HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201500032 Review Comments Appeal to BOS 2016-01-22 Bill Fritz
From: Diantha McKeel
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 9:32 AM
To: Norman Dill
Cc: Bill Fritz;Ann Mallek; Rick Randolph; Brad Sheffield;Jo Higgins
Subject: RE: Re-Store'N Station SP2015-00032 Amend To SP2009-00034
Norman,
I noticed Jo has typed your email address incorrectly so I am forwarding it to you.
Diantha
From: Musxit@aol.com [mailto:Musxit@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2016 2:20 PM
To: Brad Sheffield<bsheffield@albemarle.org>; Diantha McKeel<dmckeel@albemarle.org>; ndill@albemarle.orgordi
Cc: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org>;Ann Mallek<amallek@albemarle.org>; Rick Randolph
<rrandolph@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re-Store'N Station SP2015-00032 Amend To SP2009-00034
To Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Dill and Ms. McKee!:
First Thank you so very much for your support. This is to provide an update. Please review the
attached information.
Right after the Board Meeting in September- The list of existing conditions with edits proposed to
amend the conditions was provided by Bill Fritz. This clearly shows conditions which are unchanged,
conditions that are revised, and two (#10 & #11) added. (attached) This was copied to Greg K. but
as of today - I was not advise of any response from Greg. It is very important that these changed
conditions are acceptable. It confirms the limitations but allows for the expansion to develop this
property. if you have any questions regarding any of the edits -Please do not hesitate to call me
before the board meeting.
Last week - Since this application already meets the ordinance regulations as pertains to water
use documented over almost 2 years the existing development uses only a small portion of the
water allowance and added to this information the analysis of the future water use that will not
exceed the special use permit threshold water use which is 400 gpd/acre or 1,624 gpd - the issues
that seem to be of concern or NON-WATER issues.
1
(i„,;4 Q
..a
We met with Ann Malleck a week ago to discuss specific mitigation measures to address the lighting
and noise complaints. I have attached a single sheet dtd 9.24 that provides background details for
these measures. (Not in your Board package)
As these details are NON-WATER related and pertain to site plan design, the list of 4 mitigation
measures have been added to the Concept Plan (also attached).
SP Condition #10 requires the Site Plan to be in general accord with the Concept Plan, these
measures EXCEED the ordinance requirements and will be incorporated into the site plan
design. If not incorporated, staff will not approve the Site plan amendment that comes after
the Special Permit Amendment.
Specifically - Site plan design must meet the lighting section of the ordinance and the sound
limitations in the ordinance apply to all. I checked with the zoning administrator, Ms. McCulley, and
she indicated that although changes to the lighting ordinance section have been discussion there
are no pending changes at this time.
In this case, the measures that have been added to the concept plan exceed what other
developments are required to do.
The Sprouses are trying to be good neighbors. It is crucial that they be able to use the 4.06 acres
zoned highway commercial to achieve their goals necessary to support the large investment they
made when they purchased this Highway commercial property.
This is to confirm that this proposal exceeds ordinance requirements as it relates
to setbacks (internal to the site) and we have now done more to address neighbor concerns and
hopefully receive favorable consideration needed to receive a vote of approval
We are grateful for your support so far and ask for your continued support on Wednesday.
I spoke with Mr. Randolph briefly by phone and he is copied on this email.
We hope to speak with Ms. Palmer before Wednesday and she is also copied on this email.
5o Higgins I PROJECT DEVELOPMENT LLC
434 - 326 - 0334 I musxit(a�aol.com
2564 MT Torrey Road, Lyndhurst, VA 22952
CC: R. Randolph
L. Palmer
5 2
41610? \we
NOTES ADDED TO CONCEPT PLAN - NEW REVISED DATE OF 9.26.2016
(SEE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THE PLAN SHEET)
ALTHOUGH THE SITE PLAN IS BY-RIGHT,THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL BE INCORPORATED TO EXCEED APPLICABLE
STANDARDS TO MITIGATE NEIGHBOR CONCERNS THAT PERTAIN TO LIGHTING &NOISE. DATED 9/26/16
1. Phase 2- Pole Light fixtures at rear of site and wall mounted fixtures on rear building are limited to 16ft.
2. Phase 2—Pole Light fixtures at rear of site to have a side shield towards property line.
3. After fuel pump stations that provide alternative fuel are installed under large canopy,the small canopy
lights&2 light poles at rear perimeter will be turned off when store closes.
4. Phase 2-Privacy fence at SW corner will be solid board style (existing board-on-board style to remain)
� t
RE-STORE'N STATION — 11cleN WATER ISSUES Sept 24, 2016
- Lighting as viewed from neighbors
ALL SITE DEVELOPMENT PLANS MUST COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE 18.4.17 PROVISIONS.
The ordinance requires exterior lighting (over 3,000 lumens)to be full cut off style fixture and light spill over is
limited to '/2 foot candle at the property line. THE EXISTING SITE DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES AND
THE SITE AMENDMENT MUST ALSO COMPLY.
Possible additional measures to mitigate the perspective from the neighbors:
Lighting detail: Currently light poles are 20ft high which allows areas at lower elevation to see beneath.
A. Proposed mitigation: Owner agrees to only install 20 ft poles to the area in front of buildings and any
new lighting behind the existing and proposed bldgs will be limited to 16ft high poles (height reduction of
20%).
Lighting detail: Existing Convenience store operation has a small canopy and 3 existing light poles that are 20
ft high located at the rear of the site. (see area defined on attachment)
B. Proposed mitigation to exceed the lighting ordinance requirements: PROVIDED THE SP
AMENDMENT IS APPROVED WHICH WILL NOT RESTRICT THE NUMBER OF NUZZLES SO DIESEL
CAN BE MADE AVAILABLE UNDER THE LARGE CANOPY—The small canopy lights will be turned off
when the store closes.
C. Proposed mitigation to exceed the lighting ordinance requirements:
PROVIDED THE SP AMENDMENT IS APPROVED WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN - The 1 light pole at the
west edge behind the convenience store will be removed and the remaining 2 pole lights in the "rear area"
will be turned off when the store closes.
Lighting detail: New lighting for the rear of the site be father restricted in the SW corner.
D. Proposed mitigation to exceed the lighting ordinance requirements:
New light fixtures located behind bldgs either on poles or wall mounted will be limited to 16ft. Security
lighting will be provided to the extent possible using wall mounted fixtures. If any pole lights are necessary,
the bulb housing or fixture will be shielded on the property line side of the fixture. This is to limit the fixture
view from properties located at a lower elevation than the HC site.
Screening detail: Existing Fence style is board-on-board (as preferred by ARB):
E. Proposed mitigation: Privacy fence in the rear area SW corner of the site will be solid privacy fence
which will provide a more effective screen. When viewed at an angle, the neighbors will not be able to see
through the fence (as happens now).
- Truck noise as heard by neighbors
ALL SITE DEVELOPMENT IN AC MUST COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCE PROVISIONS FOR NOISE
LIMITS. Per Ordinance section 18.4.18.4 the maximum sound limit is 60 decibels daytime and 55 nighttime.
4.18.5 exempts motor vehicle sounds. Existing sounds do not exceed the ordinance requirements.
Background:
During the very early hours of the day when traffic background noise is diminished, trucks traveling along RT
250 and along 1-64 can be heard at this site and neighboring properties.
F. To mitigate the sound of individual trucks behind the convenience store: PROVIDED THE SP
AMENDMENT IS APPROVED TO ALLOW FUEL SERVICE UNDER THE LARGE CANOPY AS NEEDED
WITHOUT THE NOZZLE LIMIT—the small canopy fuel pump dispenser will be turned off when the store
closes. Customers purchasing alternative/diesel fuel will circle the large canopy area which will confine
the sounds to the area next to the store. This measure mitigates the lighting impacts and noise impacts to
neighbors.
The only remaining single truck from time to time that may intermittently circle the rear area is the truck
delivering fuel to the underground storage tanks on the site.
Re-Store'N Station - AmendmMno Special Use Permit
Original Conditions with Edits & 2 new conditions from Bill Fritz (copied to Greg K) 9.15.2016
for Board Mtg Oct 12th
1. The applicant shall install and maintain a meter on the well head 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 request from the
Zoning Administrator;
2. Water consumption from all wells on site shall not exceed one thousand six hundred
twenty-five (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 one thousand six hundred twenty-five (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. : - - - -- - - - -- - -- -- - - - - --- - -- •---- - ..9
square feet; The gross first floor building square footage shall not exceed 13,600 square
feet and the gross second floor building square footage shall not exceed 11,000 square
feet. This does not include porch roofs;
5. The hours of business operation shall not exceed sixteen (16) hours per day; The
convenience store shall not operate between 12:30 AM and 4:30 AM except the fuel
pumps may remain operational without restriction;
-- -
station for kerosene fuel;There shall be no more than nine (9)fuel pump stations of
which seven (7) are limited to serve only two (2)vehicles at any time, one (1) pump
station is for off- road fuel that serves only one customer at any time, and one (1) pump
station is for kerosene that serves only one customer at any time.
7. If rainwater is collected from roof tops 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. Except vehicles of the auto repair customers, Overnight customer parking on -site shall
not be permitted between the hours of 12:30 a.m. and 4:30 a.m. 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
concept plan dated December 2009 2/25/2016. 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;
10. The auto repair business shall not operate between 10 PM and 4:30 AM; and,
%If (100 . .
11. No buildinc permit for the expnsiono the existing (front buildinci) shall be issued until
the water usaeforthe eisingbuilding and the new rear buildinci has been c nfr e
to be less than 80% of 1,625 gallons per day (1,300 gallons per day). Confirmation will
be made by submission to the Zoning Administrator of meter Rain data for a minimum
o6cnsctiv� emonths atfeacertificate ooccupancy has been issued bthe building
code official for the new rear building.
� . .
. . . I
)
Bill Fritz
From: Musxit@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 11:33 AM
To: Bill Fritz
Subject: Re: SP 2015-32 Restoren Station
Attachments: RS.SUBMITTAL.WATER.METER.TO.PRESENT.pdf
Bill -
Because it is important that meter readings are up to date and show a full year AFTER start up, I am
submitting the meter reading information again and adding the meter readings for the past 5
months. This shows the average of 251 gallons per day which is 16% of the allowed BY-Right
amount of water for this site.
I have attached the water meter data covering the entire year and nine months which includes the
submitted info in December and all meter readings up to present time.
Please confirm you received ok.
Thanks Jo
In a message dated 5/31/2016 10:43:54 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, BFRITZ@albemarle.org writes:
Attached is the staff report for the June 7 Planning Commission meeting.
I am sending this out separately from the packet that Stephanie will prepare so that everyone
could have it as soon as it was completed.
This staff report and attachments should be available on the website tomorrow. That site is:
http://www.albemarle.org/agenda.asp?department=pc&year=2016
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me.
William D. Fritz,AICP
1
Bill Fritz
From: Musxit@aol.com
Sent: Friday,April 08, 2016 1:08 PM
To: Bill Fritz
Subject: Re:Correction
Here are two important elements to address or provide clarification:
1. It is very important to state: "No proposed change to existing water permitted."
This is the fact and most will think - more bldg more water which is not the case. I inserted
below in caps so you can see it is only making it more clear.
2. In "proposal" working the "amend fuel pump configuration" - Is misleading.
Do not want to cause worry about this becoming a truck stop. Most people think configuration
means site layout (I do actually). The fact is this the proposal is to add (back) two fuel pumps so
why not say this? Otherwise, people may thing MANY are being added due to the quantity of nozzle
wording which was not well understood.
The wording of numbers of nozzles is so confusing it should not be used again (not used anywhere
else that I know) so saying "configuration" is not explainable. I don't think people should get the idea
the site layout is changing. The 2 pumps already have space under the canopy so why not
say: "add 2 fuel pumps with no change to canopy"
This wording tracks better with the "amend conditions limiting the number of fuel dispensing
stations" and both are understandable.
Hopefully, you will be ok with these minor requested adjustments.
Thanks so much for your patience and work on this.
Jo
In a message dated 4/8/2016 11:23:16 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, BFRITZ@albemarle.org writes:
I caught that after I had sent it out. That's the problem with using templates sometimes. Here is the
description
1
9
R ffi
(1;i°
PROJECT: SP 201500032 (amendment of SP 200900034)
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall
TAX MAP/PARCEL: 055B0000000100
LOCATION: 6115 Rockfish Gap Turnpike
PROPOSAL: Construct approximately 20,000 square feet of additional commercial space and amend
fuel pump station configuration WITH NO CHANGE TO THE EXISTING WATER
PERMITTED. Proposed uses include Convenience/Retail, Food retail, Retail Auto Parts,Auto Repair
Shop, Office and a drive-through window.
PETITION: Amend the existing conditions of SP200900034 to allow approximately 20,000 square feet
of additional building, amend conditions limiting the number of fuel dispensing stations and amend
conditions limiting overnight parking to allow vehicles awaiting repair to be parked onsite
overnight. The conditions of SP2oo9o0034 were established during the review of a request to permit
water consumption exceeding four hundred(400)gallons per site acre per day as permitted under
Section 24.2.2(13) of the zoning ordinance.
ZONING: HC, Highway Commercial—retail sales and service; residential by special use permit(15
units/ acre)
OVERLAY DISTRICT: EC-Entrance Corridor
PROFFERS: No
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Rural Areas -preserve and protect agricultural,forestal, open space, and
natural,historic and scenic resources/residential density 0.5 unit/acre in development lots.
William D. Fritz,AICP
434-296-5823 extension 3242
From: Musxit@aol.com [mailto:Musxit@aol.com]
Sent: Friday,April 08,201610:41 AM
To: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org>
Subject:Correction
Bill - Just wanted to bring to your attention that the first sentence of the comments dated Jan
22 reference a different project. (Pasted below) I think we talked about this but since you may
use this heading as a template - I just wanted to make sure you are aware and correct this
information.
2
Also - Please send the ad language that I did not keep a copy of when we met because you
wanted to redo it.
Thanks Jo
RE: SP 201500032 (amendment of SP 200900034)and SP 201500033 (Drive Through Window) Re-
Store'N Station
Dear Ms. Higgins:
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the request for a special use permit for a private school in
the Rural Areas zoning district. We have
3
Bill Fritz
Subject: RE: SP2015-32 Restore'n Station -VERY IMPORTANT
You are correct that the issue of the comprehensive plan did not arise until recently. The comprehensive plan
was analyzed and initially no issues were identified. However, as review continued as a normal part of the
preparation of the staff report the issue of"new uses"became more apparent. There was some discussion
between staff, including with the County Attorney's office, on how this should be interpreted and ultimately
addressed. After some consideration it was determined that the amendment of the conditions do constitute
"new uses"because they are uses that are not currently permitted under the conditions of the special use
permit. This new information is the result of review which is ongoing for projects from the time they are
submitted.
Staff is aware that the review must be evaluated under reasonable standards,based on zoning principles which
include compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The impacts of the proposal may be addressed through
conditions and those conditions must be reasonably related to the impacts evaluated and that they must be
roughly proportional to the impacts. Please note that the zoning principles that are considered are those
contained in the zoning ordinance. A significant change in the ordinance has occurred since the review of the
initial special use permit. In 2010 the evaluation criteria for a special use permit did not specifically state that
the application was reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The ordinance does now require
that evaluation. Therefore,the recommendation of conditions to insure consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan is appropriate. You may disagree with the interpretation that the amendment of the special use permit
results in"new uses"and you may disagree that the conditions recommended by staff are not appropriate to
insure consistency with the ordinance. The Board of Supervisors will be able to take into consideration any
comments you have, that the public has and that staff has and make a final determination on how to interpret
the statements of the Comprehensive Plan and if the proposed conditions are appropriate to address the
content of the Comprehensive Plan.
Staff can recommend approval if there are conditions to address the Comprehensive Plan. If the conditions are
not included staff will recommend denial of the application. The analysis of the Comprehensive Plan as it
relates to this project is complex as are the ways to insure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, as
interpreted by staff. As you know the Planning Commission meeting is advisory to the Board of Supervisors
and it is the Board that will make the final decision.
If you have any other questions please feel free to get with me.
William D. Fritz,AICP
434-296-5823 extension 3242
From: Musxit@aol.com [mailto:Musxit@aol.com]
Sent:Tuesday,April 12, 2016 10:01 AM
To: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org>
Cc: David Benish<DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Mark Graham <mgraham@albemarle.org>; Greg Kamptner
<GKamptne@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re:SP2015-32 Restore'n Station-VERY IMPORTANT
Bill -
This application has gone through the complete process in preparation for the PC public
hearing. The Mandatory Pre-Application mtg and receiving staff comments prior to the December
Submittal. Going through the Departmental review of that submittal and receiving Staff comments on
1
Coo
Jan 22, 2016 from all departments. Having the Community Meeting presentation with CCAC. The re-
submittal in February was deemed to satisfy all the staff comments. I re-read the planning
comments and no mention of any issue with the proposed uses or compliance with the Comp
Plan. The uses were clearly stated on the concept plan and discussed. I met with you individually
to go through details and confirm the square footage calculations. You several times confirmed that
your focus was on water usage although it was acknowledge that others opposed to the project are
not under anyone's control. The water usage projections submitted with this application have been
approved by Engineering. The existing water usage that is 25% of the 1,625 gallons per day allowed
for this site has been document. The proposed amendment to the Concept plan to develop the
remainder of this parcel was carefully crafted to not include high water uses specifically
to remain keep within the by-right amount of water allowed for this site.
Over these many months, you made no hint of the approach you are now taking. (The SP for the
drive through was canceled as a change in the ordinance allows for administrative approval). Here we
are within 3 days of the advertisement going in the newspaper, you advise that your recommendation
includes a condition that does not pertain AT ALL to water usage.
I went back to the existing SP board action and reviewed the minutes carefully. I have attached the
minutes and boxed where the County Attorney consistently states 3 times that the conditions
applied to this SP which was a request for 1 gallon of water (only because the County required an SP
or the site plan originally would not be processed) must pertain to "water usage" . The existing SP
being amendment under the current application is only enabled by that 1 gallon of water. This
application does not request a change to that amount because without it we fall back into the by-right
development which would not comply with the initial Zoning determination that an SP was required.
I have reviewed the section of the Comprehensive Plan that you provided. Although there
is language to guide the consideration of"new uses" in the rural areas, it does not override the
rules/regulations/ laws that apply to limit the conditions that the BOS may apply to mitigate the
impact of the special use which in this case is water usage. The ordinance does limit the range of the
conditions which I assume is why the County Advised as he did. (18.33.8b & d - see attached)
To now advise that the staff position has changed and your review has resulted in a
recommendation to add a condition that limits the uses allowed on this Highway Commercial zoned
2
4i
parcel to those found in the Rural Areas section of the ordinance is beyond understanding. How can
planning staff even suggest a condition that is inconsistent with the advice the County Attorney
repeatedly stated to the BOS?
The proposed condition is not to mitigate impact of the water allowance for this specific special use
at all it is more like a (voluntary) proffer used in a rezoning to limit the uses to exclude those uses
NOT proposed on the application. In this case, none of the uses in the condition you are
recommending are even shown on the concept plan. (These uses can be done by-right on any RA
parcel and don't apply to this HC parcel so why would they be shown?) This in effect is an approach
to down-zone to RA.
Please advise if the County Attorney's office is supporting this recommendation. It would be very
confusing, misleading and upsetting to all if the County Attorney advises at the PC or BOS meeting
that since the staff recommendation does not pertain to "water usage" that Planning Staff
recommendation is not to be used. No one wants this I am sure.
Unless this can be re-considered prior to Thursday at 3pm, we have no choice but to postpone the
advertisement at this time.
I copied David (acting Dept Head) and Mark so they are in the loop.
I copied Greg because without a timely resolution the alternatives are limited.
Please confirm you received this email ok.
Best -
Jo Higgins I PROJECT DEVELOPMENT LLC
434 - 326 - 0334 I musxit(a�aol.com
2564 MT Torrey Road, Lyndhurst, VA 22952
In a message dated 4/11/2016 12:03:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, BFRITZ@albemarle.org writes:
3
(11.01, C:0
If you don't want to go on May 3rd we would need to know by Thursday,April 14 at 3:0o p.m.
The total ad fee is $560.80.
You can submit$387.90 now and then $172.90 for the Board ad if you want to split it up.
