overhead. It is a partial second floor. They already have an architect designing the
interior space to make it work." (Oct. Minutes, p. 69.) The Board of Supervisors was led to
believe by the owner that the second floor was fixed and not an issue. Now it appears that the
second floor is a full floor (which increases the scale of the entire building) that may be rented
out to third parties not associated with the convenience store. This is contrary to what was
represented to the Board of Supervisors. Allowing the owner to make a representation and then
try to take advantage of the government's reliance on the representation by not specifically
addressing the issue in the Conditions should not be condoned.
.(4) Virginia law specifically prohibits a deputy zoning administrator from making a
determination that affects the public welfare. Ron Higgins, as Chief of Zoning /Deputy Zoning
Administrator, had no authority to make the Determination because it is a matter requiring the
exercise of judgment for the public welfare.
Section 15.2- 1502(A) of the Code of Virginia provides that local government officers
may employ, when authorized by the governing body, deputies and assistants to aid them.
However, such deputies or assistants cannot exercise all powers given to the overseeing officer.
Section 15.2- 1502(D) of the Code of Virginia specifically rolp Zibits officers from delegating
powers or duties that "require the exercise of judgment for the public welfare." Matters that are
ministerial and that do not require the exercise of judgment can be delegated. Matters that
require judgment must be considered by the zoning administrator herself
Albemarle County is not allowed to avoid the clear provisions of a statute.. Virginia
strictly adheres to the Dillon Rule, which provides that localities may only exercise powers that
are expressly granted to them, necessarily or fairly implied from expressly granted powers, or
essential and indispensable. Board of Supervisor °s of Augusta Count}) v. Countryside Investment
Company, L. C., 258 Va. 497, 503 (1999). If there is a reasonable doubt whether legislative
power exists, the doubt must be resolved against the governing body. See Marble Technologies,
Inc. i,. City of Hampton, 279 Va. 409, 417 (2010).
In this case, section 18- 31.1(a)(7) of the Albemarle County Code, in accordance with V a.
Code § 15.2 -2286, gives the zoning administrator authority to make decisions and determinations
as to whether a pending site plan complies with the zoning ordinance. Neither the ordinance (nor
the Virginia Code) allows any delegation of that authority. The Deputy Zoning Administrator
does not have authority to issue a determination that involves discretion. The Determination is
null and void.
M
Attachment D — Reduced copy of December 6, 2009 Preliminary Site Plan. - -•
_- - - - - == -- f��oo -T'�� r- - - - - -- ---------------------
- ---- ----- -- -- -- ---- ----- ---- ----- -- - ---- PRO.EGT 123-6 fPL1Jl5 PROVIDED BY V.D•O•T
-------------------------- --
U.S. ROUTE 25J (I10' R/1^0 -
MINIMUM iWAIN
-tern!.
Wx Sri
p �u
�C
h ►di�,lQ�. - ,��r
.Eif I
� w ��nwuniiiiini I� �"� ► ���� ;
:rlaanupunr
nnuun
Jill..
nnmm�m�:ti�
WA MOM W-
___
l � 0 • � t , -� .1AJ A
Dec. 6, 2009 Plan
S 1 TE DATA:
OW4EWAPPLIGANT. .FFFRIE5 If "C
P.O. BOX 910
CROZET, VA 22932
SITE ADDRESS, RE5TORE'N STATION
6115 ROGKFI5H GAP TURNPIKE
CROZET, VA 22992
ENGINEER: 'Wv ENGINEERING
650 IVY FARM DRIVE
GiPRIA17ESVILLE VA 22901
TEI�PHONE - (4541 531-735'7
,SCE OF SURVEY:
RAY ! ASSOCIATES, INC.
SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY,
F,;OER W. RAY d A55001ATES, INC.