William D. Fritz,AICP
434-296-5823 extension 3242
Ili
4
;.3
1/44001
Bill Fritz
Subject: RE: SP2015-32 Restore'n Station -VERY IMPORTANT
I have received and reviewed your comments. You are correct that the issue of the comprehensive plan did not
arise until recently. The comprehensive plan was analyzed and initially no issues were identified. However,
during the preparation of the outline for the staff report the issue of"new uses"became more apparent. There
was some discussion between staff, including with the County Attorney's office, on how this should be
interpreted. After some consideration it was determined that the amendment of the conditions do constitute
"new uses"because they are uses that are not currently permitted under the conditions of the special use
permit. This new information is the result of review which is ongoing for projects from the time they are
submitted.
Staff is aware that the review must be evaluated under reasonable standards,based on zoning principles which
include compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The impacts of the proposal may be addressed through
conditions and those conditions must be reasonably related to the impacts evaluated and that they must be
roughly proportional to the impacts. Please note that the zoning principles that are considered are those
contained in the zoning ordinance. A significant change in the ordinance has occurred since the review of the
initial special use permit. In 2010 the evaluation criteria for a special use permit did not specifically state that
the application was reviewed for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The ordinance does now require
that evaluation. Therefore,the recommendation of conditions to insure consistency with the Comprehensive
Plan is appropriate. You may disagree with the interpretation that the amendment of the special use permit
results in"new uses"and you may disagree that the conditions recommended by staff are not appropriate to
insure consistency with the ordinance. The Board of Supervisors will be able to take into consideration any
comments you have, that the public has and that staff has and make a final determination on how to interpret
the statements of the Comprehensive Plan and if the proposed conditions are appropriate to address the
content of the Comprehensive Plan.
William D. Fritz,AICP
434-296-5823 extension 3242
From: Musxit@aol.com [mailto:Musxit@aol.com]
Sent:Tuesday,April 12, 2016 10:01 AM
To: Bill Fritz<BFRITZ@albemarle.org>
Cc: David Benish<DBENISH@albemarle.org>; Mark Graham<mgraham@albemarle.org>; Greg Kamptner
<GKamptne@albemarle.org>
Subject: Re: SP2015-32 Restore'n Station-VERY IMPORTANT
Bill -
This application has gone through the complete process in preparation for the PC public
hearing. The Mandatory Pre-Application mtg and receiving staff comments prior to the December
Submittal. Going through the Departmental review of that submittal and receiving Staff comments on
Jan 22, 2016 from all departments. Having the Community Meeting presentation with CCAC. The re-
submittal in February was deemed to satisfy all the staff comments. I re-read the planning
comments and no mention of any issue with the proposed uses or compliance with the Comp
Plan. The uses were clearly stated on the concept plan and discussed. I met with you individually
1
� 3
to go through details and confirm the square footage calculations. You several times confirmed that
your focus was on water usage although it was acknowledge that others opposed to the project are
not under anyone's control. The water usage projections submitted with this application have been
approved by Engineering. The existing water usage that is 25% of the 1,625 gallons per day allowed
for this site has been document. The proposed amendment to the Concept plan to develop the
remainder of this parcel was carefully crafted to not include high water uses specifically
to remain keep within the by-right amount of water allowed for this site.
Over these many months, you made no hint of the approach you are now taking. (The SP for the
drive through was canceled as a change in the ordinance allows for administrative approval). Here we
are within 3 days of the advertisement going in the newspaper, you advise that your recommendation
includes a condition that does not pertain AT ALL to water usage.
I went back to the existing SP board action and reviewed the minutes carefully. I have attached the
minutes and boxed where the County Attorney consistently states 3 times that the conditions
applied to this SP which was a request for 1 gallon of water (only because the County required an SP
or the site plan originally would not be processed) must pertain to "water usage" . The existing SP
being amendment under the current application is only enabled by that 1 gallon of water. This
application does not request a change to that amount because without it we fall back into the by-right
development which would not comply with the initial Zoning determination that an SP was required.
I have reviewed the section of the Comprehensive Plan that you provided. Although there
is language to guide the consideration of"new uses" in the rural areas, it does not override the
rules/regulations/ laws that apply to limit the conditions that the BOS may apply to mitigate the
impact of the special use which in this case is water usage. The ordinance does limit the range of the
conditions which I assume is why the County Advised as he did. (18.33.8b & d - see attached)
To now advise that the staff position has changed and your review has resulted in a
recommendation to add a condition that limits the uses allowed on this Highway Commercial zoned
parcel to those found in the Rural Areas section of the ordinance is beyond understanding. How can
planning staff even suggest a condition that is inconsistent with the advice the County Attorney
repeatedly stated to the BOS?
2
cov
The proposed condition is not to mitigate impact of the water allowance for this specific special use
at all - it is more like a (voluntary) proffer used in a rezoning to limit the uses to exclude those uses
NOT proposed on the application. In this case, none of the uses in the condition you are
recommending are even shown on the concept plan. (These uses can be done by-right on any RA
parcel and don't apply to this HC parcel so why would they be shown?) This in effect is an approach
to down-zone to RA.
Please advise if the County Attorney's office is supporting this recommendation. It would be very
confusing, misleading and upsetting to all if the County Attorney advises at the PC or BOS meeting
that since the staff recommendation does not pertain to "water usage" that Planning Staff
recommendation is not to be used. No one wants this I am sure.
Unless this can be re-considered prior to Thursday at 3pm, we have no choice but to postpone the
advertisement at this time.
I copied David (acting Dept Head) and Mark so they are in the loop.
I copied Greg because without a timely resolution the alternatives are limited.
Please confirm you received this email ok.
Best -
Jo 7figgins I PROJECT DEVELOPMENT LLC
434 - 326 - 0334 I musxitaol.com
2564 MT Torrey Road, Lyndhurst, VA 22952
In a message dated 4/11/2016 12:03:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, BFRITZ@albemarle.org writes:
If you don't want to go on May 3rd we would need to know by Thursday,April 14 at 3:0o p.m.
The total ad fee is $560.80.
3
MEW
COO
You can submit $387.90 now and then $172.90 for the Board ad if you want to split it up.
William D. Fritz,AICP
434-296-5823 extension 3242
4
Nal
Bill Fritz
From: Musxit@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday,April 12, 2016 10:01 AM
To: Bill Fritz
Cc: David Benish; Mark Graham;Greg Kamptner
Subject: Re: SP2015-32 Restore'n Station -VERY IMPORTANT
Attachments: BOS.mtg.Minutes.SP.Approval.pdf
Bill -
This application has gone through the complete process in preparation for the PC public
hearing. The Mandatory Pre-Application mtg and receiving staff comments prior to the December
Submittal. Going through the Departmental review of that submittal and receiving Staff comments on
Jan 22, 2016 from all departments. Having the Community Meeting presentation with CCAC. The re-
submittal in February was deemed to satisfy all the staff comments. I re-read the planning
comments and no mention of any issue with the proposed uses or compliance with the Comp
Plan. The uses were clearly stated on the concept plan and discussed. I met with you individually
to go through details and confirm the square footage calculations. You several times confirmed that
your focus was on water usage although it was acknowledge that others opposed to the project are
not under anyone's control. The water usage projections submitted with this application have been
approved by Engineering. The existing water usage that is 25% of the 1,625 gallons per day allowed
for this site has been document. The proposed amendment to the Concept plan to develop the
remainder of this parcel was carefully crafted to not include high water uses specifically
to remain keep within the by-right amount of water allowed for this site.
Over these many months, you made no hint of the approach you are now taking. (The SP for the
drive through was canceled as a change in the ordinance allows for administrative approval). Here we
are within 3 days of the advertisement going in the newspaper, you advise that your recommendation
includes a condition that does not pertain AT ALL to water usage.
I went back to the existing SP board action and reviewed the minutes carefully. I have attached the
minutes and boxed where the County Attorney consistently states 3 times that the conditions
applied to this SP which was a request for 1 gallon of water (only because the County required an SP
or the site plan originally would not be processed) must pertain to "water usage" . The existing SP
being amendment under the current application is only enabled by that 1 gallon of water. This
1
(1;114
application does not request a change to that amount because without it we fall back into the by-right
development which would not comply with the initial Zoning determination that an SP was required.
I have reviewed the section of the Comprehensive Plan that you provided. Although there
is language to guide the consideration of"new uses" in the rural areas, it does not override the
rules/regulations/ laws that apply to limit the conditions that the BOS may apply to mitigate the
impact of the special use which in this case is water usage. The ordinance does limit the range of the
conditions which I assume is why the County Advised as he did. (18.33.8b & d - see attached)
To now advise that the staff position has changed and your review has resulted in a
recommendation to add a condition that limits the uses allowed on this Highway Commercial zoned
parcel to those found in the Rural Areas section of the ordinance is beyond understanding. How can
planning staff even suggest a condition that is inconsistent with the advice the County Attorney
repeatedly stated to the BOS?
The proposed condition is not to mitigate impact of the water allowance for this specific special use
at all - it is more like a (voluntary) proffer used in a rezoning to limit the uses to exclude those uses
NOT proposed on the application. In this case, none of the uses in the condition you are
recommending are even shown on the concept plan. (These uses can be done by-right on any RA
parcel and don't apply to this HC parcel so why would they be shown?) This in effect is an approach
to down-zone to RA.
Please advise if the County Attorney's office is supporting this recommendation. It would be very
confusing, misleading and upsetting to all if the County Attorney advises at the PC or BOS meeting
that since the staff recommendation does not pertain to "water usage" that Planning Staff
recommendation is not to be used. No one wants this I am sure.
Unless this can be re-considered prior to Thursday at 3pm, we have no choice but to postpone the
advertisement at this time.
I copied David (acting Dept Head) and Mark so they are in the loop.
I copied Greg because without a timely resolution the alternatives are limited.
2
",y
(440 (oad
Please confirm you received this email ok.
Best -
Jo Jfiggins I PROJECT DEVELOPMENT LLC
434 - 326 - 0334 I musxit@aol.com
2564 MT Torrey Road, Lyndhurst, VA 22952
In a message dated 4/11/2016 12:03:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, BFRITZ@albemarle.org writes:
If you don't want to go on May 3rd we would need to know by Thursday,April 14 at 3:0o p.m.
The total ad fee is $560.80.
You can submit $387.90 now and then $172.90 for the Board ad if you want to split it up.
William D. Fritz,AICP
434-296-5823 extension 3242
3
October 13,2010(Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 57)
Implementation Estimated Responsible Issues to Be Addressed; Milestones Timing
,y Cost/Funding Department! Actions Requited Short-- 11 to
Mid-term(FY15 to
FY19)
Long-term(FY19 and
j out)
Wastewater Need estimate ACSA/RWSA • a.-.-- adequate waste water • Study/Monitor Mid-term-long term
from RWSA capacity to - - rozet. • Design
• Continue long-term p. • Construction
for sewer improvements based
upon sewer system studies Mid-term
currently being conducted by
the ACSA and the RWSA.New
sewer connections would be
based on the ACSA's first come
first served basis policy.
Eastern Crozet $12.3 million('04) Crozet • To address future school • Acquire site Long-term
Elementary School Planner/Dept of capacity needs in Crozet through proffers
site Ed.,Facilities • Determine need
Construction staff • Design
• Build
Fire/Rescue Service Region is served Crozet • Monitor any needs/support • Ongoing Ongoing
by Crozet Planner/Fire from County
Volunteer Fire Rescue/
Department and Facilities staff
Westem
Albemarle
Rescue Squad
Police Service Undetermined Crozet • Provides improved work space • Identify office Ongoing yearly
Police Office in Planner/Police/0 for beat officer space evaluation of population
Downtown Area FD • Improve response times to • Locate police in growth and facility
meet Development Area satellite office needs.
standards
• Provides for improved police
service to Crozet/Westem
Albemarle
Recycling $250,000- RSWA/County • Provide convenient drop • Review w/ Dependent on
Programs $500,000—to be (General center.RSWA Solid Waste RSWA during implementation
determined on Services, Mgt Plan update of Solid recommendations of
revised regional Planning) • Review may indicate different Waste Plan. Solid Waste plan as
solid waste plan approach to recycle(curbside Funding recommended in
maybe considered) requested in adopted plan
CIP.
• Construction
ACSA—Albemarle County Service Authority
ARB—Architectural Review Board
BDF—Business Development Facilitator
BOS—Board of Supervisors
CBNG—Crozet Business Networking Group
CCAC—Crozet Community Advisory Council
CDD—Community Development Department
CTS—Charlottesville Transit Service
DCA—Downtown Crozet Association
JMRL-Jefferson Madison Regional Library
OFD—Office of Facilities Development
P&R—Parks and Recreations
PC—Planning Commission
RTA—Regional Transit Authority
RWSA—Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority
TJPDC—Thomas Jefferson Planning District Commission
VDOT—Virginia Department of Transportation
WPO—Water Protection Ordinance
WTP—Water Treatment Plant
WWTP—Wastewater Treatment Plant
ZTA—Zoning Text Amendment
Agenda Item No.11. Public Hearing: PROJECT:SP-2009-00034.RE-STORE'N STATION
(Signs#33&36).
PROPOSED:Use of more than 400 gallons of groundwater per site-acre per day for convenience
store.
ZONING CATEGORY/GENERAL USAGE:HC,Highway Commercial-retail sales and service
uses;and residential use by special use permit(15 units/acre);EC Entrance Corridor-Overlay to
protect properties of historic,architectural or cultural significance from visual impacts of
development along routes of tourist access.SECTION:24.2.2.13,Uses permitted by right,not
served by public water,involving water consumption exceeding four hundred(400)gallons per site
acre per day.Uses permitted by right,not served by public sewer,involving anticipated discharge
of sewage other than domestic wastes.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Rural Areas-preserve and protect agricultural,
forestal,open space,and natural,historic and scenic resources/density(.5 unit/acre in
development lots).
ENTRANCE CORRIDOR:Yes.
LOCATION:US 250(Rockfish Gap Turnpike)approximately 1,600 feet(0.3 miles)west of
Western Albemarle High School
MEMk.
4400
October 13,2010(Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 58)
TAX MAP/PARCEL:Tax Map 55B Parcel 1.
MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT:White Hall.
(Advertised in the Daily Progress on September 27 and October 4,2010.)
Ms.Summer Frederick,Senior Planner,said that the site of the proposed special use permit is
located in the White Hall Magisterial District,on Rockfish Gap Turnpike or Route 250 West,approximately
one-quarter west of Western Albemarle High School. She said that it is zoned highway commercial with a
rural area Comprehensive Plan designation and is located within an Entrance Corridor Overlay District.
Ms.Frederick stated that the application of the special use permit was made in accord with provisions of
the Zoning Ordinance,requiring by-right uses in the Highway Commercial district not served by public
water,to-ebta;"a apeeial use pe+, ;t;f thcy-at e 3c m,re than 400 gallei.s per aitc erc,c pe,day. She
said that the proposed convenience store with gas pumps is a by-right use in the Highway Commercial
zoning district. I he applicant's request is to permit the consumption of 400.25 of gallons per site acre per
day,for a total of 1,625 gallons per day for this sit,exceeding the allowable by one gallon.
Ms.Frederick emphasized that staff's consideration for this application is limited only to those
impacts associated with water consumption,as the site plan is otherwise a by-right use of the property.
She said that staff has reviewed the applk,allon In sword with the Code. Staff believes there Is not
sufficient data to guarantee that groundwater failure will not occur;however,conditions recommended by
staff,should the special use permit be approved,would restrict water to a point that,as viewed from an
engineering standpoint,has no greater impact on adjacent properties than the water consumption
permitted by-right. Ms.Frederick stated that the applicant has supplied a Tier Three groundwater study
conducted and compiled by a State-certified geologist that indicates adequate water supply is available
onsite. She said that in staff's opinion,the processes used to prepare the groundwater study are sound.
A study was subsequently submitted by a member of the public which raises questions about the
adequacy of that water supply. Ms.Frederick noted that this conflicting data provides a point of concern
regarding the general welfare of adjacent landowners.
She said that the site is a bit unusual in that it is zoned Highway Commercial but carries a Rural
Areas Comprehensive Plan designation. In this case the Board should consider if the special use permit
allowing for the consumption of more than 400 gallons per site acre per day with reasonable conditions is
a consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Ms.Frederick said that staff believes this use,with a condition
restricting water consumption to 1,625 gallons per day,is consistent with water consumption expected in
the rural areas. Ms.Frederick stated that a site plan will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable
ordinance requirements should this special use permit request be approved. A preliminary site plan has
been submitted for this site,and the Planning Commission is required to review it in accordance with Code
requirements,as an abutting owner has requested this. Based on analysis as required by the Code,she
said,staff recommends approval of SP-2009-00034 with conditions to include:
1) The applicant shall install a meter on the well-head to monitor water consumption. Prior to
installation,the model of said meter will be approved by the Zoning Administer,in consultation
with the County Engineer. Results of daily water consumption monitoring results will be made
available within forty-eight(48)hours of a request from the Zoning Administrator;and
2) Water consumption shall be restricted to no more than 1,625 gallons per day.
Ms.Frederick said,at its June 8,2010 meeting,the Planning Commission reviewed this
application and recommended denial in a vote of 4:2 due to their finding that the use will be a substantial
detriment to adjacent property because there was insufficient information to determine the amount of
water the proposal will use,and the water use may adversely affect neighboring properties.
Mr.Boyd asked if the information from the water study done by a hydrologist was available to the
Planning Commission. Ms.Frederick responded that it was.
Ms.Mallek asked what a Tier Three groundwater study is. Ms.Frederick replied that it is a study
done by a State-certified geologist that examines the soils and the recharge rate,as well as general
rainfall calculations. She said that it takes the proposed water withdrawal and compares it to the recharge
rate and makes a determination whether or not that geologist believes there is adequate water supply to
support the proposed development. Ms.Frederick confirmed that an analysis of the impact of that well on
neighboring wells would be covered under a Tier Four.
Mr.Rooker mentioned that another geologist took issue with the results found by the first
geologist. Ms.Frederick replied that he took issue with the processes that the first geologist went through
to get to their assumption.
COUNTY Mr.Thomas asked if this request has always been a special use permit. Ms.Frederick said that
'y3 ATTORNEY the special use permit application was made after it was determined by the Deputy Zoning Administrator
that a special use permit was required.
CONFIRM
"CAN ONLY Mr.
rtTh16 nozzles are planned.
APPLY pump nozzles will be on this property. Ms.Frederick
responded
APPLY
CONDITIONS.. Ms.Boyd asked if the Board can restrict the size of the building as part of this approval. Mr.Davis
replied that the Board can apply conditions that reasonably relate to the water usage,and if scale and
WATER USAGE" intensity of the use generates additional water usage the Board can certainly restrict those.
1/4601 1/44kiel
October 13,2010(Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 59)
Ms.Mallek said that some of the concern relates to the lack of information on what is going to
happen on the other one-half of the building,as there is another 6,000 square feet.
Mr.Boyd said that is the reason for his question and whether the Board can control that.
Ms.Frederick pointed out that any future development that happens beyond what is tied to this
special use permit would need to be reviewed in terms of the approval of this special use permit.
SECOND TIME Mr.Thomas said that another additional outparcel would not be part of the plan at all.
COUNTY
ATTORNEY Mr.Rooker said that it is a single parcel with single zoning. He asked if this were approved for the
4,750 square foot building only,and it is clear that they have other plans for the rest of the parcel,would f
SECOND the water usage apply to the additional building be judged separately.
CONFIRMATION Ms.Frederick responded that the applicant would need to come in with another site plan or site
THAT plan amendment for that,and at that point it would need to be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator,who
CONDITIONS would make a determination as to whether the special use permit needs to be expanded.
"RELATED TO Mr.Davis pointed out that unless the special use permit restricts the use to a certain site plan or
certain parameter,it is quite possible that as long as it is the same use it could be expanded without a new
WATER USAGE" special use permit. He said that if the Board's intention is to restrict it that should be specifically
addressed in a condition as long as it is reasonably related to water usage.
Mr.Snow asked if the 1,625 gallons applies to all of the parcels total,or just for the service station
itself. Ms.Frederick replied that it is just this one parcel,which is four acres. Per site acre refers to the
entire parcel.
Mr.Snow commented that if the service station were to use 1,625 gallons per day it would not
leave any water for the additional development. Ms.Frederick agreed.
Mr.Rooker asked how that is practical. When that amount is exceeded it puts an application in a
special use permit category,and the Board goes through its usual thorough analysis in evaluating that. It
is his understanding that the Tier Three water study in no way determines the well impact on surrounding
properties. He then asked if it considers the impact of impervious surface that might result from additional
development on the parcel,and the potential for contamination of wells in the area that can result from
gas tanks being in close proximity.
Ms.Frederick stated that it does mention that potential,but the study does not really reach any
kind of conclusion.
Mr.Rooker commented that he would have some significant concern if he had a well 100 feet
away from gas tanks.
THIRD TIME
COUNTY Ms.Mallek asked what decisions the Planning Commission would have when the site plan is
presented to them. Ms.Frederick responded that if the site plan meets the ordinance requirements and
ATTORNEY the conditions set forth in the special use permit,then it is a public hearing to review it.
CONFIRMED Mr.Davis pointed out that the Planning Commission review of the site plan is a ministerial review,
"CONDITIONS' and if the zoning requirements are met they are obligated to approve the site plan. He said that the zoning
CONDITIONS requirements would be whatever HC requirements apply to this particular use,as well as any conditions
ARE RELATED that are added by special use permit. The Planning Commission would have to determine that all those
TO WATER requirements have been met before approving the site plan.
USAGE" Mr.Boyd said that if the Board can address the water usage through conditions,then any
expansion would trigger another special use permit,as adding buildings and increasing usage would be a
violation of those conditions. Mr.Davis responded that as long as the conditions are related to water
usage.
Ms.Mallek commented that the hours of operation would also be related to water usage. Mr.
Davis said it could be.
Ms.Mallek stated that there needs to be more certainty presented as to what the effect will be on
the neighbors,as they are in a high-risk situation and should have the right to live in their homes for as
long as possible.
Mr.Rooker asked what would happen if the site exceeds the 1,625 gallon per day limit. Ms.
Frederick responded that it would be a zoning violation.
Mr.Rooker said that it really doesn't seem very practical that some staff person is going to go out
and check it regularly. Ms.Frederick stated that the condition is written so that the applicant must provide
data to the Zoning Administrator within 48 hours of the County's request.
Mr.Rooker reiterated that he questions how practical this is,and asked if the station would
essentially have to shut down their operation the next day. Mr.Bill Fritz,Chief of Current Development,
replied that potentially they would have to reevaluate how their operation occurs. They may have to
change their business model.
xr� .
co,
October 13,2010(Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 60)
Mr.Rooker asked if they harvest rainwater to use to water plants if it counts against the 1,625.
Ms.Frederick responded that there was a determination made by the Deputy Zoning Administrator that it
could be counted.
Mr.Rooker said that it would need to be ascertained as to whether it would be counted,and
asked if the rainwater barrels would also be monitored. He just does not see this limitation approach as
being real practical,but then he also does not know what the alternatives are.
Ms.Mallek commented that accurate numbers of how many people actually visit the site would
ultimately determine the water usage. She knows there has been some discussion in materials that the
site is not required to comply with Board of Health regulations regarding numbers of gallons used per
vehicle trip. She explained that a waiver is only allowed for non-franchise business owners,and there is
information from the applicants that indicates that they expect this to be sold to a national chain. If that is
a possibility,before any shovels go in the ground,the Board needs to make sure that there is enough
water capability using the Board of Health regulations in order for the property to be able to succeed. Ms.
Mallek added that the last thing she wants to see is a situation where the plan fails,as customers will not
return. People will not come back if they cannot use the bathrooms.She thinks that the traffic study for
the site plan is needed before the Board votes on the request.
Mr.Boyd said that a traffic study will not show how many people are stopping there,only how
many are passing by.
Ms.Mallek said it is the use in this circumstance by businesses under Board of Health regulations
which requires how much water they are planning for. She added that she would ask for more detail from
someone who knows more about the traffic study for the site plan.
Mr.Rooker commented that he understands that the study does not take into account 1-64 traffic.
He added that VDoT is looking at it relating to what kind of entrance would be required from Route 250,
but he is not certain if they are taking 1-64 traffic into consideration.
Ms.Frederick stated that the traffic study required at final site plan stage would be required by
VDOT,and that is strictly a traffic study to determine the type of entrance and location of the entrance for
the site,not the Department of Health standards. She added that it would provide vehicle trips to the site.
Mr.Rooker said that he questions whether this is based on trips on Route 250,and not
necessarily traffic on 1-64. Ms.Frederick confirmed that the traffic study uses the trip generation
information from Route 250 and not 1-64.
At this time,the Chair asked the applicant for comments.
Ms.Jo Higgins,representing the applicant,said that this is not a rezoning. This site is not going to
be a truck stop. The property has been zoned for 30 years and is located outside of the designated
growth area. She emphasized that the area is not rural in nature,as it has Yancey,F&R,the Moose
Lodge,and the strip up the road has a very commercial nature,and there is a lot of other Highway
Commercial buildings. Ms.Higgins stated that the only other similar special use permit that has been
approved is the Shadwell Convenience Market which was for 1,000 gallons on just over an acre,and was
equivalent to granting 847 gallons per acre and did not have restrictions to monitor usage. She said that
the applicant for Restore N Station wanted to be treated similarly. They have provided water data on nine
other locations,and all of them operate under 1,600 gallons,with the highest one being 1,366. Ms.
Higgins noted that all of these are successful convenience stores with fuel pumps,with interstate signs
and proximity to the interstate,and are on roads with more traffic than what is on Route 250.
Mr.Rooker asked if any of the examples she mentioned have neighborhoods around them,noting
that there are not a number of residential properties around the Shadwell Market.
Ms.Higgins responded that if the issue is what the water usage can withstand,the Shadwell
property got more usage.
Mr.Rooker stated that the difference here is there are neighbors who might feel the pull from
water usage around it.
Ms.Higgins said that the other stations referenced here are on public water,so their usage is
actually metered. She added that the Tier Three study is required for wells under 2,000 gallons a day,and
if it is over 2,000 the Tier Four is required. Ms.Higgins stated that the Wawa on Broad Street in Western
Henrico is a booming store,and uses 1,351 gallons per day and its'exact prototype on Merrimack Trail in
Williamsburg uses 1,000 gallons per day. The applicant has no issues with being restricted to this amount
of water. She said that there is really no relationship to the Health Department's chart that says 10 gallons
per vehicle,as that study was done in the 80s when people pulled in and had a service station attendant.
She added convenience store service station is not a provision in the chart for the Health Department.
I Mr.Rooker asked what difference having an attendant would make in water usage. Ms.Higgins
said that the point she is trying to make is that the 10-gallons per vehicle figure used is not a convenience
store service station as defined by the Health Department. If the water usage is restricted it would not
matter what the traffic study says.
Ms.Higgins stated that the applicant has the septic permit from the Health Department for 1,600
gallons,and it does include potential future uses. The service station could operate with a restricted
NNW
October 13,2010(Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 61)
system with a flow control valve that would be plumbed into the water line and calibrated by a PE. They
could not pump more than the by-right out of the ground on any day. She emphasized that it is a low-flow
control designed to protect low-flow wells so it will protect the groundwater surface under the ground. She
also noted that there is no proof that it won't impact anybody. Ms.Higgins reported that the water data is
to verify the facilities that are already operating,noting that the Bellair Market has fewer pumps,but also
has catering and a kitchen using a dishwasher and icemaker;the Wawa has eight pumps. She
mentioned that Restore N Station will have 14 nozzles because the other pump is for off-road diesel,not
for motor vehicle,and is restricted by VDoT. It is just like LP gas and kerosene.
Ms.Higgins emphasized that the store will use conservation fixtures,with toilets using one gallon
per flush and urinals using a tenth of a gallon. The County just demonstrated they can save about
$20,000 on their water bill with these measures and fixtures. She said that the Tier Three groundwater
study was submitted. The County's Water Resources Manager,Josh Rubinstein,reviewed it and
commented on it,stating excellent. Ms.Higgins stated that the criticism is that it was a Tier Three study
and not a Tier Four,but that was a decision the Board made for less than 2,000 gallons per day. She
pointed out that the 400 gallon limit per acre was intended to be more consistent with rural areas,and that
is why it is in all of the commercial districts when they are outside the growth area. Ms.Higgins said that
the claim is there was no staff to do it,but there was a Water Resources Manager on County staff at the
time. There are no guarantees for anyone regardless of the study. She stated that the applicant is
essentially asking for one gallon. The flow control valve does benefit by drawing slowly and consistently,
which will offer a measure of protection for all the wells.
She stated that the applicant has received nine additional letters of support which she will provide
to the Clerk. The applicant has met with neighbors several times and did a complete redesign to reduce
the store from 6,000 down to 4,750. The final footprint will be 4,500 square feet only 500 square feet
more than what is allowed in the RA district for a country store. Ms.Higgins emphasized that the store is
only going to use about 1,100 gallons. The applicant has operated a store for 18 years so he has
knowledge and experience in this arena. She added that the newly designed version has 110 feet of
green space set back off the road. The applicant is aware that any further development of the site will be
restricted. Ms.Higgins pointed out that a traffic study must consider it is a level of service analysis of
certain intersections,including 1-64,and will analyze where the traffic source is and apply level of service
calculations to the intersections at Route 240/250 and 1-64 and that entire strip. She said that regardless
of what the traffic prediction is,it is not related to the amount of water that would be used.
Mr.Rooker said that the primary purpose of the traffic study is to determine what kind of entrance
will be required for the business,so there must be some assumptions made as to how many people would
be entering the business.
Ms.Higgins responded that it is already known that there will be a right-turn lane and left-turn lane
into the site to remove traffic from the through-lanes,which does not happen out there now. She noted
that this would also tell the length of the turn lanes and the impacts on the level of service on intersections
that have been identified for analysis. Ms.Higgins mentioned that she has data from a service station—
Star Express in New Kent County,off of 1-64—that illustrates how calculations can be extrapolated and
used.
Mr.Rooker said there would be information in the report then that would help determine the
expected number of visitors to the site per day. Ms.Higgins responded that the improvements have
already been dictated to VDoT and the applicant is doing what they ask regardless,and because this
property is already zoned,it is for information purposes only.
Mr.Rooker said that information could perhaps tell something about potential water usage based
upon the number of visitors. Ms.Higgins stated that there is an assumption that some correlation can be
drawn between the number of cars and the number of gallons,and it does not exist. Ms.Higgins
emphasized that the water usage data from other sites that are actually in operation is the only way to
make that prediction. They already have that data but they had to find meter sites because well sites do
not have meters.
Mr.Rooker asked if there is any information about the number of visitors to those stores per day.
Ms.Higgins responded that there is information on the vehicle trip days on those roads for the Broad
Street Wawa. There are 35,000 trips per day on that road. At the other Wawa in Williamsburg there are
15,000 trips. For Route 250,the level is 9,800. These are all higher traffic loaded roads to begin with.
Mr.Rooker added that there are also a lot more gas stations within a reasonable radius,and the
applicable traffic comparison here would be 1-64 and Route 250,because you're going to be pulling from
both roads. He said he wasn't sure what the traffic count is on 1-64. Ms.Higgins responded that the count
for that part of 1-64 is 34,000 vehicle trips per day.
Mr.Rooker commented that the station's market will be that traffic. Ms.Higgins mentioned that
there is a Super-Test on the other side,an Exxon directly across the street,Brownsville Market,and
Gateway within a mile.
Mr.Rooker said that all of those things go into determining how many visitors will come into a
given station which provides a correlation between how much water is used. Ms.Higgins responded that
it is more about what goes on inside the station,such as having a dishwasher or icemaker,or public
restrooms. They are not required to have public restrooms;only hand wash sinks. They are also only
required to have certain fixtures at CO. The County does not even require them to be open to the public;
" it is a convenience draw for the customers. They do plan to have restrooms. They just want to make sure
October 13,2010(Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 62)
they can operate. The applicant operated a booming store business at Brownsville where he used 600
gallons a day. In the same location,same distance to the interstate,and same proximity,all the factors
are the same.
Ms.Higgins said that this property has been zoned Highway Commercial for the 30 years. The
development will create jobs during construction and 15-18 permanent jobs once opened,generating
about$10,000 per year now in real estate taxes along with business tax revenue. Ms.Higgins said that
this station will provide fuel,off road fuel,convenience items and safe access off of Route 250. They have
been in the process for two years and have done two site plan layouts. This application has been to the
ARB three times. She stated that moving this forward is critical to opening in January 2012. There is no
risk for the County. The conditions can be modified;the orifice is going to be calibrated by an engineer,
reports submitted to the County and it will be a permanent fixture on the site. If the pump runs 24 hours all
day every day,they cannot pull more than the allowed amount of water out of the ground. The only way to
prove the water is to operate. Ms.Higgins stated that the applicant is willing to accept a voluntary
condition that two fuel pumps will not be installed for a period of 12 months,and after that time provided
the water volume of 1,625 is not exceeded these two fuel pumps may be installed but are not required.
There is no circumstance where the store would shut its doors because it runs out of water;that just does
not happen suddenly. At any time public restroom use is optional. Cooking methods and operation
methods can be changed. She also mentioned that she had sent an email to the Planning Commission to
ask for a provision to allow harvesting of rainwater only to water plant material,and suggested that it not
be counted toward the water consumption total. Ms.Higgins also said that the applicant asks that no
restriction on operating hours be imposed,because the water would not be used at night. The applicant
has no problem with staff recommendations. Mr.Nat Perkins,the site design engineer,is also present
and can answer any questions. She also stated that federal and state regulations overrule anything on
underground storage tanks;they must be double-walled,monitored and have alarms,etc. She stated you
have a tank within a tank,and nobody's grandfathered. She will be happy to respond to any questions
from Board members.She reiterated that the applicant is only asking for the one gallon to enable this
permit to exist,and the Board can add whatever conditions that make it comfortable to allow the business
to operate.
Mr.Snow asked Ms.Higgins to clarify what the one gallon differential means. Ms.Higgins
explained that the current maximum allowable limit is 400 gallons per acre by right,and when the site
acreage of 4.06 is multiplied,it totals 1,624;the applicant is asking for the permit to be 1,625.
Mr.Snow said that he does not understand how that gallon would make a difference. Ms.Higgins
responded that the applicant has never agreed that the store would use that amount,but if that gallon
were not requested there would be no basis to ask for a permit. The Zoning Administrator gave a
determination,after trying and trying,to prove they would not exceed. They are required to ask and are
just trying to cooperate. They do not want a special use permit,but it is the right thing to do to put the
limitations on it and enable the County to enforce this. She said that the by-right amount is satisfactory to
the applicant. If the Board denies the permit,she does not know where the application stands. They are
asking for this because they have consistently been told that people think it will be more which no one can
prove until it is opened,except for the nine stores that are already existing and never exceed 1,600
gallons.
Mr.Thomas mentioned that he didn't hear any hours of operation mentioned. Ms.Higgins replied
that there wouldn't be,noting that Mr.Sprouse stayed open for 24 hours for a short time when he operated
Brownsville,but customers could always buy gas at the pumps. He would only stay open if he had
customers. If the Board imposes a restriction,this applicant would be the only one with that condition.
There is no intent to stay open 24 hours,but if you restricted him,10 years from now,he's the only one
that has to close.
Mr.Thomas asked where the assumption originated that this was going to be a planned truck
stop.
Ms.Higgins explained that there are three lanes coming out of it just like Harris Teeter
and in order to make the turning radius in the back to get around the diesel pump,there is 60 feet on
each side to get a truck to come in. A tractor trailer delivering fuel to the site has to be able to turn around.
She said that if you pull into Brownsville now in a tractor trailer,you have to back up onto Route 250 to get
out which VDoT no longer allows.Ms.Higgins said that if one truck is parked there you cannot make the
turning radius,and there is no intention of making this a truck stop.
Mr.Thomas also mentioned information circulating that Mr.Sprouse would sell it to a national firm
once he got it up and running.
Ms.Higgins replied that he has honored a non-compete clause to not open until January 2012.
She reported that the competition,Mr.Suh,has hired attorneys and consultants to stop this development.
Mr.Sprouse has had a for sale sign on this property since he bought it. She said that this property is in
ACSA jurisdiction for water only. If the real issue is about protecting people's wells the County could let
him have a water tap,or let them have taps. Ms.Higgins stated that the jurisdictional area said water only
for existing building,but Mr.Sprouse had torn that old building down because vagrants ended up
occupying it.
Mr.Snow asked if there is a restaurant inside the building. Ms.Higgins replied that this is not a
restaurant that is under Health Department jurisdiction,as there is an exception if there are less than 15
seats so by law it would fall under agricultural services inspection. It is similar to Bellair or Brownsville.
October 13,2010(Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 63)
At this time,the Chair opened the public hearing.
Ms.Jane Henley said she is the President of Scenic Virginia,the only scenic protection
organization in the state,headquartered in Richmond. Ms.Henley said that she has come all this way
because the Board's responsibility matched their organization's mission. She noted that Section 18-31.6.1
of the Albemarle County Code says,in part,that"special use permits may be issued upon a finding by the
Board of Supervisors that the character of the district will not be changed". Ms.Henley emphasized that
the ARB found that the scale of the development remains excessive and is inappropriate for the Entrance
Corridor adjacent to an historic area. She said that Scenic Virginia,along with Scenic America,does
foster new development that respects this character as defined by the distinctive features and cultures of
the surrounding community.Ms.Henley stated that this stretch of Route 250 West,which is a scenic
byway,has just the right character for a road leading to the old,long-established community of Crozet.
She added that its low-key establishments do not attract any heavy traffic to mix with the traffic created by
the elementary,middle and high schools beside it,and its'low-key uses also do not harm historic
Freetown,which abuts the applicant's property. Ms.Henley said that this proposal is for an establishment
that will be brightly lit all night,with a footprint that is twice as large as any other service station on that
road. It is out of character. She stated that she hopes the Board will not permit this and make a brightly
lit,ticky tacky entrance to Crozet.
Mr.Duane Zobrist said that he takes issue with the assumption that this is a by-right use because
using the definitions for Highway Commercial zoning they only provide for convenience stores and
automobile service stations. Mr.Zobrist said that it is up to the Board to decide what those definitions are,
and how the application plan fits into that. He noted that the National Association of Convenience Stores
defines a traditional convenience store as a store of 2,400 to 2,500 square feet offering a product mix of
dairy,bakery,snack foods,beverages,tobacco and some grocery,food—to-go,and gasoline. Mr.Zobrist
said that the definition also stipulates that most have six to 12 parking spaces and extended hours with
most open 24 hours. He added that that is not what the applicant is saying here;the applicant is
attempting to put in more of a hyper-store,which that same Association defines as a very large store,
4,000 to 5,000 square feet and an array of products organized in departments;many sell gasoline,a
substantial number of parking spaces;open generally 24 hours;and most are mini truck-stops. Mr.
Zobrist emphasized that this is a mini truck-stop,and big trucks can get in and out of it. He also said that
the Zoning Administrator has determined that this requires a special use permit,which means a special
use permit takes it out of the Highway Commercial designation. This does not sound like a convenience
store. In order to approve this,he said,the Board must find that there is no substantial detriment to the
adjacent property and it will be in harmony with public health,safety and welfare. Mr.Zobrist added that
the Zoning Administrator has determined that all water consumed must be considered including surface
water and ground water,and that was not appealed by the applicant. He also said that when the Board
adopted this statute,they stated that all water had to be considered. He does not think this applicant
should be able to suck into the water table and not put anything back in,and take away everything from
the neighbors. Mr.Zobrist emphasized that this record is void of any facts that support a finding that there
won't be a substantial detriment to neighboring properties. He asked the Board to define a convenience
store and then deny this application.
Mr.Tom Goeke said that he lives on Hillsboro Lane,approximately 500 feet from the site of this
proposed station. Mr.Goeke said that he is mostly concerned about water usage,with eight pumps and a
future addition of 6,600 square feet. He stated that the Institute of Transportation Engineers used trip
generation to decide traffic as discussed and noted,and used trips per day, 136 per filling location,with 16
vehicle filling locations. Mr.Goeke said that in the submission water was described as a factor of square
feet,but it is not a factor of square feet,it is a factor of the number of visitors. He stated that the traffic
count on that stretch of Route 250 was 10,000 in 2007 but it is now about 14,000 from what he has found.