DAW-1 OF 5URVEY,
PWo-65
COUNTY, 5TATE,
A -BEMARLE COUNTY, VA
MA615TMAL DISTRICT:
MITE HALL
TAX MAP REFERENCE:
555 -1
ZONING,
H0 HIGHWAY - GOMMERGIAL
5e 5AGK REGUIREt-ENT5:
FRONT
BUILDING: 30'
PARKING, 10'
REAR -
BUILDING, 50'
PARKING, 20' (UNDI5TUR5ED BUFFERI
PV=72 SIDE (ADJACENT TO RA ZONING) -
BUILDING: 50'
PARK N6. 20' 4WI5TURBED BUFFER)
EAST SIDE (ADJACENT TO HG ZONING) -
BUILDIN6: O'
PARKINS: 10'
EXISTING USES: VACANT
PROPOSED USES, STMal CO NIEN:E m 5TO, RE)
9.yigfd' For up 1,624 Kett Ka;nr Well K6ter fs reCg a.d Ho i 1�>=
Wail Kt11 coa,FYm scarce fa Is reuse of etorrn K�erJ
VpH Djr O Comb- aW- Penh: toe 0-oq -M41 hwed -apt 16,Z) 9 For W00 ald
LAND USE 5GHEDIA E: PROPS
HUIIDING 4.750A0 5a^ FT.(2w %) K
PAVED (OR BRAVED) b0211 (3 50 FT. (54.06 %)
OPEN WAGE !11,975,46 SR, FT. (6326 %)
TOTAL 1"76,99659 50. FT. (4.06 Mi
PARKIN SCI -� REwRED PARKING
RETAIL U5E NOT OT43ZM5E IVEI`MFIBD \
FIRST 5,000 65- j
4,750 65F x OBO ® 15PAGEAOO 65F = 58 SPACES
OFFICE (PARTIAL 2n0 FiJXF7
1 poo 65F x O.Bo ® I sPAGEY2o0 BSF = 4 5PAGFS
TOTAL PARKING REwRED FOR THi5 SITE = 58 + 4 = 42 SPACES
TOTAL PARYJNG SPACES PROVIDED = 41 SPACES + 3 HANDIGAP =44 SPACP5
WATER RE5OURGE AREA,
RE5E:RVOIR WATER5HED,
FLoODPL AIN:
M6.4I4H BUILDIW5 HEIGHTi
SIGNA95
EHPLOYEES:
THE 51TE LIES WITHIN A WATER SUPPLY PROTEGTION AREA
THE 51TE LIES WITHIN THE BEAVER GREEK RESERVOIR WATER%03'
THE 517E DOES NOT WE WITHIN A FLOODPLAIN
MAXIMUM BUILDING HE15HT 15 35'
ALL SIGNS MUST BE APPROVED BY ARB
MAXIMt,M N1MBER OF EMPLOYEES = 10
NP EN61 NEERI N6
6S0 Ivvq Farm Drive
Ghcr1ofteSV111o, Virginia 22g01
(434) 531 -7557 3
z 2:--�
D-
z }
°v O
Iu U
O �<
X
.. DAiE
.- w w 9/16108
DRAM ur rh%M
w 9116 /o6
aweer VAIM
Me mIr
zap!
WALE I. :
DNAHM
C-1
r+or
Mn r -
OF 12
1A.ttachment E — Reduced copy of July 14, 2011 Final Site Plan.
__ _ - -- - -- - -- - -- - - - -- - - - - - - -
-
__ _ ' PPJNT `
- -- -- -- ---- _-- " " - " " -- -- -___ -- ^ PROJEGT'i23 -6 (PLA>y5 PROVIDED SY V
__________________ _a --
v U.S. OUTE 250 (I10' R /W) �--
�lIag, n t W
(2 b O m
nkt) ROS N
1 ', GIN'
___ ]NUlD eery eAee� NAM M
_ �.wn',oe°xr}'. °PA2
CIUUTT- �', I' N86 °4 E 3B¢.29f
102.14
FOUND I I eavr+i }e+,yf4llvirc•• II i
.5
I
�I ,' NK' C .•.�
1 y I � I �nl t*pnbv •O• �. `•` Al,wlb '.tine � MI
1 t 31 I �-': .•. •. ` It `.a'9.°a"�IIDelh _ o• -1,� fl��"�'`
1 lfl I
rq 1 Al aelkplel yp,
1 2fl 1 (•I
IN 111 11 I � DO... � �_.'1 i ry
I LW 11 r
1 I-PII J faf�W61Pw `. ro) NW
i.ti
Zd
ro
i i i w.nv' f'+q n1
'6
i 1 i; %I I ' I/ I'
1 ,
o' • ''' ;�_ ro
I I I a1
f `___ I Cam__ ' 1 �•�/ III
AD - '' - - - - --
i jIRON (' 1 j' I''I it ''\x':'- ,,. :;..; '�• .'I / 1�/ i�'II'` '
, F�IIND I
1 li
I / I i /' �1 1r r I I ' , \`'' Dr\ Inflel4i B�'`4 , '' Ip• III 1 �, ,
/ / r / H ' i ', !(' AdptiltlOna` . ,_____, �•�' Ilon I � 1, ,
x _:1
P, r u ' x ffppH441II uu 5rrr••0' 90497) 01
IRON
- - - --
-- - -�LG -'
SET, a�•cpF�eb i 1_PoJNV A @� °48'25"W 330.IOFt i i i I '
� , I
SITE D/-\TA:
July 14, 2011 Plan
OWNER/APPLICANT,
JEFFRIE5 II LLG
BUILDING
PAVED (OR GRAVEL)
P.O. BOX 910
OPEN SPACE
EN
CROZET, VA 22`132
PROJECT MANAGER:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT LIMITED LC, clo Jo Hlgglns
PARKING SCHEDULE, nEQUIRED PARKING
2564 MT. TOP-R -FY ROAD
RETAIL (Is' Floor)
LYNDHUR5T,VA 22 0,52
2, n5 C-SF X O.SO TED 15PAGFVIOO
TELEPHONE - (434) 326 -0334
51TE ADDRE55:
RE5TORE'N STATION
1,915 65F X 0.50 O 1 5PAGE /200
6115 ROGKFI5H 6AP TURNPIKE
CROZET, VA 22632
ENGINEER:
NP ENGINEERING
6b0 IVY FARM DRIVE
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22901
TELEPHONE - (434) 591 -'1381
50URGE OF wRVEY,
ROGER W. RAY L A550GIATE5, INC.