Mr.Goeke added that Brownsville Store averaged 1.24 gallons of water per fueling transaction;Tiger Fuel
uses 1.2 gallons of water per fueling transaction at all of their site;Bellair uses 1,400 gallons with just
three pumps,six nozzles,and is 2,650 square feet with a 16-hour operation. He said that 16 filling
positions times 136 vehicles per day per station times 1.2 gallons equals a total of 2,800 gallons per day
including the 200 scheduled for the next part of their development. Mr.Goeke stated that appropriate
scale to fit within the water supply is four to five pumps with the size of store their talking about,operating
16 hours a day. He said that he is also concerned with the Freetown neighborhood. If the concession is
to start small,then the applicant should start with four or five pumps,prove it,and go from there.
Mr.Mike Marshall said that the CCAC sent the Board a few resolutions passed pertaining to this
project including a statement that indicates they do not know how a reasonable projection can be obtained
without a reasonably well done traffic study. He also said that the water studies done so far do not really
calculate the affect of the water use on the neighbors,and they deserve equal consideration. Mr.Marshall
said that the whole reason there is a special use permit is because it is so hard to pin down the likely
water use from this station. He then asked those in attendance who oppose the special permit to stand
(about 30 people stood). Mr.Marshall also asked what recourse Freetown residents have if their wells go
dry,as all he has been able to establish is that they could sue Mr.Sprouse. He stated the real thing is to
not put those Freetown people in this position in the first place.
Mr.Daniel Bowman addressed the Board,stating that he is speaking for Advocates for a
Sustainable Albemarle Population,which urges the Board to follow the Commission's recommendation to
deny the special use permit. Mr.Bowman said that the applicant has not provided adequate information
to reduce uncertainty about groundwater supplies and the potential impact on those water supplies for
their own property or neighboring properties. He stated that while the recent rainfall replenished water
supplies and surface reservoirs,it is unlikely that it did much to replenish groundwater supplies. Even with
that rainfall the monthly total for September was below normal,with the County nearly 15 inches below
normal for the year and on track to have the fifth consecutive year of below-normal rainfall.
a
October 13,2010(Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 64)
Mr.Bowman said that ASAP contractors have completed five reports on environmental issues
and the relationships to a sustainable population. One of those reports is entitled Underground Albemarle
Revisited by Nick Evans and Michael Collins of Virginia Groundwater,LLC. He noted that among their
conclusions are that overall average daily groundwater recharge in the County is about 1,079 gallons per
acre and under sustainable groundwater management,about 80-95%of that is required to support and
sustain groundwater supplies. Mr.Bowman said that a maximum of 20%of that amount,or approximately
216 gallons per acre per day is available for extractive uses,far less than even the 400 gallons per day
that is the existing threshold for the County review. He also stated that degradation of aquatic
ecosystems,both groundwater and surface waters,occur with increasing percentage of impervious land
cover in a groundwater recharge area. Depending again on specific circumstances,he said,degradation
occurs when impervious cover reaches 5-20%of the surface areas.
Mr.Bowman stated that another piece missing from this application is a thorough economic
impact analysis,what are the potential impacts of the proposed new gas station/convenience store on
similar nearby existing facilities. Mr.Bowman said new jobs should not be at the cost of existing jobs.
New revenue streams should not be at the expense of existing revenue streams. He said that another
question to be answered is what the potential economic impacts are of infrastructure needs for the
• proposed new facility. The proposed special permit deals only with the water consumption issue,but it is
important for the Board to consider economic impacts as well.
Ms.Gardy Bloemers said that she is speaking as a resident of Yancey Mills and as a member of
the Scenic 250 Steering Committee. Ms.Bloomers said that Scenic 250 is not opposed to and would
welcome on this site a smaller,scaled-down four-pump gas station and convenience store something akin
to a Bellair Market. She added that the group has consistently opposed and continue to oppose the
issuance of a special use permit for the huge and water-intensive Restore N Station proposal. Ms.
Bloemers said that on multiple occasions,the Zoning Administrator has determined that the proposed
project would use more water than allowed by-right. She stated that Mr.Goeke has clarified the reason
for this: because water usage is driven by the number of pumps and the number of restaurant seats,and
this proposal has too many of each,resulting in water usage far in excess of the by-right allowance of
1,624 gallons per day. Ms.Bloomers said that simply solving this by metering this and controlling flows is
not a viable solution. She wondered how the short-staffed County would police this.
She added that there is still an undefined,mysterious Phase II footprint on the site plan of
approximately 7,000 square feet which will almost certainly require more water. Ms.Bloemers
emphasized that staff,the public and the Board cannot reasonably estimate the impacts of this proposal
without a definitive understanding of what Phase II entails. She added that County staff has made clear
that they cannot determine that this project will not be detrimental to adjacent property owners. The
Committee supports the completion of a Tier Four groundwater study as well as a traffic study prior to any
decisions being made by the Supervisors. Traffic is already a major problem in this area. Both will help
provide much needed information about true impacts. She added that Route 250 West is a major
entrance and exit corridor into the County as well as the Shenandoah Park and Blue Ridge Parkway. The
residents live here because the area is beautiful and visitors come here for the same reason. Ms.
Bloemers said that the long-term economic downside of the is proposal will be far greater than any
economic benefit gained from this gas station,which would become the second largest in the County after
the Liberty at Pantops.
Mr.Nick Duke said that he is a resident of Hillsboro Lane in Yancey Mills. He suggested that the
Restore N Station applicant is forgetting and ignoring all of the stakeholders in the community who will not
stand by and be steamrolled just because the owner has a right to develop his property in a commercial
zone. As proposed,Mr.Duke said,Restore N Station is oversized,disrespectful of the neighbors and
surrounding community in which it is proposed;it is environmentally unsound with the possibility of
draining and polluting nearby wells of precious residential water;it will attract undesired volumes of traffic
including semi tractor-trailers into what should be considered a school zone;and it will create light and
noise pollution if allowed to operate 24/7. Mr.Duke said that the neighbors in this area have been meeting
for over two years to learn about the issues and regulations that apply to this site. They need the elected
officials to do the same regarding scale,water and traffic. The neighbors,not the County,had to
commission a water study that concluded that the proposed project was wrong for this site,along with the
development that might follow it. He stated that if the applicant would downsize the scale of his project,
add chargers for electric vehicles,and sell bio-diesel,he thinks the broader community might be willing to
accept it. The citizens in this neighborhood and Crozet oppose this proposed station. He urged the Board
to deny the special use permit and not allow it to drag on any longer.
Mr.Richard Brown said that he is a resident of Freetown and has been living there for many,
many years. Everybody has already said everything he wanted to say. Mr.Brown said that the residents
there would like to keep it quiet. These tractor trailer trucks,grocery trucks,beer trucks,etc.,coming to
the store are going to disrupt them considerably. He hopes Board members will consider not going
through with this because it is going to hurt a lot of people.
Mr.Snow asked Mr.Brown if he had any trouble with his well in 2002 during the drought.
Mr.Brown responded that he has had two wells that have run dry since 2000,adding that the
wells are not that good. In fact one well went dry back in September. His well is 110 feet. He said that
his neighbor recently had to go down 240 feet to get 10 gallons per minute. It is a possibility that if the
applicant hits a vein below these wells it could drain the smaller wells.Mr.Brown stated that the runoff will
likely go down the hill toward Freetown,which is only about 30 feet below this station.
Lid
October 13,2010(Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 65)
Ms.Sandra Mears said that she was born and raised in Freetown and much of her family still lives
there. It is beautiful,it is quiet,and it is peaceful. There is even talk about taking away the right-of-way
out and saying they can drive through the gas station to get out. She agrees with all the other statements
made about the scenic and water issues. She just has a major issue with being told that they would have
to use the gas station for access to and from her property.
Ms.Mallek asked for clarification on the access issue.
Ms.Frederick responded that she does not know of any proposal that would bring neighboring
traffic through this site. Staff info incorrect - VDOT tried to impose this req.
Ms.Mary Rice said that she has written to the Board previously about this project and also spoke
to the Planning Commission. Ms.Rice said that she likes the common sense approach. If there is a gas
station that has 16 fueling positions,and a restaurant or a deli/serving location with 14 seats,for women's
bathrooms only,that could create about 30 flushes per hour. She stated that operating 14 hours a day
would generate 420 gallons of water,which does not include women washing their hands,men using the
bathroom,men washing their hands,staff washing pots and pans,etc. In her opinion,it just does not
make sense. Ms.Rice also encouraged the Board not to get involved in any last-minute deals,as this has
been a very public process spanning the last several years.
Mr.Fred Williamson said that he is very puzzled as to the real reason for the special use permit
as it looks like a toe in the door to get something else larger down the line. Mr.Williamson said that there
is not a great track record as to the applicant's trustworthiness,with the non-compete situation,damage to
Mr.Brown's pond,etc. What is the real thing that is going to happen with that 6,000 or so square feet,
why not make it smaller. With 4,000 square feet,the applicant would not need a special use permit.
Ms.Mary Buford Hitz said that she and her husband own a house on the extreme western edge of
Albemarle. Ms.Hitz emphasized that Route 250 West beyond the intersection of 1-64 and Route 250 is
some of the most beautiful country in Albemarle;a county that is so beautiful that tourism contributes
enormously to its economy. She said that to allow this mega-gas station at this location is to begin killing
the goose that laid the golden egg. Ms.Hitz reported that for the last three years the Western Albemarle
Association has been working to establish the Greenwood/Afton Rural Historic District,and$60,000
towards this effort has been raised,with the research already completed. She said that the public hearing
to be held by the State Historic Resources Department will occur next month. The group has followed
their guidelines fully expecting the designation of Rural Historic District to be forthcoming. Following this
designation,Ms.Hitz said,they will apply for federal designation and expect to receive that as well. All of
this effort was made to keep that golden goose alive. She added that the boundary of the district includes
the land that Restore N Station would be on because it projects eastward at that point to include both
Freetown and the historic graveyard next to Western Albemarle High School. A gas station of this size is
inappropriate at this location for all of the reasons stated above and so many others that the Board has
heard patiently this evening. They urge the Board not to grant this special use permit.
Mr.Bruce Kirtley,an adjacent property,addressed the Board. He stated that Mr.Goeke has done
a lot of research on the technical side of this issue and he is using an ITE report,which VDOT relies on,
that indicates each pump that is used averages 136 trips per day. Mr.Kirtley said that they were further
told as an industry standard that each fueling trip would use 1.24 gallons of water,adding that they went
back to Brownsville Market with Chris Suh and Mr.Goeke took a month's worth of data that usage worked
out to be 1.2 gallons. He stated that by extrapolating that out,they reasoned this station would use a little
over 2,100 gallons per day. Mr.Kirtley said that Bellair's water usage is in the 1,325 gallons per day with
only six pumps. He also stated that if the BP or Liberty at Pantops had four of the surrounding gas
stations and some of the competing fast food chains removed,their water usage would go up
considerably. Mr.Kirtley said that shutting the meter off at 1,625 gallons is unrealistic;as the County is
not really going to be able to reasonably enforce it. They think the data indicates that probably a store
about half the size with half as many pumps and 16 hours instead of 24 would probably be appropriate.
Ms.Barbara Westbrook said that she has done an unofficial traffic study of all the traffic that
passes in front of the Restore N Station site and has found that from 7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.there are a
total of 8,692 cars including 77 tractor-trailers. She said that she is not opposed to the gas station,just to
the size of it,primarily the additional traffic it would bring. Ms.Westbrook added that she saw a lot of
trucks when she was doing her count that were coming eastbound from the lumber yard and pulling over
in front of the Restore N Station site then making a U-turn on Route 250. She is also concerned with the
number of teenage drivers in this area,given its proximity to Western Albemarle High School. She
reiterated that her main concern is with traffic.
Mr.Frank Calhoun said that he moved with his horses to Crozet from Augusta County looking for
a more beautiful and scenic place than he was leaving. Mr.Calhoun said that he is very concerned about
character of neighborhood. The reason why property here tends to be expensive is because everyone
likes that character. He encouraged the Board to think not only about the water availability but also about
the character of a neighborhood. He added to Stockton Creek runs through the farm he is leasing and
there has not even been a trickle through the Creek flowing in one direction.
Ms.Lillian Mezey said that she lives in western Albemarle and has two children who attend the
high school. Ms.Mezey said that she is here tonight to encourage the Board to deny the special use
permit for Restore N Station,as common sense tells us that such an oversized gas station would
absolutely adversely alter the character of the neighborhood. She added that Route 250 is a scenic
byway,and this project is designed to pull traffic,and especially trucks off of 1-64 onto the byway. Ms.
Mezey said that adverse impacts to neighbors and on natural,historic,and scenic resources would include
October 13,2010(Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 66)
concerns about water use and the risk of groundwater failure,bright lights shining onto neighbors'
properties,large areas of impervious paved surfaces,oil and gas runoff into groundwater,increased
vehicular traffic including big trucks,probably tractor-trailers,and associated diesel fumes and noise
pollution. She stated that this is in addition to traffic hazards for student drivers around Western,and
there has also been a significant increase in this stretch of Route 250 already due to the tremendous
residential and commercial growth in Crozet. Ms.Mezey said that a huge gas station would be a step in
industrializing and commercializing western Albemarle County,as there will surely be more requests for
special use permits and other highway rest area type of businesses such as Applebee's or Pizza Hut. She
asked the Board to deny the special use permit and protect the neighbors.
Ms.Mary Gallo urged the Board to deny the request. She said that a traffic study and an
independent water analysis should be the minimum requirements prior to consideration of the special use
permit. If there is not enough data to determine if there is an adequate water supply for this project,then
the Board must deny the application. The County has an obligation to the community to verify the
information provided by the applicant,and anything less would be irresponsible. Ms.Gallo said that the
applicant is clearly looking after his own interests,but citizens rely on the Board to look after theirs. The
repercussions of getting it wrong are just too serious and potentially long-lasting and devastating on the
school communities,Crozet overall,and especially on the community of Freetown. She reiterated that a
project here is something that the community could embrace. It does not seem right to play dice with
people's rights to enjoy their own homes. She added that this site is so close to the high school,and the
traffic is bad enough as it is for those young drivers,and that mixing traffic off the interstate with young,
inexperienced drivers is just a really,really bad idea. She again asked the Board to deny the request.
Mr.Ralph Wilson said that he is a direct descendant of Freetown although he grew up in
Charlottesville. He presented photos from his Uncle,Richard Brown,showing the damage that has been
done to Mr.Brown's pond,with oxygenation levels that have essentially killed off the fish.
Mr.Morgan Butler,of the Southern Environmental Law Center,stated that this proposal seems to
come down to two key questions,how much water would this project use,and what impacts would that
water use have. Mr.Butler said that the applicant is asserting that this project would only use one gallon
more of water than allowed by-right and has submitted information suggesting that the impacts from its
water usage would be small. He stated that on the other side,a large group of concerned neighbors have
hired their own experts and have done their own work,suggesting that the water use could be a great deal
4 more than what the applicant suggests and that the impacts to adjacent properties could be severe. Mr.
Butler said that staff has found that there is a significant likelihood that water usage will not stay below the
by-right limit. Then that is the end of the matter. This is not the venue for contesting that finding,but
rather a matter for appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals. He stated that even if the use were to match
the applicant's estimate,staff still cannot determine that the existing groundwater supply is adequate to
support it or that nearby wells would not fail. Mr.Butler commented that the outstanding questions about
impacts to nearby properties cast doubt over whether this Board can even make all the findings that are
legally required in order to grant this special use permit. He noted that at the very least,staffs inability to
determine that there is enough water to support this use,without impacting adjacent parcels,gives the
Board ample legal grounds to deny it and enforce the community's desire for a scaled-back proposal that
would use less water,have less impact on adjacent properties,and be more in line with the size of other
commercial uses along Route 250 in this part of the County. Mr.Butler pointed out that staff only
recommends approval with the 1,625 gallons per day,and the community is understandably skeptical of
the idea that a condition limiting usage to 1,625 gallons would or could be meaningfully enforced once this
project is built and operating. He asked the Board to consider whether this project at its current scale is in
the best interest of County residents. The SELC does not think so.
Mr.Tim Tolson said that the County's mission is to enhance the well-being and quality of life for all
citizens. This proposal will not do that. Mr.Tolson also said that like a similar site at Zion's Crossroads,
this applicant has enough space to make room for trucks to park but has insisted that he"wouldn't do
this." He added that common sense dictates that"if it looks like a duck,walks like a duck,and quacks like
a duck,it's a duck."
There being no other public comments,the Chair closed the public hearing.
The applicant's representative,Ms.Higgins,addressed the Board again. Ms.Higgins mentioned
that the matter with Mr.Brown's pond was settled in court;he received a settlement from Mr.Sprouse to
clean his pond up,as the silt controls put in place behind Brownsville Market got blown away in a storm.
That is something that can happen during construction,but there will be an E&S plan put in during
construction activity. She then pointed out on the map Restore N Station,noting the location of the pond
and the Brownsville Market. She added that there are better regulations for stormwater quality and
quantity controls that this project will be subjected to.
Mr.Rooker asked what is in place now that was not in place then regarding that pond. Ms.
Higgins responded that Brownsville has no stormwater controls,as it is grandfathered. She added that
tsl
grading was done in 2001 and the silt controls in place blew out,so the silt went down in the pond.
Mr.Rooker added that that could happen at this site.Ms.Higgins responded that it could happen
at any construction site.
Ms.Higgins said that the Tier Three review done for this site was performed by Nick Evans and
did consider the site,but it did not give credit to recharge. Ms.Higgins said that the review done by Evans
and Collins for ASAP states that daily recharge per acre is 1,779 gallons,and on this site 1.4 acres is
impervious with the rest of the site being non-impervious. She stated that there is more recharge per acre
to
el411110' Lod
October 13,2010(Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 67)
on just that area than normal withdrawal would allow. Ms.Higgins noted that if it were two acres,it would
be 2,000 gallons of recharge and this applicant is talking about 1,624 gallons.
Ms.Mallek pointed out that the article also stated that only 20%of the recharge value should be
removed. Ms.Higgins responded that it was based on 33%going to groundwater recharge,but it was
calculated for well replacement in Albemarle County,which is where the daily recharge per acre figure
comes from.
Ms.Higgins stated that the manual traffic count done is not far off of what VDoT has said as 9,800
trips;in 2001 it was approximately 6,400 trips in a 24-hour period. Ms.Higgins stated that the driveway on
the edge will not be touched and will be integrated right into the taper,adding that the applicant can't get
within 20 feet of the property line along that edge. She said that the applicant intends to do a privacy
fence along there,rather than trees,in order to protect that driveway. Ms.Higgins commented that Mr.
Goeke's figure of 1.2 gallons of water used per vehicle is a theoretical application,but she used a 4,800
square foot building with a 16-nozzle station right off of 1-64 in New Kent County and factored in Mr.
Goeke's numbers,and she predicted 2,436 gallons. She said that if the stations she already compared
are used,however,such as the Shell station with 14 fuel stations and 127 vehicle trips,the extrapolated
number is 2,133 gallons per day,but the store actually uses 700 gallons per day. Ms.Higgins stated that
she did the same thing for the BP at Pantops,and that station uses 824 gallons per day. The 1.2 gallons
per vehicle is not what the actual for stations that they have metered and done the same ITE calculation
would dictate. She said that you have to take a theory and apply it to an actual. She added that the site
plan is only 500 square feet more than country store designation,and if hours have to be a condition
they'd like it to be 4:30 a.m.to 10:00 p.m.
Ms.Higgins reiterated that all of this is about one gallon. The well protection is just as important
to Mr.Sprouse,but most importantly they did an engineered restriction system that was submitted to
Zoning. A Zoning determination was actually issued but was withdrawn because there was a technicality;
it had conditions on it,which was not appropriate. The same conditions from that Zoning determination
can be put on the permit. She added that a fixture can be installed so that the water does not exceed the
limit,but it is already clear mathematically that it would not exceed that limit. The applicant is requesting
the Board to move this forward. They have been through two site plans and two years of work. They are
willing to talk through some satisfactory conditions that would satisfy both sides. They have already
suggested deleting two pumps,allow a condition that would say the two pumps may be installed but are
not required,but for twelve months cannot be installed until the data is collected. They would then know
who is right. That means five pumps,four under the large canopy in the front,one in the back and does
not include the off road diesel because that is not a fueling station. She asked that the Board consider all
the information that has been provided.
Mr.Boyd asked why the applicant just couldn't be allowed to connect to the County's water
system,as they had that option before but lost it because of a technicality. He stated that wipes out some
of the biggest objections that he has heard regarding impacts to neighbors'wells.
Mr.Davis responded that if it is connected to public water and is zoned Highway Commercial,and
an automobile service station and convenience store are by-right uses,the only review of that would be a
site plan and certificate of appropriateness by the ARB. He said that would be the consequence of
granting it water usage.
Mr.Boyd asked if the Board could put restrictions on the granting of the water usage. Mr.Davis
explained that what would be required to allow it to hook up would be an amendment to the ACSA
jurisdictional area. That was another application that was reviewed and rejected previously by the Board
because the proposed site is located in the rural area of the Comprehensive Plan and thus would not be
consistent to extend utility designation unless it was designated as a development area.
Mr.Boyd commented that this was discussed earlier and just because it is not in the Comp Plan
does not mean the Board cannot do it. Mr.Davis responded that the Board can do what it wants to do,but
it would be inconsistent with the Comp Plan.
Ms.Mallek said that that would be sending it in the wrong direction. After many months of making
suggestions there have been some questions today that have brought it much more into reason with what
the neighbors want.
Mr.Boyd suggested that the project be allowed to hook up to water,enforce adequate erosion and •
sediment control,limit the building to 4,500 square feet,and prohibit overnight parking of trucks on the
site. He believes those would protect the neighbors'water supply and would restrict what they can build
without having to come back and ask for more if they want to build a second building.
Mr.Dorrier asked what the ruling is on the requirement for a special use permit. Mr.Davis
explained that the requirement in this case is that if a use that is otherwise permitted by right that is not
served by public water,consumes more than 400 gallons of water per site acre per day,then a special
use permit is required. He said that the Zoning Administrator looked at what was proposed,which was a
certain number of gas pumps and certain amount of square footage for a convenience store,and made a
determination that the uses as proposed would require more than 400 gallons of water to be consumed
per site acre per day. That was a determination that is within the purview of the Zoning Administrator to
make,and an appeal of that determination would have to be made to the Board of Zoning Appeals which
is why it requires a special use permit. Mr.Davis added that if the applicant submitted a different proposal
of a smaller scale and the Zoning Administrator determined that it did not consume more than 400 gallons
of water per site acre per day,it would be a by-right use and it would not require a special use permit;it
October 13,2010(Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 68)
would simply require a site plan approval and a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Architectural
Review Board,but the applicant chose not to do that,and instead requested a special use permit. There
is all this argument about whether it is going to actually use that much water. That is irrelevant because
the Zoning Administrator has already determined that this is a'water-intensive use,'and that is why it
requires a special use permit.
Mr.Thomas said that Ms.Higgins has stated that staff told her to go with a special use permit.
Mr.Rooker explained that the reason for that is because the use would likely require more than 1,600
gallons per day.
Mr.Davis reiterated that the use as proposed cannot be done unless there is a special use permit.
He stated that he does not know if staff told her to do it or not,but they probably explained that that was
what would be required.
Ms.Mallek mentioned that the larger size presented to the Planning Commission is much different
than what is being talked about today,which troubles her some.
Mr.Thomas asked if Ms.Higgins could come up and provide some explanation.
Ms.Higgins said that the applicant tried three times,submitting the 6,000 square foot store,the
4,750 square foot store,and met with the Zoning Administrator,but no one could tell her this square foot
would be by-right. She added that there is not data available for daily use;it is all monthly. She stated
that the third time the applicant submitted a water restriction engineered system by a PE that said they
could not withdraw more from the well,and that is the one that got a letter stating a special use permit
would not be required. It was withdrawn because it had the condition to install that system. The Board
can make that same condition,so that they won't exceed the 400 gallons per day,the standard for the
rural areas. Ms.Higgins said that there was no way to guess what square footage would be permitted.
Mr.Snow stated that he has several issues with this application: the water usage,the additional
7,000 square feet to be built,the potential damage to Freetown,and the scale of the project to the historic
neighborhood and byway. Mr.Snow added that he does not think there is any way they cannot use more
water,if they are developing this and then have another 7,000 square feet. He thinks it would be wishful
thinking.
Mr.Thomas emphasized that the 7,000 is not part of the equation right now.
Mr.Snow responded that it is not now,but it is part of the property and is not going to sit idle.
Someone will come back with a plan for the property.
Mr.Rooker said that this is a Highway Commercial zoned property in the rural area and it is not
appropriate to completely deny that use,but the Board can put conditions on that use that assure that the
water usage would be less likely to damage the usage rights of adjacent neighbors,that it would have less
of an impact on the character of the neighborhood,et cetera. In his mind,a station more like 2,500
square feet with four pumps,which would be eight nozzles,would more meet that requirement. That
would actually put it of a scale which is more comparable to what is in the area. He thinks an hours of
operation limitation to something like 16 hours a day would assure that water usage is likely to be less
intense there,and would also cause other potential negative impacts to be a lot less,lighting impacts,et
cetera on the neighborhood. The Board could also include the conditions recommended by staff. He
added that those kinds of requirements would resolve most of the objections of the neighbors and the
people in Crozet while allowing for Highway Commercial use.
He added that ultimately the applicant has to put in place runoff protection measures as they
grade there. With the elevation differential between that property and the Freetown properties,he can
understand why the Browns are very concerned about what is going to happen when they start grading on
that property. A smaller footprint will result in less grading on the property and less runoff impacts. He
thinks that all of these things could fit together to not give the applicant everything he's asking for but to
result in something that the neighborhood could accept. He added that the Scenic Virginia concerns with
a smaller footprint and review by the Architectural Review Board for approval of the ultimate landscaping
and appearance of the building could make this work reasonably well.
Mr.Boyd said that it may work for Mr.Rooker,but maybe not the applicant and his business plan.
Mr.Rooker responded that if the applicant's plan is to build the largest station possible and flip it
to a chain for the largest profit possible it may not fit. It was not a secret that there was a for sale sign on
the property. Nobody has proven that you cannot make a 2,500 square foot station/convenience store,et
cetera,work because many of them do work,and make plenty of money.
Mr.Boyd said that allowing the applicant to hook up to public water resolves the impact issues.
Mr.Rooker replied that that is not before the Board tonight. When it was before the Board,Mr.Boyd
actually voted against it.
Mr.Boyd responded that that was a long time ago. Mr.Rooker said that it wasn't that long ago.
He added that it was only a year ago,and everybody that was on the Board at that time voted against it.
Mr.Boyd commented that Mr.Rooker did not want to listen. Mr.Boyd added that this was denied
because of a technicality. If the applicant had not torn down the building onsite then he would have water.
He could have built around the building without having to come back to the Board.
October 13,2010(Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 69)
Ms.Mallek explained to Mr.Boyd that that was for existing building only and any renovation would
not allow for that connection automatically.
Mr.Davis confirmed that that's been the consistent determination that any expansion to the
existing building would require jurisdictional area approval beyond what was already granted.
Mr.Rooker clarified that one of the reasons that request was denied is because it would have set
a precedent in the rural area,and the Board agreed that they did not want to open the door for this type of
application.
Mr.Boyd commented that the consensus seems to be that this is an inappropriate thing for this
location.
Mr.Rooker responded that there are many reasons in the record to support the denial of what is
applied for today,but the Board can approve a Highway Commercial use with conditions,and he is
suggesting doing that. He suggested that the Board impose the requirements they think would be
appropriate,and make a decision and get this behind the people in Crozet and the applicant. Dragging it
out for another year is not going to benefit anybody.
Mr.Boyd said he is not supportive of dragging this out for another year. It is a problem to restrict
this to a place where it doesn't make sense for the applicant to do it,and doing away with the 15 to 18
jobs,and doing away with the economic vitality that is bringing business to the County.
Mr.Rooker commented that he is not convinced that all of these will be new jobs,as they may just
take business away from the business across the street.
Mr.Boyd also stated that Mr.Rooker is never convinced of any of those things
Mr.Thomas asked if Ms.Higgins could respond to the suggested changes.
Ms.Mallek said that the problem with bringing changes in at the last minute is that it completely
disrupts the public process,which is what gives the applicants and the citizen's confidence.
Mr.Boyd added that the public wants to scale it back,to make it half the size,cut out half the jobs,
and cut out half the revenue for it.
Mr.Rooker responded that it is not clear that half the jobs would be lost just because the station is
smaller.
Ms.Higgins noted that in 2008 the County amended the RA district to allow for a country store
with a building size limit of 4,000 square feet. She said that the applicant would be able to live with that
size limitation,no overnight parking,and four plus one pumps in addition to restrictions on operating
hours. They have already downsized the site plan on three occasions. She stated if the Board can find a
way to do that,they are supportive. They were also thinking 500 square feet was a reasonable jump from
RA to HC,but if 4,000 is a compromise and they can get the support for that,"yes",they would like to
move it forward.
Mr.Thomas asked if the 4,500 square feet relates to a two story building.
Ms.Higgins clarified that the size discussed has always been around footprint. 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. Ms.Higgins stated that the
applicant would prefer that if the water usage turns out to be 1,100 after a year,he would like to put two
more pumps in.
Mr.Boyd asked if the 2,500 square foot limit as mentioned by Mr.Rooker would be acceptable.
Ms.Higgins responded that the existing Brownsville Market is 2,600 square feet. She added that
most new sites are about 4,500 or so,and she thought the country store reference might be acceptable if
the Board agrees. There is a still a lot of things that will need to be done on the site.
Ms.Mallek asked about the grading being pushed far toward the neighborhoods and the steep
slope that would be created in the back of the site.
Ms.Higgins responded that the pump island would behoved and cut off. Mr.Nat Perkins has
worked on a plan for re-grading the site,which would actually result in matched grade for the center and
back of the site. She added that they will minimize that,but 50 feet at least will be cut off the back. She
added that the canopy would also be reduced from 45 feet down to about 30 feet,going from two islands
to one island. Ms.Higgins reiterated that there would be four pump stations in the front and one in the
rear,for diesel. She said that the off-road fuel would be right next to the diesel.
Mr.Fritz mentioned that there is a Class A and a Class B permit for country stores. The Class A
is for an historic structure,with no new construction. A Class B is limited to 4,000 square feet gross floor
area. He also said that recently adopted country store regulations have a limitation on sale of gasoline
and other fuels: "If the special use permit is granted for the sale of gasoline and other fuels,the sale of
gasoline from dispensers shall be limited to one multiple-product dispenser or one dispenser containing
no more than six nozzles,not including nozzles for diesel fuel".
October 13,2010(Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 70)
Mr.Rooker noted that using country store as a comparable would usher in different conditions that
go along with that.
Mr.Davis added that it would also limit size to 4,000 square foot gross floor area,not footprint.
Mr.Rooker said that he would support a 2,500 square foot footprint and five total pumps,including
the diesel,with 16 hours of operations per day and the other conditions that staff had originally
recommended.
Ms.Mallek stated that the Board is still not meeting the statutory requirements about the data to
ensure that it is protecting its neighborhood from the future. She asked if Mr.Rooker feels that scaling it
back would ensure that nothing would happen that is caused by this well,further down the hill.
Mr.Rooker commented that there is a size at which the footprint would provide some assurance
that the use is much less likely to impact surrounding water users. Mr.Rooker stated there is no way of
proving that that he is aware of. He thinks that all the Board can do is try to approve something. He does
not think it is appropriate to completely deny the use of property,so the question is can it approve
something that is more in keeping with what seems to be acceptable to the community and less likely to
impact surrounding water users. He added that based upon the size of other convenience stores like
Bellair,et cetera,that would meet those general requirements.
Mr.Snow agreed that if it is scaled back and satisfies the community's needs,while still ensuring
the applicant's rights with Highway Commercial,then it should move forward.
Mr.Dorrier also agreed.
Mr.Thomas said that it sounds good,but he is concerned about the applicant,even making a
penny,as the applicant needs to be able to pay for it. He added that he would want to increase the size to
4,000. The applicant has invested in a big piece of property and he needs to pay for it.
Ms.Mallek responded that that was his choice.
Mr.Boyd said he would support the 4,000 square feet.
Mr.Rooker then moved to approve SP-2010-00034 with the conditions as stated previously.
Mr.Davis said that these conditions need to be well-drafted by staff,as they are going to be
controversial in the future. The certainty of the wording is going to be very important to the enforcement of
the special use permit. He suggested that the Board reach consensus on the general terms of the
conditions and then staff be given the opportunity to more carefully draft the conditions and then bring
them back to the Board at its next meeting.
Mr.Rooker said that he is agreeable to that suggestion.
Mr.Dorrier said that he would support 3,000 square feet.
Mr.Thomas said that he would support 4,000.
Ms.Mallek pointed out that Ms.Higgins said they would agree to 2,500.
Mr.Rooker said that he does not know why a store the size of Bellair would not work at this
location,adding that the second floor square footage would not count against the footprint.
fl Mr.Tucker said staff needs to know the consensus of the Board.
Mr.Rooker said he would make a motion,not for approval,but to see if the Board can reach a
consensus to instruct staff to move forward with conditions,in addition to staff's technical
recommendations,stipulating a 2,500 square foot footprint on the property,with no more than ten nozzles
or five pumps,and hours of operation limited to 16 hours a day.
Mr.Boyd said that he will not vote in this straw poll because he would prefer the 4,000 square feet
because he thinks it is more reasonable and he does not like the limitation on hours.
Ms.Mallek responded that that is the only way to get the water to work.
Mr.Boyd said if that is the only way to get enough votes to allow the request to move forward,he
will vote for it,but he is arguing against it as the right way to go.
Ms.Mallek added that limiting the pumps and limiting the hours are the only valid ways to get the
numbers down.
Mr.Boyd added that limiting the hours puts this applicant at a competitive disadvantage. Limiting
the pumps is not the issue.
Mr.Snow suggested 3,300 as a compromise square footage.
iii
October 13,2010(Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 71)
Mr.Rooker said that he came up with 2,500 based upon the size of Bellair and some of the other
stations that seem to operate reasonably successfully,and the scale,and where this is located,and the
likely impact on water usage.
At the request of an individual from the public,Ms.Mallek allowed him to come forward and
speak.
Mr.Bob Gilges said that it is clear the Board should not be making the decision tonight. The
Board is"horse-trading"with the applicant;it does not know about the water or the design of the building.
Ms.Higgins has changed the specs three times today. The Board does not have the traffic study,the
water study,the design of the building,and they are sitting up here horse-trading. That is not the way to
do business. He asked that the Board put off voting on this request tonight.He reiterated that the Board is
not ready to make a decision.
Mr.Rooker clarified that the design of the building is not something the Board will decide anyway.
Mr.Dorrier commented that a compromise is going to be controversial either way.Between Mr.
Rooker's and Mr.Snow's suggestions,the Board should be able to come up with a common ground and
some guidelines for staff.
Mr.Rooker moved to move forward with a consensus to have staff bring something back to the
Board,based on his previous conditions. They are trying to develop a consensus on how to instruct staff
to come back with well-worded conditions for approval.
Mr.Boyd asked that they do a straw poll.
Mr.Boyd and Mr.Thomas said that they don't support Mr.Rooker's proposal. Mr.Boyd said that
it is more reasonable to go with 4,000 square feet and not restrict the hours.
Mr.Dorrier said that the applicant can live with 16 hours.
Mr.Rooker asked if he was supportive with the consensus of 2,500 square feet,with an office on
top of that.
Mr.Dorrier stated that he supports 3,300.
Mr.Rooker suggested that the Board just go ahead and deny this application since no consensus
seems likely here.
Ms.Mallek commented that that would actually be the best approach from many people's
perspective,because a reduced plan could be brought back to the Planning Commission where it would
probably sail through. She added that if these things had been suggested a year ago,they probably would
not be here today. Ms.Mallek said that one of the benefits of the public process is finding a useful middle,
a place where people can be protected on both sides.
Mr.Snow agreed.
Mr.Boyd said that if this is redesigned,he wonders how long it will take.
Mr.Rooker noted that it is ultimately going to come back to the Board for a decision with the same
kind of considerations as tonight,and he feels it would be better to come to a consensus now. He stated
that they are going to be right back where they are today,a year from now.
Mr.Thomas asked the applicant how the 2,500 square feet fits into the business plan.
Ms.Higgins responded that it is a little more half of the 4,000. The applicant would be willing to
restrict operating hours if the store is allowed to go to 3,000 square feet. That would cut down on two
areas of freezer space and two counters interior to the building. They would like to get a consensus and
carry it forward. Again,it would include a total of five pumps,ground square foot of 3,000,operating hours
to be 4:30 a.m.until 10:00 p.m.
Board members agreed to support the plan.
Ms.Mallek sad that she would prefer to go back through the process properly.
Mr.Rooker said that if they went back through the process,the Board would likely end up right
where they are tonight.
Mr.Davis clarified that the consensus here is for 3,000 square feet with five pumps or 10 nozzles.
Mr.Boyd commented that the 10 nozzles did not include the off-road stuff.
Mr.Rooker commented that the diesel was the fifth pump.
Ms.Higgins said the off-road and diesel pump is not a vehicular filling,neither is kerosene. Those
two have never been included. The off-road and diesel might be next to each other on the same island,
October 13,2010(Regular Night Meeting)
(Page 72)
but that island will be cut off. She clarified that it is five pumps,four gas,one diesel,total of 10 filling
stations.
Ms.Mallek said that it would be good to have a restriction on overnight parking.
Mr.Boyd said that he wouldn't want to restrict it in case the refueling truck needs to stay
overnight.
Mr.Dorrier commented that it would not be advertised as a truck stop,and does not see why this
needs to be mandated.
Mr.Tucker stated that these conditions could still be discussed on November 3 or whenever this
comes back to the Board.
Mr.Davis asked about the hours of operation.
Mr.Rooker said he would rather just say 16 hours per day and let the applicant decide within that.
Mr.Davis asked if the Board wants to have the condition which requires the proposed valve
system that would limit the amount of draw to the 1,625 gallons per day.
Board members responded'yes".
Ms.Mallek asked Ms.Higgins to explain how this valve control will work.
Ms.Higgins explained that it is a dole control valve,which is an orifice line in the ground that only
allows a gallon per minute to flow all day long. She stated that's just a maximum,you could never
withdraw that much. The same wording provided by the Zoning Administrator could be used. She also
asked that the use of stormwater to water plants onsite be allowed and not reflected in the totals for
consumption.
Mr.Rooker responded that he supports that.
Mr.Davis said that the other condition staff had worked with was to try to tie it to the site plan with
modifications which would be substantial now. He asked if the Board wants to tie the conditions to a
specific site plan,as the one staff has seen would be substantially revised.
Ms.Higgins responded that the building footprint would remain in the same location,with the
reduction in the back still being made and the same islands being there. That would virtually be the same
site plan;the only thing that might be reduced is they would take off a few more parking spaces.
Mr.Davis said that it would have to be addressed with general accord. He added that the Board
does not want the conditions to be too restrictive as the ARB may want to approach the site differently.
Mr.Dorrier asked her about the restrictions on overnight parking. Ms.Higgins responded that the
condition is fine,as there is no plan for loitering or overnight parking on this site as it would be a detriment
to the business. They plan to put signage on the site.
Mr.Rooker then moved to defer SP-2010-00034 until November 3,2010. Mr.Thomas
seconded the motion. Roll was called and the motion carried by the following recorded vote:
AYES: Mr.Rooker,Ms.Mallek,Mr.Snow,Mr.Thomas,Mr.Boyd and Mr.Dorrier.
NAYS: None.
Agenda Item No.12. From the Board: Matters Not Listed on the Agenda.
There were no other matters from the Board.
Agenda Item No.13. Adjourn.
There being no further business,the meeting adjourned at 11:58 p.m.
Chairman
Approved by Board
Date: 03/02/2011
Initials: EWJ
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 prangs Road
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Culpeper, Vlrginla 22701
Commissioner
March 23, 2016
Mr. Bill Fritz
Chief of Special Projects
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SP -2015-00032 Re -Store `N Station
Dear Mr. Fritz,
We have reviewed the special use permit request for Re -Store `N Station dated 12/07/15 with
revisions dated 12104115 and 02/2516 as submitted by Collins Engineering, and offer the
following comments:
1. ITE trip generation based on the proposed square footages should be provided,
comparing the existing trips generated and the proposed trips generated to the trips
proposed in the approved traffic analysis completed for phase I of this development.