ROGER W. RAY { A5500IATE5, INC.
SOURCE OF TOPOGRAPHY:
(Louisa Aerial Surveys dated 5/30/05)
DATUM OF SURVEY,
NAVD bb
COUNTY, STATE:
ALBEMAR E COUNTY , • VA
MA6I5TERIAL DISTRICT:
WHITE HALL
TAX MAP REFERENCE:
55-9- 1
ZONING,
HG HIGHWAY - GoMMERCIAL
S__E 5AC K REQUIREMENT5,
FRONT UILDING, 30'
PARKING, 10'
REAR -
BUILDIN6, 50'
PARKIN6, 20' (UNDI5TUPBED BUFFER)
WEST SIDE (ADJACENT TO RA ZONING) -
BUILDING, 50'
PARKING, 20' (UNDISTURBED BUFFER)
EAST FIDE (ADJACENT TO .HG ZONINC -) -
BUILDING, O'
PARKING: 10'
EXISTING U555: VACANT
PROP05ED U5E5, COMMERCIAL (6A5 STATION E GONVENIENGE STOREI
" roposed 'tyrlght° uss ir, up to 1624 gpd well HatOr usage. WAII water Is restrlcted to this Ilml'-
YVell HIII ba metered to aontli m usage. (Water source For lar,:1saaplrrq Is ra use a; Storm HatCr)
VDH 5art0g6 Disposal Srstem consirvctlon Pe mit ID lDl -II o?32 Issued k ly 15, 2011 for 1500 gad
LAND U5E 5GHEDULE,
P ROPO
Z,"115.00 50 FT.1`I31 S5)
BUILDING
PAVED (OR GRAVEL)
54 ,561.51 SQ FT. (30,65
Ilgb'50�2 `a. FT, (bi,60 45)
OPEN SPACE
EN
I1b,996.55 5Q. FT, (4,06 Ac.)
TD
PARKING SCHEDULE, nEQUIRED PARKING
RETAIL (Is' Floor)
2, n5 C-SF X O.SO TED 15PAGFVIOO
G -5F = 23 5PAGE5
OFF1G_ (2nd FLOOR)
1,915 65F X 0.50 O 1 5PAGE /200
65F = b 5PAGE5
TOTAL PARKING REQUIRED FOR THI5 51T=- = 23 + b = 31 SPAGE5
TOTAL PARKING 5PACE5 PROVIDED = 54 SPACES, + 3 HANDICAP = 51 5PAGE5
WATER RESOURCE AREA, THE 51TE LIE5 WITHIN A WATER SUPPLY PROTECTION AREA
RE5ERVOIR NATERSHED, THE SITE LIE5 WITHIN THE STOGKTON GREEK WATER r'''JPPLY WAT.TR5HED
FLOODPLAIN, THE 51TE DOE5 NOT LIE WITHIN A FLOODPLAIN
MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, MAXIMUM WILDING HEIGHT 15 95'
516NAGE, ALL 5161,15 MUST BE APPROVED BY ARB
EMPLOYEE5, MAXIMUM NUMBER OF EMPLOYEE5 = 1 0- vvl
YZ t lol v. xs
\P E N —E - I E E R I N� CERT. Kb, U323)04 aw
680 Ivq Farm Drive , e
Ghorlotbo5ville, Vlrginla 22801 \0 .
(434)- 551 -i387-
m
3
Q
Z 5E J
O �
z� }
ra J O
O LLI D_ v
<T
LLJ
DF316FED BY DXF
NP 9/16/05
m" ew DATE
RP q/15 /o5
CACCI= CY DATE
PUE WIT
R50I
DPN91+s
G-I
DTI rr 15
0
0