Information should be provided to determine if traffic signals will be warranted or if there
will be any safety concerns at this entrance.
2. The proposed parking near Rte. 250 should be designed such that a potential access to
TMA 055BO-00-00-109BO could be provided in the future. The space closest to Rte. 250
in the cluster of 4 parking spaces looks like it may conflict with any potential access to
the adjacent property.
If you need additional information concerning this special use permit request, please do not
hesitat o con me.
.7;
e,
�4v
Joel D. DeNunzio, P.E.
Resident Engineer
VDOT - Charlottesville
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT LLC
2564 Mt Torrey Rd, Lyndhurst, Va 22952
434 —326- 0334 musxit@aol.com
February 18, 2016
To: Bill Fritz, AICP, Chief of Special Projects,Albemarle County Community Development
From:Jo Higgins, Project Development LLC
RE: SP 201500032 (amendment of SP 200900034)and SP 201500033 (Drive Through
Window) Re-Store'N Station
REVISED Concept Plan dated 2/25/2016 submitted with respsonse to Comments
Planning Comments(Bill Fritz)
• The drive-through layout is not supported by staff. The design is not consistent with recent
approvals for drive-through windows (reference SP2015-23). Specifically the drive-through
lane is not separated from the travel lane. The drive-through lane crosses the travel lane.
The location of the drive-through window is not shown so it is unknown if the drive-through
lane extends 20 feet beyond the drive-through window. As you are aware a zoning text
amendment is currently under review that would make drive-through windows a use by-
right. As part of the text amendments staff will be recommending that no portion of the
drive-through travel lanes be located within 50 feet of rural property. The travel lane
proposed is approximately 25 feet from rural zoned property. If the proposed language is
endorsed by the Planning Commission or Board as either language for a text amendment or
standard conditions of a special use permit staff will not support this special use permit as
currently proposed. If the text amendment is approved prior to action on your special use
permit application and you retain the existing layout,you may request a special exception
to the requirements. The special exception would be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors
and likely the Planning Commission. Staff will coordinate your request for a drive-through
with the text amendment so that the appropriate type of review occurs.
RESPONSE: The drive-through lane has been reconfigured to address the concerns raised
in the comments above. The proposed regulations pertaining to drive through windows
has been used per discussion with Staff. The drive-through sevice window is labeled and
the menu board is labeled.
• Your proposed condition amendments have been reviewed and the intent of the
amendments is understood. Final language will need to be reviewed by the County
Attorney's office.
RESPONSE: If there are any proposed language changes/amendments, it will be
appreciated to have this information in advance for input before staff report is finalized.
If the conditions are deleted as requested, this will leave the conditions that were
1
recommended by Staff when the Special Use Permit was recommended for approval
originally.
• The reviewing engineer, comments below, has expressed concern that the rate of
consumption will exceed the rate of recharge. This raises the possibility of potential
negative impacts to water supply in area. Further analysis or comment appears to be
warranted to address this issue.
RESPONSE: The requested information to evaluate the recharge based upon this SP
Amendment Concept Plan was submitted directly to Engineering(meeting Feb 18th)and it
is attached to this response. Engineering is satisfied so these comments have been
addressed -see below.
Zoning Comments (Ron Higgins)
The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding:
SP201500032 to amend SP200900034 — Re-Store' N Station — Phase II, and;
SP201500033 to add a drive thru window:
1. General comments.
a. Proposal: SP201500032 to amend SP200900034 and Major Site Plan
amendment for Re-Store 'N Station (now Mulberry Station) to expand
buildings and uses and to change previous conditions for water use, and;
new SP201500033 to add a drive thru window to the building and site.
b. Required parking for use — Calculations on plan are correct for retail,
office use and auto repair in the aggregate.
c. Building setbacks/build to lines ok as shown.
d. Water use data provided, confirms maximum water use has not
exceeded the 1,625 gallons per day allowed with the approved special
permit. Note: Conditions of the approved Special Permit include the
tamper proof meter (verified in the field by Deputy Zoning Administrator
and Engineering Inspector) and the dole flow valve (also verified in the
field by the DZA and El) which was calibrated to not permit more than
1,489 gallons per day (1,440 minutes in 24 hour day at 1.03 gpm). The
hours of business operation are limited to 16 hours a day, so this limit is
not in jeopardy.
RESPONSE: The hours of operation is one of the conditions that is
requested to be deleted. Allowing flexibility to meet market demand
is important to the business success and negligible affect on water
usage (no additional meals, less customers in late night etc.).
2. Concept Plan for SP201500032 & 33.
a. Concept Plan-Vehicle Stacking/Circulation: —The concept plan shows a
2
(6101
vehicle stacking arrangement for the proposed drive-thru lane that is
not acceptable. The stacking space located across the travel aisle from
the building creates conflicts with other traffic on-site at two different
points. Also it does not sufficiently meet the standards for adequate
stacking behind the menu board.
RESPONSE: The drive through lane and travel aisle has been
reconfigured to meet the proposed ZTA regulations and additional
stacking is provided.
3. SP Conditions: The changes and elimination to some of the previous conditions
are acceptable from the standpoint of the special permit for water use, given the
restrictions guaranteed by the remaining conditions. However, it is
recommended that any overnight parking times coincide with the hours the
business in not open, and that business operation time limits, be more clear
about activities available during the open hours that are likely to cause water use
(e.g. access to restrooms and sinks, food preparation)
RESPONSE: This application is requesting that the hours of operation limitation is
removed. All the water data used for the projected future water volume has no
limitation on hours(it is based upon daily-24 hours without exclusions). Regardless,
the well withdrawal limit of 1,626 gpd will not be exceeded whether the store is open
24 hours or not. This business needs the flexibility to operate the same number of
hours as any convenience store in the area can operate. The fuel pumps have always
been available 24 hrs per day and this is not related to water use at all. (A letter of
determination has been requested to confirm that the existing hours of operation does
not limit the fuel pump operation.) The owner must comply with the water limitation
and how that is accomplished is part of the operation such as low flow fixtures,
infrared timer operation on faucets,no dishwasher,no ice maker and should be left to
the owner to decide how to best operate the business within the water limitation. The
low water usage proves that this business can operate and this site can support more
uses and still operate within the allowed water limit.
4. Zoning Compliance: We have recently received complaints about: operation of
the business exceeding 16 hours per day, and; possible overnight parking
(potentially in violation of current conditions#5 , respectively). These have
been referred to out code compliance officers for investigation.
Response: The store does not operate past the 16 hours per day. The gas
pumps have always been available continuously since opening in 2014. A letter
of determination has been requested because the intent is clear when this
condition was considered by the BOS. See documentation with that application.
Second item, overnight parking-is being policed and will not be allowed.
3
Y
Ltd
Architectural Review Board Comments (Margaret Maliszewski)
1. The drive-thru window won't be visible from the EC.
RESPONSE: Confirmed.
2. Cars in the drive-thru lane will be visible from the EC, but the buildings and the fence are
expected to sufficiently limit views,assuming there is no drive-thru related equipment other
than the single menu board.
RESPONSE: Confirmed.
3. Identify the menu board on the plan.
RESPONSE: Menu board has been shown and labeled on the resubmittal.
4. The applicant has indicated that a "connecting section of fence" has been added to enclose the
area behind the auto repair.Clarify on the plan the location of this fence.
RESPONSE: The"new"section of fence that has been added is labeled on the resubmittal.
5. The applicant's memo states that an ARB application will be submitted.Additional comments
are likely to arise from the review of that application.
RESPONSE: Understood
Engineering Comments (John Anderson)
See attached comment letter for comments on SP 2015-32 (amendment of SP 2009-34).
(Pasted below in this response letter)
Planning Comments on Engineering Comments:
The Virginia Department of Health (VDH) does not review groundwater studies. They
will be involved in the site plan review process and the building permit process. VDH
has not provided any comments on the current application. They will review the site
plans and building plans to verify that all requirements are being met.
This is not considered a central water supply and all comment on that subject is
provided by the engineer for information only.
The water use calculations and estimates have been accepted by the engineer and
appear to be based on sound reasoning and accepted methods.
The engineer accepts the water recharge rates methodology contained in the study.
The engineer has concluded that the water use from the property will exceed the water
recharge rate due to impervious area. This raises the question of possible negative
impacts to adjoining properties.
The engineer has provided a comment that water discharge from the site appears to be
directed in the general direction of the well. During site plan review this may have to be
addressed to receive approvals.
4
•
Cowl Lool
For SP 2015-33 (drive-through)the following comments have been provided:
Drive-thru design shown in 12.7.15 Collins Engineering Restore'N Station—Phase II—
Concept Plan does not separate drive-thru lane from vehicular travel areas west of
building/s. Rather, design provides a minimum of five stacking spaces(100-ft), but
requires cars, once they enter the drive through lane to cross a two-way vehicular
circulation aisle at right-angle. That is,vehicles proceed into stacking,then at a certain
point must cross internal two-way travel area to reach the service window. Design
should reference 5th Street Station Drive-Through window conditions recently approved
by Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (SP-2015-00023). Engineering requests
revised design eliminate right-angle intersection with internal travel area west of
buildings. This design invites collisions, and is without precedent. Drivers may not know
when it is safe to cross, or may feel they have right-of-way. Intersections are a design
feature reserved for streets. Drive-through design may not include intersection with
internal vehicular travel areas.
RESPONSE: The revised layout for the drive through lane and stacking addresses all
concerns and complies with the draft standards provided by Staff.
Virginia Department of Transportation Comments(Troy Austin)
See attached comment letter.
County comment on letter from VDOT:
VDOT has no objection to the drive-through window application.
VDOT has requested updated generation numbers to verify that the change in trips is
equal to or less than that in the approved traffic study. If the trips turn out to be higher
than that in the approved study, you will need to revise the approved study to verify
that the improvements that were made with the original development of the site are
adequate. I have confirmed with VDOT that this is an issue for site plan review and not
the special use permit review.
RESPONSE: There is an approved traffic analysis that was done as for Site Plan
Approval of Phase I. This analysis dictated improvements to RT 250 for a left turn lane
and right(decel)lane which have been completed and are in use. It is understood
that VDOT will require updated information for the site plan approval process which is
typical.
VDOT has recommended a connection to tax map 55B parcel 109B. This is a
recommendation of VDOT only. It is not related to water usage or the drive-through
and will not be discussed as an issue during the review of those applications.
RESPONSE: As part of Phase I site development, VDOT made this same
recommendation. At that time, the owner created and deeded an access easement for
the abutting parcels during that process. (Shown on the existing site plan). The
County has allowed the abutting uses without mandating that any internal
connection(s)be made to use this access easement. This owner has no control over
the adjacent property owner's access to RT 250. .
5
{
sp
Virginia Department of Health Comments (Josh Kirtlev)
No comments have been received however I have spoken with Mr. Kirtley. He informed me
that the Health Department has no comments on the special use permit application. Their
review will be limited to the adequacy of the drainfield and well design (casing/wellhead
protection etc). All of their review will occur with the site plan and building permits.
RESPONSE: The existing septic system was designed and permitted to handle the allowed
water usage(approx. 1,600 gpd)although the flow thus far has been much less -about 25%
of that amount.Any analysis or documentation the VDH requires will be handled by the
design engineer(Old Dominion Engineering). The existing well that services this property
was permitted and installed per VDH requirements. The well completion report and log are
on file with VDH. Any VDH requirements that pertain to the well and septic will be addressed
with the site plan and building permit as routinely required for all properties not served by
public water and public sewer.
Fire Rescue Comments(Robbie Gilmer)
Fire Rescue has provided the following comment:
No comments or objections.
Building Official(Jay Schlothauer)
For SP 2015-32 (amendment of SP 2009-34)the following comments have been provided:
No objection regarding drive-through window only.
For SP 2015-33 (drive-through)the following comments have been provided:
No objection to the special use proposal.
Note:
Provide fire suppression sprinkler system for both buildings, or separate the auto
repair/office building from the retail/office building by at least 20'.
Provide fire suppression sprinkler system for the auto repair/office building, or reduce
the fire area (sum of all floors areas not separated by firewalls)to 10,000 sq.ft., or less.
RESPONSE: The rear bldg(Auto Repair Bldg)north wall(across drive through lane
from front bldg)has 18ft clearance to the rear wall of the front bldg.Apportioning
10ft of this clearance to the front bldg will leave 8ft separation so the auto repair bldg
wall will be fire rated to reduce the clearance to 8ft(per phone discussion). Architect
to address with building permit plans. This is to confirm that the total building area
of the rear building will be 10,000 sq.ft or less for non-sprinklered construction.
ENGINEERING COMMENTS dated Feb 18, 2016 (pasted below)
Initial Comments issued Jan 14,2016 were received.
Specific information submitted by Old Dominion Engineering(attached)
6
•
Reviewer: John Anderson
SP201500032
Engineering recommends:
Addressed via Revised Groundwater Recharge Calculations Based upon Existing and Proposed Site
Development(Concept Plan dated 12/4/2015)—see 2/18/16 M.Craun email to County(2/18/2016 11:25 AM).
Engineering Accepts that"The estimated long term ground water recharge at the site is 5,842 gpd and the
estimated groundwater withdrawal is 1,625 gpd."—M. Craun. On this basis,No objection to SP2015-00032
• \S [rev.]
Commentary—No response required.
3. [rev.]VDH related/Deleted.
4. [rev.]V lated/Deleted.
Considerations:
a
[rev.]Addressed via Revised
Groundwater Recharge Calculations Based upon Existing and Proposed Site Development(Concept
Plan dated 12/4/2015)—see 2/18/16 M.Craun email to County(2/18/2016 11:25 AM).
[1.5 Ac x 43,560 sf/Ac x 43 in.precip./yr.x 1 ft./12 in.x 7.48 gal/ft3 x 1 yr/365 day x.15=719.7 god]
[rev.]Addressed via 2/18/16 email.
d
[rev.]No response required.
d. [rev.]Delete/Withdrawn.
7
11111111111.11011.11111100111111110111111110110110101ftwar
%tap, 146S
;id [rev.]
Addressed via 2/18/16 email.
f. [rev.]Deleted
g. [rev.](M.Craun)Re-store N Station Phase H Amendment(2/18/16;email:2/18/2016 11:25 AM):
-reports Estimated Groundwater Withdrawal—1,625 GPD
-reports/calculates Estimated Total Long Term Groundwater Recharge based on Median Recharge
(1.4978 Ac.pervious);Rainwater Harvesting(7,075 SF rooftop/95%capture);SWM infiltration
(2.3998 impervious runoff to BMP;Hayesville soils—v.permeable)—5,842 GPD.
The estimated long term ground water recharge at the site is 5,842 gpd and the estimated
groundwater withdrawal is 1,625 gpd. Craun. County accepts calculations/reported values.
h. [rev.]Deleted
John Anderson,Engineering,if any questions.
;anderson2@albemaLle.orci/434-296-5832—x3069
ci'201c00012 II IJ le\021I6
8
NIS
6/26/2012
Well Certification Report
Restore N Station �H °F vFR Qi-
t,
6115 Rockfish Gap Turnpike 4�` `l'.'
Crozet,VA p.' �' -
4.06 acres 0 �C* A\r" < 4
TM 55B-1
Albemarle County o {4c \''`�� 6 .
Old Dominion Engineering ' 0PEss1011.�
June 26,2012
Well Construction Certification
The well was installed by Matheny Well Drilling and Pump Service on May 3 and May 4
2012. The well construction was supervised by Michael Craun PE. The well was logged
by Steve Gooch CPG. The well driller's completion report and the CPG well log are
attached to this certification. The well was installed in the location designated on the •
permit. This engineer's certification serves as verification of the well installation and log.
Notes:
1. The well yields were measured using the stopwatch and bucket technique. The
water bearing zone at 400'-405'was in excess of 50 gpm. The intended use of the
property will require 1 gpm average.
2. The installation of the casing and cement grouting were observed by Joshua
Kirtley VDH. The VDH Inspection is on file at Albemarle County VDH. An
email confirmation is attached to this certification.
3. The well was permitted as a IIIB well but was constructed to IIB standards. Prior
to converting the well to a non community IIB well,the following items will need
to be completed:
a. Submit application to Office of Drinking Water VDH(ODW VDH)in
Lexington,VA.
b. Laboratory testing of water quality samples as required by ODW VDH.
c. 48 hour well drawdown test.
1 hereby certify that on 5/3 612 d 5/4/2012,I,or anemployee under my direct supervision,inspected this well construction. The
well has been installed.;,, amp ted in accordance with the construction permit 101-08-0497 and is in compliance with the Private
Well Regulations(12 V�9 630 t seq)and the plans and specifications for the project.
g Pi A
PE Signature: tt.-�`- Date: 6,24-1 2
Print Name: kifl1/4'1 E' A..0Q, V/J '. .77
Page 1 of 1 Old Dominion Engineering•2036 Forest Drive Waynesboro,VA 22980•540-942-5600•olddomeng@ntelos.net
j {
—"—icr.: wen Lompienon statement xe store N jIstiotton httpalwebmatl.nteios.neisrc/pnnter_friendl bottom, h ?
y_ p p passed ent...
From: "Kirtley, Joshua(VDH)"<Joshua.Kirtley@vdh.virginia.gov>
Subject: RE: Well Completion Statement Re Store N Station
Date: Mon,June 25,2012 11:48 am
To: "olddomeng@ntelos.net"<olddomeng@ntelos.net>
Mike:
Good morning. Hope you're doing well.
Attached is the information that you requested for Re Store N Station, Please review and let me know if you have any questions.
I would also like to mention that I performed an inspection on the grouting
that the well contained 54'of casing and that the well was:pumpt procedure on with0May land201At that time,I confirmed
grouted to the surface Portland cement,
Josh
Josh Kirtleyj Environmental Health Specialist,Senior
Thomas lefferson Health District )Albemarle County,Virginia
1138 Rose Hill Drive I Charlottesville,VA 22903
434-972-6288
'
I Vi",)''a ^.be l
1"(1C' ' 1 11 V**
t
i
--
4'441?II!Iii 111
lir eV
4100
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,Room 227
Charlottesville,Virginia 22902-4596
Phone(434)296-5832 Fax(434)972-4126
Project: Re-Store'N Station—Phase II—Amendment
Plan preparer: Scott Collins,Collins Engineering;200 Garrett St.,Suite K
Charlottesville,VA 22902,scott@collins-engineering.com]
Owner or rep.: Jeffries II LLC,P.O.Box 910,Crozet,VA 22932
Jo Higgins,Project Development LLC,2564 Mt.Torrey Road,Lyndhurst,VA 22952
T:434.326-0334jmusxit@aol.com
Plan received date: 23 Dec 2015
Date of comments: 14 Jan 2016; [rev.] 18 Feb 2016
Reviewer: John Anderson
Project Coordinator: Bill Fritz/Rachel Falkenstein
cc: Glenn Brooks/County Engineer
SP201500032
Engineering recommends:
Addressed via Revised Groundwater Recharge Calculations Based upon Existing and Proposed Site
Development(Concept Plan dated 12/4/2015)—see 2/18/16 M.Craun email to County(2/18/2016 11:25 AM).
Engineering Accepts that"The estimated long term ground water recharge at the site is 5,842 gpd and the
estimated groundwater withdrawal is 1,625 gpd."—M Craun. On this basis,No objection to SP2015-00032
2.
[rev.]
Commentary—No response required.
[rev.] r'u..o,..+oa/Deleted.
3. "��
4. [rev.]VD's d/Deleted.
Considerations:
a
A
Li
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
[rev.]Addressed via Revised
Groundwater Recharge Calculations Based upon Existing and Proposed Site Development(Concept
Plan dated 12/4/2015)—see 2/18/16 M.Craun email to County(2/18/2016 11:25 AM).
[1.5 Ac x 43,560 sf/Ac x 43 in.precip./yr. x 1 11./12 in. x 7.48 gal/ft3 x 1 yr/365 day x.15=719.7 gvd]
b.
[rev.]Addressed via 2/18/16 email.
C.
[rev.]No response required.
d. [rev.]Delete/Withdrawn.
e.
[rev.]
Addressed via 2/18/16 email.
f. [rev.]Deleted
g. [rev.](M.Craun)Re-store N Station Phase II Amendment(2/18/16;email:2/18/2016 11:25 AM):
-reports Estimated Groundwater Withdrawal— 1,625 GPD
-reports/calculates Estimated Total Long Term Groundwater Recharge based on Median Recharge
(1.4978 Ac.pervious);Rainwater Harvesting(7,075 SF rooftop/95%capture); SWM infiltration
(2.3998 impervious runoff to BMP;Hayesville soils—v.permeable)—5,842 GPD.
The estimated long term ground water recharge at the site is 5,842 gpd and the estimated
groundwater withdrawal is 1,625 gpd.—M Craun. County accepts calculations/reported values.
h. [rev.]Deleted
John Anderson,Engineering,if any questions.
janderson2@albemarle.org/434-296-5832—x3069
ii
p� 4L
�IRGi;31�
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
January 22, 2016
Jo Higgins
2564 Mt. Torrey Road
Lyndhurst, VA 22952
musxit(@aol.com
RE: SP 201500032 (amendment of SP 200900034) and SP 201500033 (Drive Through
Window) Re- Store'N Station
Dear Ms. Higgins:
Staff has reviewed your initial submittal for the request for a special use permit for a private
school in the Rural Areas zoning district. We have a few questions and comments which we
believe should be resolved before your proposal goes to public hearing. We would be glad to
meet with you to discuss these issues.
Planning Comments (Bill Fritz)
The drive - through layout is not supported by staff. The design is not consistent with recent
approvals for drive - through windows (reference SP2015 -23). Specifically the drive - through
lane is not separated from the travel lane. The drive - through lane crosses the travel lane.
The location of the drive - through window is not shown so it is unknown if the drive - through
lane extends 20 feet beyond the drive - through window. As you are aware a zoning text
amendment is currently under review that would make drive - through windows a use by-
right. As part of the text amendments staff will be recommending that no portion of the
drive - through travel lanes be located within 50 feet of rural property. The travel lane
proposed is approximately 25 feet from rural zoned property. If the proposed language is
endorsed by the Planning Commission or Board as either language for a text amendment or
standard conditions of a special use permit staff will not support this special use permit as
currently proposed. If the text amendment is approved prior to action on your special use
permit application and you retain the existing layout, you may request a special exception
to the requirements. The special exception would be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors
and likely the Planning Commission. Staff will coordinate your request for a drive - through
with the text amendment so that the appropriate type of review occurs.
Your proposed condition amendments have been reviewed and the intent of the
amendments is understood. Final language will need to be reviewed by the County
Attorney's office.
The reviewing engineer, comments below, has expressed concern that the rate of
consumption will exceed the rate of recharge. This raises the possibility of potential
negative impacts to water supply in area. Further analysis or comment appears to be
warranted to address this issue.
Zoning Comments (Ron Higgins)
See attached memo
Architectural Review Board Comments (Margaret Maliszewski
1. The drive -thru window won't be visible from the EC.
2. Cars in the drive -thru lane will be visible from the EC, but the buildings and the fence are
expected to sufficiently limit views, assuming there is no drive -thru related equipment
other than the single menu board.
3. Identify the menu board on the plan.
4. The applicant has indicated that a "connecting section of fence" has been added to
enclose the area behind the auto repair. Clarify on the plan the location of this fence.
5. The applicant's memo states that an ARB application will be submitted. Additional
comments are likely to arise from the review of that application.
Engineering Comments (John Anderson)
See attached comment letter for comments on SP 2015 -32 (amendment of SP 2009 -34).
Planning Comments on Engineering Comments:
The Virginia Department of Health (VDH) does not review groundwater studies. They
will be involved in the site plan review process and the building permit process. VDH
has not provided any comments on the current application. They will review the site
plans and building plans to verify that all requirements are being met.
This is not considered a central water supply and all comment on that subject is
provided by the engineer for information only.
The water use calculations and estimates have been accepted by the engineer and
appear to be based on sound reasoning and accepted methods.
2
The engineer accepts the water recharge rates methodology contained in the study.
The engineer has concluded that the water use from the property will exceed the water
recharge rate due to impervious area. This raises the question of possible negative
impacts to adjoining properties.
The engineer has provided a comment that water discharge from the site appears to be
directed in the general direction of the well. During site plan review this may have to be
addressed to receive approvals.
For SP 2015 -33 (drive- through) the following comments have been provided:
Drive -thru design shown in 12.7.15 Collins Engineering Restore'N Station —Phase II —
Concept Plan does not separate drive -thru lane from vehicular travel areas west of
building /s. Rather, design provides a minimum of five stacking spaces (100 -ft), but
requires cars, once they enter the drive through lane to cross a two -way vehicular
circulation aisle at right - angle. That is, vehicles proceed into stacking, then at a certain
point must cross internal two -way travel area to reach the service window. Design
should reference 5t" Street Station Drive - Through window conditions recently approved
by Albemarle County Board of Supervisors (SP- 2015 - 00023). Engineering requests
revised design eliminate right -angle intersection with internal travel area west of
buildings. This design invites collisions, and is without precedent. Drivers may not know
when it is safe to cross, or may feel they have right -of -way. Intersections are a design
feature reserved for streets. Drive - through design may not include intersection with
internal vehicular travel areas.
Virginia Department of Transportation Comments (Troy Austin)
See attached comment letter.
County comment on letter from VDOT:
VDOT has no objection to the drive - through window application.
VDOT has requested updated generation numbers to verify that the change in trips is
equal to or less than that in the approved traffic study. If the trips turn out to be higher
than that in the approved study, you will need to revise the approved study to verify
that the improvements that were made with the original development of the site are
adequate. I have confirmed with VDOT that this is an issue for site plan review and not
the special use permit review.
VDOT has recommended a connection to tax map 55B parcel 109B. This is a
recommendation of VDOT only. It is not related to water usage or the drive - through
and will not be discussed as an issue during the review of those applications.
3
Virginia Department of Health Comments (Josh Kirtley)
No comments have been received however I have spoken with Mr. Kirtley. He informed me
that the Health Department has no comments on the special use permit application. Their
review will be limited to the adequacy of the drainfield and well design (casing /wellhead
protection etc). All of their review will occur with the site plan and building permits.
Fire Rescue Comments (Robbie Gilmer)
Fire Rescue has provided the following comment:
No comments or objections.
Building Official (Jay Schlothauer)
For SP 2015 -32 (amendment of SP 2009 -34) the following comments have been provided:
No objection regarding drive - through window only.
For SP 2015 -33 (drive- through) the following comments have been provided:
No objection to the special use proposal.
Note:
Provide fire suppression sprinkler system for both buildings, or separate the auto
repair /office building from the retail /office bulding by at least 20'.
Provide fire suppression sprinkler system for the auto repair /office building, or reduce
the fire area (sum of all floors areas not separated by firewalls) to 10,000 sq. ft., or less.
Action after Receipt of Comments
After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action after
Receipt of Comment Letter" which is attached.
Resubmittal
If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form. There is no fee for the first
resubmittal. The resubmittal date schedule is provided for your convenience.
Notification and Advertisement Fees
Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, payment of the following
fees is needed:
$185.30 Cost for newspaper advertisement
$215.00 Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage /$1 per
4
owner after 50 adjoining owners)
$400.30 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing
Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for
the Board hearing is needed:
$185.30 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing
$585.60 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the some time.
Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining
owners need to be notified of a new date.
Feel free to contact me if you wish to meet or need additional information. I can be reached at
bfritz @albemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832, ext. 3242.
Sincerely,
William D. Fritz, AICP
Chief of Special Projects
5
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
f
�'rRG1^11�`
ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following:
(1) Resubmit in response to review comments
(2) Request indefinite deferral
(3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set
(4) Withdraw your application
(1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments
If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a
resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may
be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page.
Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the last Daee of vour comment letter with vour
submittal.
The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one
resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee
Schedule.)
(2) Request Indefinite Deferral
If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request
an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit /request a
public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.)
(3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set
At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we
do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of
resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal.
After outstanding issues have been resolved and /or when you are ready to request a public
hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with
the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County.
I.
The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you
with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made
on or before a resubmittal date.
By no later than twenty -one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a
newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See
attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay.
Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty -two (22) days prior
to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad
Payments for Public Hearings form.
Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the
Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The
only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the
project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously
been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the
Planning Commission meeting.
(4) Withdraw Your Application
If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing.
Failure to Respond
If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that
time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your
application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as
mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for
requesting the deferral. If none of these choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule
your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original
submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date.
Fee Payment
Fees may be paid in cash or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake
Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the
Review Coordinator.
7
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP #
?ee Amount $ Date Paid By who" Receipt # Ck# By:
Resubmittal of information for
ks� f
!`I • 7 WT 71 • i �7rxiwL
Special use Permit
PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED: SP 2015 -32 and SP 2015 -33 Re- Store'n Station
Owner /Applicant Must Read and Sign
I hereby certify that the information provided with this resubmittal is what has been requested from staff
Signature of Owner, Contract Purchaser Date
Print Name Daytime phone number of Signatory
FEES to be paid after application
For original Special Use Permit fee of $1,075
❑ First resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
Free
❑ Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
1 $538
For original Special Use Permit fee of $2,000
❑ First resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
Free
❑ Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF)
I $1,075
County of Albemarle Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296 -5832 Fax: (434) 972 -4126
Revised 11/2/2015 Page 1 of 1
H
2016 Submittal and Review Schedule
Special Use Permits and Zoning Map Amendments
Resubmittal Schedule
Written Comments and Earliest Planning Commission Public Hearing*
Resubmittal
Dates
Comments to
applicant for
decision on whether
to proceed to Public
Hearing *
Request for PC
Public Hearing,
Legal Ad
Payment Due **
Planning Commission
Public Hearing
No sooner than*
COB Auditorium
Monday
Wednesday
Monday
Tuesday
Nov 2 2015
Dec 2 2015
Dec 21 2015
Jan 12
Nov 16 2015
Dec 16 2015
Jan 04
Jan 26
I Dec 7 2015
I Jan 06
Jan 11
Feb 02
Dec 21 2015
Jan 20
Feb 01
Feb 23
Jan 04
Feb 03
Feb 08
Mar 01
Tue Jan 19
Feb 17
Feb 22
Mar 15
Feb 01
Mar 02
Mar 14
Apr 05
Tue Feb 16
Mar 16
Apr 04
Apr 26
Feb 29
Mar 30
Apr 11
May 03
Mar 14
Apr 13
May 09
May 31
Apr 04
May 04
May 16
Jun 07
Apr 18
May 18
May 30
Jun 21
May 02
Jun 01
Jun 20
Jul 12
May 16
Jun 15
Jul 04
Jul 26
May 30
Jun 29
Jul 18
Aug 09
Jun 13
Jul 13
Aug 01
Aug 23
Jul 04
Aug 03
Aug 22
Sep 13
Jul 18
Aug 17
Sep 05
Sep 27
Aug 01
Aug 31
Sep 19
Oct 11
Aug 15
Sep 14
Oct 03
Oct 25
Tue Sep 06
Oct 05
Oct 10
Nov 01
Sep 19
Oct 19
Oct 31
Nov 22
Oct 03
Nov 02
Nov 14
Dec 06
Oct 17
Nov 16
Nov 28
Dec 20
Oct 31
Nov 30
Dec 19
Jan 10 2017
Nov 14
Dec 14
I Jan 09 2017
Jan 31 2017 I
Dec 05
Jan 04 2017
Jan 16 2017
Feb 07 2017
Dec 19
Jan 18 2017
Feb 06 2017
Feb 28 2017
Jan 02 2017
Feb 01 2017
I Feb 13 2017
Mar 07 2017
Bold italics = submittal /meeting day is different due to a holiday.
Dates with shaded background are not 2016.
2017 dates are tentative.
The reviewing planner will contact applicant to discuss comments of reviewers and advise that changes that are needed
are significant enough to warrant an additional submittal or advise that the the project is ready for a public hearing. If
changes needed are minor, the planner will advise that the project go to public hearing.
** The legal ad deadline is the last date at which an applicant can decide whether to resubmit or go to public hearing. If an
applicant decides to go to public hearing against the advice of the reviewing planner, a recommendation for denial will likely
result. Generally, the applicant will will have only one opportunity to defer the PC public hearing for the project once it has
been advertised for public hearing. Additional deferrals will not be allowed except in extraordinary circumstances such as a
major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been
brought to the applicant's attention.
10
� II�IIytA
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Bill Fritz
From: Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning /Deputy Zoning Administrator
Division: Zoning
Date: January 21, 2016
Subject: SP201500032 "Re -Store 'N Station Phase II- Amendments" Review comments
SP201500033 Addition of Drive -thru Window Review Comments
The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding:
SP201500032 to amend SP200900034 — Re- Store' N Station — Phase II, and; SP201500033 to
add a drive thru window:
1. General comments.
a. Proposal: SP201500032 to amend SP200900034 and Major Site Plan
amendment for Re -Store `N Station (now Mulberry Station) to expand buildings
and uses and to change previous conditions for water use, and; new
SP201500033 to add a drive thru window to the building and site.
b. Required parking for use —Calculations on plan are correct for retail, office
use and auto repair in the aggregate.
c. Building setbacks /build to lines ok as shown.
d. Water use data provided, confirms maximum water use has not exceeded the
1,625 gallons per day allowed with the approved special permit. Note:
Conditions of the approved Special Permit include the tamper proof meter
(verified in the field by Deputy Zoning Administrator and Engineering Inspector)
and the dole flow valve (also verified in the field by the DZA and EI) which was
calibrated to not permit more than 1,489 gallons per day (1,440 minutes in 24
hour day at 1.03 gpm). The hours of business operation are limited to 16 hours a
day, so this limit is not in jeopardy.
2. Concept Plan for SP201500032 & 33.
a. Concept Plan - Vehicle Stacking /Circulation: — The concept plan shows a vehicle
stacking arrangement for the proposed drive -thru lane that is not acceptable.
The stacking space located across the travel aisle from the building creates
conflicts with other traffic on -site at two different points. Also it does not
sufficiently meet the standards for adequate stacking behind the menu board.
3. SP Conditions: The changes and elimination to some of the previous conditions are
acceptable from the standpoint of the special permit for water use, given the restrictions
guaranteed by the remaining conditions. However, it is recommended that any overnight
parking times coincide with the hours the business in not open, and that business
operation time limits, be more clear about activities available during the open hours that
are likely to cause water use (e.g. access to restrooms and sinks, food preparation).
4. Zoning Compliance: We have recently received complaints about: operation of the
business exceeding 16 hours per day, and; possible overnight parking (potentially in
violation of current conditions #5 & #8, respectively). These have been referred to out
code compliance officers for investigation.
OAAL
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: Re- Store'N Station —Phase II — Amendment
Plan preparer: Scott Collins, Collins Engineering; 200 Garrett St., Suite K
Charlottesville, VA 22902, scott(a-,collins -en ing eering com]
Owner or rep.: Jeffries II LLC, P. O. Box 910, Crozet, VA 22932
Jo Higgins, Project Development LLC, 2564 Mt. Torrey Road, Lyndhurst, VA 22952
T: 434.326 -0334 1 musxit(a)aol.com
Plan received date: 23 Dec 2015
Date of comments: 14 Jan 2016
Reviewer: John Anderson
Project Coordinator: Bill Fritz/ Rachel Falkenstein
cc: Glenn Brooks /County Engineer
cr701 s00012
Engineering recommends:
1. Deny proposal to Amend SP2009 -34 unless the VDH approves Restore'N Station —Phase II Concept Plan.
Whether Albemarle County has authority to deny proposal to Amend SP2009 -34 based on groundwater
recharge rate relative to projected demand may center on legal opinion.
[Projected demand: ref. pg. 2 of Re- Store'N Station —Phase II —Water Usage Analysis, d. 12/8/15]
2. Phase II concept plan proposes a building expansion and a new building "to allow for an expanded
convenience /retail store, a drive - through window, office space, and an auto repair shop." (Pg. 1,
Memorandum — Response to Staff Comments after Pre - Application Meeting, Jo Higgins, d. 7 Dec 2015). Phase II
proposes connections to serve multiple uses in separate buildings. If the expanded and new building
represent two connections, then 16 -101, which defines a central water supply as designed to serve "three
(3) or more connections," would not apply Article I requirements to Restore'N Station/Phase II (16 -100).
If County BOS accepts two connections as reasonable (Engineering supports this view), then Applicant
must still ensure that well design complies with Virginia Department of Health requirements.
3. If Ch. 16, Article I does not apply, Article II applies: Septic systems and individual private wells (16 -200).
Restore'N Station's proposed mixed retail/commercial does not readily match 16 -201 Individual private
well definition: The term "individual private well" means any water well constructed for a person on land
which is owned or leased by that person and is usually intended for household use, ground water source
heat pump, or agricultural use, and which has up to two (2) connections (16- 201 /emphasis added). VDH is
the appropriate agency to review Phase 11 well design.
4. It is prudent to require as pre- condition of SP Approval VDH Approval of Restore'N Station Phase II
concept plan. VDH should evaluate a revised Tier 3 Groundwater Assessment water budget estimate.
VDH should notify Planning/Engineering of review findings prior to SP2009 -34 Amendment Approval.
Applicant materials and any other technical /research data required by VDH would serve as basis of review.
Considerations:
a. Virginian Runoff Reduction Method Re- development Worksheet (v2.8 — June 2014; d. 12/7/15)*
indicates that existing building expansion, new building, and expanded pavement will add
1.28Ac.(f) additional impervious area. Additional and existing hardscapes prevent infiltration.
This circumstance is counter to water budget estimate for site included with Re- Store'N Station
Tier 3 Groundwater Assessment Groundwater Management Plan dated Oct 3, 2008. Proposal to
collect runoff via inlet /pipe system with off -site release is inconsistent with water budget estimate.
Tier 3 Groundwater Assessment assumes 15% of precipitation contributes to groundwater
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
recharge (85% lost to evapotranspiration /runoff). A 3.387 Ac. permeable area is required to
provide 1,625 gpd. It appears that only 1.5 Ac. of the 4.06 Ac. project site is permeable. Using
the same conservative estimate for percentage of precipitation contributing to recharge (15 %), a
1.5 Ac. permeable area supports a 719.7 gnd recharge rate.
[1.5 Ac x 43,560 sf/Ac x 43 in. precip. /yr. x 1 ft. /12 in. x 7.48 gal/ft3 X 1 yr /365 day x .15 =719.7 gad]
b. An accurate water budget estimate would reflect existing /proposed hardscape and proposed SWM
design. It appears the water budget estimate prepared in 2008 is not a fair or accurate description
of groundwater recharge for Phase II. [Tier 3 Report is included with pre - Application response packet
with cover letter (Jan 19 2010) from True North Environmental to Jo Higgins, Project Development, LLC.]
c. Focus of Memorandum Response to Staff Comments after Pre - Application Meeting is water
demand (Jo Higgins to Rachel Falkenstein, Dec 7, 2015). Engineering accepts Future Analysis
(demand) based on USEPA Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual as reasonable. Memo,
p. 2: "Peak usage for Phase 1 is 534 gpd added to this projection = 1,236 gpd. This is only 76% of
the 1,625 gpd allowed [by SP2009 -34]. Using the average of 408 gpd the projected [Phase Il peak
usage] is 1,110 gpd or 68% of the allowable 1,625 gpd." These figures appear reasonable. Note:
These figures are based on 49 total employees. Reference to this projection (sentence, above):
"projected water usage based upon employees in Phase 11 is 702 eud. [Future Analysis]." Ref,
Water Usage Analysis dated 12/8/15, p. 2.
d. 1,110 and 1,236 gpd demand exceeds 719.7 gpd (1.5 Ac.) groundwater recharge rate (a., above).
e. Dec 2015 Applicant response does not include revised Tier 3 Groundwater Assessment water
budget estimate; response includes original Oct. 3 2008 Tier 3 Groundwater Assessment.
f. If County accepts recommendation to require Applicant to obtain VDH Approval of Restore'N
Station Phase II concept plan prior to County approval of Amendment to SP2009 -34, Engineering
encourages Applicant to share design details with VDH that clearly indicate 1.28 Ac. existing
impervious as well as 1.28Ac.(f) proposed additional impervious area (4.06 Ac. site).
g. Design features visible in Collins Engineering Store'N Station — Phase II Concept Plan (12.7.15);
Restore'N Station — Grading and Stormwater Management Exhibit (12/7/15); and plan notes are
relevant to VDH review, including:
i. Post - redevelopment impervious Area: 111,940 sf (2.57 Ac, total).
ii. Parking /gasoline fueling areas sloping south to edge of pavement. Well is located at SW
corner of property.
iii. Proposed storm inlets capture /route runoff to detention to meet SWM water quantity
regulations.
iv. Notes: "Credits will be purchased for quality compliance." This indicates stormwater
runoff infiltration practices (BMPs) are not being considered. This is appropriate since
gasoline stations are identified as `hotspots' in VDEQ literature. Infiltration is severely
discouraged in `hotspot' areas given potential for soil /groundwater contamination.
Albemarle County, a local VSMP Authority, will not view any proposal to infiltrate site
runoff favorably, meaning detained runoff will eventually exit the site.
v. If precipitation (source of recharge /see water budget estimate) cannot infiltrate 2.56 Ac.
hardscape /impervious area and if `hotspot' runoff cannot be routed to an infiltration
practice, then 2008 water budget estimate requires qualitative narrative revision.
vi. Revised quantitative water budget estimate should reflect Phase II concept plan.
h. VDH:
i. Link to Commonwealth of VA State Board of Health Private Well Regulations:
httn: / /www. vdh. state. va.us/EnvironmentalHealth/ Onsite /reaulations/FormsDocs /docume
nts /Well - reps- 7- 20- 00.pdf Apr 1, 1992
ii. Link to VDH Handbook for Developing a Public Water Supply Well:
hlW: / /www.vdh.vir ig nia.gov /ODW/PDF/ well_ development _handbook05- 29_2008.pdf
iii. Link to Part I, General Framework for Waterworks Regulations, Article 1, Definitions:
htw:Hlegl.state.va.us/cgi-bin/leap504.exe?000+reg+12VAC5-590-10
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
iv. Definition: "Waterworks" means a system that serves piped water for human
consumption to at least 15 service connections or 25 or more individuals for at least 60
days out of the year." (Ref. 12VAC5- 590 -10) Phase II, with an estimated 49 employees
at least 60 days /year appears to fit VAC definition of Waterworks. Albemarle County
defers to VDH review and approval of private wells and public Waterworks.
v. Albemarle County is sensitive to drinking water standards relative to groundwater supply.
Phase II should examine and ensure a safe drinking water supply sufficient to meet staff
and customer retail, office, and commercial needs. Water usage analysis d. 12/8/2015
estimates 49 total employees.
vi. 12 VAC 5- 630 -380. Well Location, A. Sanitary Survey — "Any obvious source of toxic or
dangerous substances within 200 feet of the proposed private well shall be investigated as
part of the sanitary survey by the district or local health department. Sources of
contamination may include, but are not limited to, items listed in Table 3. 1, abandoned
wells, pesticide treated soils, underground storage tanks, and other sources of physical,
chemical or biological contamination. If the source of contamination could affect the
well adversely, and preventive measures are not available to protect the ground water, the
well shall be prohibited." [Emphasis added]
vii. 12 VAC 5- 630 -250 — Emergency Procedures; B. Heat pumps or commercially dependent
wells: If a heat pump well or commercially dependent well must be replaced, the
applicant shall propose a replacement site based on the technical requirements of the heat
pump system or commercial establishment. The local health department will conduct a
sanitary survey of the property and surrounding area to determine if the site meets the
minimum site requirements of this chapter including the minimum separation distances
contained in Table 3.1 and 12 VAC 5- 630- 380.F. ... If a site cannot be located that
meets the minimum separation distances listed in Table 3.1 and 12 VAC 5- 630 -380 F, the
local health department shall identify a site that complies with the minimum separation
distances to the greatest extent possible. However, the replacement well shall not be
located closer to any source of contamination than the existing well it is replacing." It is
difficult to find any location on the site that is not closer to potential contamination
sources than the existing well, in event of well failure /groundwater depletion.
viii. 12 VAC 5- 630 -10: "Commercially dependent well" means a well that is the sole source
of water for a commercial facility that requires the water from the well for continued
operation." The existing well and any replacement well meet this definition.
ix. 12 VAC 5- 630 -10: "Emergency well replacement" means the replacement of an existing
private drinking water well, heat pump well, or commercially dependent well that has
failed to deliver the water needed for its intended use. Such failure requires the drilling
of a new well or extensive modifications to the existing well."
x. Private Well Regulations/Waterworks Regulations are of interest to VDH /County and
adjacent property owners. Engineering recommends Applicant coordinate with VDH to:
identify which well class designation/requirements apply; present accurate water budget
estimate based on 2.57 Ac. impervious area and SWM design; and, examine well failure
options that take into account sewerage system/septic field separation distances and
effects of SWM limitations for hotspot facilities (i.e., no infiltration).
* Virginia Stormwater Management Program (VSMP) Methodology (9VAC25- 870- 65.B.)
spreadsheet printout was submitted with pre - Application meeting response packet. Dated 12/7/15.
Contact John Anderson, Engineering, if any questions.
janderson2a,albemarle.ore / 434 - 296 -5832 —0069
File: SP201500032 Re- Store'N Station -Phase 110 11416
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper %Arginla 22701
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
January 13, 2016
Mr. Bill Fritz
Chief of Special Projects
County of AIbemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SP -2015 -00032 & SP- 2015 -00033 Re -Store `N Station
Dear Mr. Fritz,
We have reviewed the two special use permit requests for Re -Store `N Station and offer the
following comments:
1. VDOT has no objection to the drive thru window as shown.
2. Table included in the special use summary indicates that the total square footage of
proposed use that would be allowed increases from 3,775 sq.ft. currently allowed to
23,721 sq.ft. proposed. ITE trip generation based on these square footages should be
provided comparing the existing trips generated and the proposed trips generated to the
trips proposed in the approved traffic study.
3. The proposed parking near Rte. 250 should be designed such that a potential access to
TMP 055BO- 00- 00 -109BO could be provided in the future. The space closest to Rte. 250
in the cluster of 10 parking spaces looks like it may conflict with any potential access to
the adjacent property.
If you need additional information concerning these special use permit requests, please do not
hesitate to contact me at (434) 422 -9782.
Sincerely,
Troy Austin, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Culpeper District
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
Memorandum - RESPONSE TO STAFF COMMENTS AFTER PRE- APPLCATION MEETING
To: Rachel Falkenstein
From: Jo Higgins
Date: December 7, 2015
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DATED 9/30/2015 AFTER Pre -App meeting (RESPONSES ARE INSERTED IN BOLD)
Subject: TMP 55B -1, Restore'N Station Pre - Application Meeting Date: 9/21/2015
The following are County staff comments regarding the above noted pre - application meeting. This meeting may
satisfy the requirements for the mandatory pre - application. The purpose of for the meeting is summarized below:
The purposes for a pre - application meeting are to, (i) provide the applicant and the county a common
understanding of the proposed project; (ii) inform the applicant about the proposed project's consistency with the
comprehensive plan, other relevant policies, and county regulations; (iii) broadly identify the planning, zoning and
other issues raised by the application that need to be addressed by the applicant; (iv) inform the applicant about
the applicable procedure; and (v) allow the director to identify the information the applicant must submit with the
application, including the supplemental information delineated in subsection (c). Receiving the relevant
supplemental information will allow the application to be comprehensively and efficiently reviewed
(i) Common understanding of the proposed project
The applicant is proposing to amend the existing Special Use Permit, 5P 2009 -34 to allow for an expanded
convenience /retail store, a drive- through window, office space and an auto repair shop.
These uses are by -right within the HC zoning district. The SP is required for uses permitted by right not
served by public water exceeding 400 gallons per site acre per day [18- 24.2.2(13)].
A new SP is required for the proposed drive - through window [18- 24.2.2(12)].
RESPONSE. The application to amend SP 2009 — 34 is being submitted along with a new SP (no number
assigned as yet) application for a drive through window. As background information in this case, SP
2W9-34 was only requested when required by staff because the projected water usage data was
deemed Inadequate to prove the proposed water usage would be LESS than the by -right amount. SP
2009 — 00034 was requested and approved for 1 gallon per day over the by right amount (or there could
be no SP) which allows 1,625 gpd. After one full year of operation, the meter reading data is being
submitted to prove that the average gallons per day of water has been used which is only 25% of the
by -right amount of water. This leaves 75% or approx.12W gpd to support the Phase H expansion on
this site. The request to amend SP2009 -00034 is to amend the conditions of the SP to expand the
development on this 4,06 acre parcel.
(ii) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
The parcel is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan which calls for protection of agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources.
• The Crozet Master Plan has the following recommendation for this stretch of Route 250: "No commercial
use is recommended on Route 250 West in order to retain Route 250 West as a Scenic Byway. Additional
commercial uses will add traffic to this road, which would damage the rural character of Route 250 West."
• Zoning of this parcel is HC Highway Commercial. The proposed uses are by -right but Special Use Permits
are required for the water usage and proposed drive - through.
RESPONSE: Although located in Rural Area, this property is zoned highway commercial because it has
been used for commercial purposes since prior to the ordinance being adopted. This particular stretch
of RT250 is dominated by commercial uses extending along the South side of RT 250 from the entrance
to Western Albemarle High School to 1 -64 including a convenience store with gas sales, automobile
repair & body shop, heavy trucking storage yard adjacent on the east side of this property, commercial
office and lumber mill yard to the west and convenience store with gas sales directly across RT 250. In
fact, there are only a few parcels on the south side of RT250 that remain RA along this stretch. Any
potential impacts to the Scenic Byway have been addressed (and will be addressed) by compliance with
the Entrance Corridor approval requirements and ARB approval.
ON Broadly identify the planning, zoning or other issues raised by the application that need to be addressed by the
applicant. Important items for consideration with your SP application are as follows:
• Water uses SP o The application for the amended Special Use Permit should include water analysis
for the additional uses as well as water analysis for existing uses (as provided with pre -app
materials).
RESPONSE. The water analysis for the existing uses is a year of water meter readings that prove
that the 3000sf of convenience /retail store and 1000sf of office above have used an average of
4018 gallons per day with a short period of 7 weeks when the average was exceeded. This was
hound to be employees using water to wash the sidewalk when it was suppose to be cleaned with
a broom. This was corrected and the usage dropped back to the 400 gallons per day typical. The
projected water usage for the proposed expansion of the convenience /retail store with additional
retail space and separate auto repair shop all with office space above is attached. This is
analysis using the Wastewater design standards and a second analysis based upon the fixtures to
be provided in the new area of the buildings both confirm that the by right amount of water
allowed will not be exceeded. Also the flow restriction device will not allow more than the allowed
water to be exceeded and we are not requesting a change to the water usage amount. (See
attached meter data and analysis)
Drive- through SP o A separate SP application and fee are required for the proposed drive - through
window. o It is recommended that the drive - through lane obtain adequate circulation and site
distance.
o The plan does not appear to show enough stacking space for the drive - through window. Section
4.12.6 states that drive- through lanes serving restaurants shall provide a minimum of five (5)
stacking spaces that shall not impede any required parking or loading spaces or any pedestrian or
vehicular circulation aisles. The five (5) stacking spaces shall be provided at the order board and
additional spaces may be provided at the payment or pick -up windows
RESPONSE: The concept plan has been revised to show an exclusive stacking lane (16ft wide to
allow pass -by) which provides for 5 spaces and in addition — there is 1 space at the pick up
window,1 space between the pick up window and order board and 1 space at the order board
for a total of S spaces designated for the drive thru service.
With respect to the circulation -- the drive thru is now completely separate from the parking
access travelway,, the entrance to Phase 11 is served from the internal travelway across the
front of the site which was a requirement of the earlier approval of Phase I to be a deeded
access easement to prevent any additional entrances onto RT 250. (Connection to the adjacent
property has potential for the future although it appears that property is not required to
connect). The circulation works well to serve Phase 11 without having to travel through the
convenience /retail store front travelway but a 2" d connection is provided at that point also.
For a 31' connection to provide internal connections, a connecting travelway at the rear of the
site is also provided. There is plenty of width at the rear to accommodate this and allow for
customers to pass by the fuel stations to gas up before leaving the site.
o A bypass lane may be necessary for the drive- through window. Section 4.12.17 states a travelway
width of up to sixteen (16) feet may be required to allow for bypass traffic, when deemed
necessary by the county engineer. In making this determination, the county engineer shall
consider the site specific factors including, but not limited to, the length of the travelway, nature
of the land use, and internal traffic circulation.
RESPONSE: The drive through travelway and stacking travelway are both 16ft wide to meet this
requirement although it should be re- considered by the County to change this requirement. A
pass by lane only provides an opportunity for the customer to jump out of line and leave
without paying for their order. There is no record where there is or has been a safety issue
when pass by lanes are not provided. No benefit to the public, property owner or County to
require a pass by lane. Albemarle County requires what is not required by other localities.
o An ARB application is needed for the drive- through SP.
RESPONSE: A separate ARB application with elevations of the building addition will be
submitted to the ARB,
• Site Plan Amendment o A major site plan amendment will be required for the proposed changes.
RESPONSE: This is understood based upon the pre- application meeting information. Once the SP
is approved with the concept plan this will be used as the basis for the Major Site Plan
amendment.
o It is recommended that the site entrance throat not be reduced.
RESPONSE: No change to the entrance is proposed with this application.
o Turn warrants should be provided for the additional uses.
RESPONSE: There was a traffic analysis for Phase I as initially submitted with a larger convenience
store and full office space above and more fuel stations. It dictated that a right turn lane and left
turn lane be required with an entrance location as built. Later in the process, the development
was reduced by the BOS when acting on the SP approval. There is no proposed change to the
public right of way improvements that were completed a year ago.
o Minimum yard requirements adjacent to Rural Area properties is 50' for buildings and 20' for
parking; screening shall be prodded adjacent to Rural Area parcels.
RESPONSE: There is a 20ft undisturbed buffer along the West and South edge so yard
requirements have been met for parking and the proposed expanded building footprints are
greater than 50ft from the RA property line so the yard setbacks for the buildings are also met.
In addition, there is a Eft board on board privacy fence provided on the site plan at the edge of
the 20ft buffer along the West buffer edge then continues along the South buffer edge with
new fence shown to connect to the existing privacy fence at the curb line of the fuel stations
area.
o A Tier 3 Growndwater Assessment is required for the proposed uses.
RESPONSE: A Tier 3 Groundwater Assessment has been done for this site. 2 copies are
attached to the application. There is no change in the amount of water withdrawal proposed
and therefore no change to the groundwater assessment.
o Elevations should be provided with the ARB site plan application.
RESPONSE: Elevations will be provided with the ARB application.
3
(iv) Applicable procedures
SP Application and associated information: o The proposed use requires the submittal of an SP
application and additional information (see below).
RESPONSE: See attached analysis of the existing and proposed uses with applicable square footage
of each use.
• Community Meeting: o The applicant is required by ordinance to undertake a community meeting
process as part of the review of the SP request. The applicant should work with the Crozet
Community Advisory Council (CCAC) to use their monthly meeting as the community meeting for this
project.
• Please keep staff informed of the community meeting location and time. Staff will attend the
meeting to answer questions, but the applicant is responsible for facilitating the discussion.
• Staff has compiled a list of neighboring property owners that should be notified of the meeting
(attached).
• White Hall District Board and Planning Commission members should also be notified of the
community meeting.
RESPONSE: Once the submittal is in with the County on Dec 7a', we will ask for a time on the
next agenda of the CCAC to present this information. The list of neighboring property owners
will be used to notify each person about this meeting.
(v) identify the information the applicant must submit with the application, including the supplemental
information.
• An SP application along with the application fee ($2000 for a new SP for the drive- through; $1000 to
amend existing SP for water usage), plus the cost of public notice requirements when the application is
being processed.
RESPONSE: $3000 CHECK is being submitted with the two applications.
A concept plan that is consistent with Zoning Ordinance requirements for Special Use Permits (see
attached checklists).
• The latest recorded plat(s).
• Authorized owners' signatures.
• See attached SP checklist for other required information.
• Additional comments from Zoning are attached.
RESPONSE: ALL OF THESE ITEMS ARE BEING ADDRESSED WITH THIS SUBMITTAL.
4
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Project: Re-Store'N Station —Phase II —Amendment
Plan preparer: Scott Collins, Collins Engineering; 200 Garrett St., Suite K
Charlottesville, VA 22902, scott(a-,collins-en ing eering com]
Owner or rep.: Jeffries II LLC, P. O. Box 910, Crozet, VA 22932
Jo Higgins, Project Development LLC, 2564 Mt. Torrey Road, Lyndhurst, VA 22952
T: 434.326-0334 1 musxitkaol.com
Plan received date: 23 Dec 2015
Date of comments: 14 Jan 2016; [rev.] 18 Feb 2016
Reviewer: John Anderson
Project Coordinator: Bill Fritz/ Rachel Falkenstein
cc: Glenn Brooks/County Engineer
cr7011-N00017
Eneineerine recommends:
1. Deny proposal to Amend SP2009-34 unless the VDH approves Restore'N Station —Phase II Concept Plan.
Whether Albemarle County has authority to deny proposal to Amend SP2009-34 based on groundwater
recharge rate relative to projected demand may center on legal opinion.
[Projected demand: ref. pg. 2 of Re-Store'N Station —Phase II —Water Usage Analysis, d. 12/8/15] [rev.]
Addressed via Revised Groundwater Recharge Calculations Based upon Existing and Proposed Site
Development (Concept Plan dated 12/4/2015) —see 2/18/16 M. Craun email to County (2/18/2016 11:25 AM).
Engineering Accepts that "The estimated long term ground water recharge at the site is 5,842 gpd and the
estimated groundwater withdrawal is 1,625 gpd." —M. Craun. On this basis, No objection to SP2015-00032
2. Phase 11 concept plan proposes a building expansion and a new building "to allow for an expanded
convenience/retail store, a drive-through window, office space, and an auto repair shop." (Pg. 1,
Memorandum —Response to Staff Comments after Pre -Application Meeting, Jo Higgins, d. 7 Dec 2015). Phase II
proposes connections to serve multiple uses in separate buildings. If the expanded and new building
represent two connections, then 16-101, which defines a central water supply as designed to serve "three
(3) or more connections," would not apply Article I requirements to Restore'N Station/Phase 11(16-100).
If County BOS accepts two connections as reasonable (Engineering supports this view), then Applicant
must still ensure that well design complies with Virginia Department of Health requirements. [rev.]
Commentary No response required.
3. [rev.] "rte /Deleted.
4. [rev.] "rte /Deleted.
Considerations:
a. Virginian Runoff Reduction Method Re -development Worksheet (v2.8 — June 2014; d. 12/7/15)*
indicates that existing building expansion, new building, and expanded pavement will add
1.28Ac.(f) additional impervious area. Additional and existing hardscapes prevent infiltration.
This circumstance is counter to water budget estimate for site included with Re-Store'N Station
Tier 3 Groundwater Assessment Groundwater Management Plan dated Oct 3, 2008. Proposal to
collect runoff via inlet/pipe system with off-site release is inconsistent with water budget estimate.
Tier 3 Groundwater Assessment assumes 15% of precipitation contributes to groundwater
recharge (85% lost to evapotranspiration/runoff). A 3.387 Ac. permeable area is required to
provide 1,625 gpd. It appears that only 1.5 Ac. of the 4.06 Ac. project site is permeable. Using
the same conservative estimate for percentage of precipitation contributing to recharge (15%), a
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
1.5 Ac. permeable area supports a 719.7 gpd recharge rate. [rev.] Addressed via Revised
Groundwater Recharge Calculations Based upon Existing and Proposed Site Development (Concept
Plan dated 12/4/2015) —see 2/18/16 M. Craun email to County (2/18/2016 11:25 AM).
[1.5 Ac x 43,560 sf/Ac Xin. precip./yr. x 1 ft./12 in. x 7.48 gal/ft3 X 1 yr/365 day x .15 =719.7 ggd
b. An accurate water budget estimate would reflect existing/proposed hardscape and proposed SWM
design. It appears the water budget estimate prepared in 2008 is not a fair or accurate description
of groundwater recharge for Phase 11. [Tier 3 Report is included with pre -Application response packet
with cover letter (Jan 19 2010) from True North Environmental to Jo Higgins, Project Development, LLC.]
[rev.] Addressed via 2/18/16 email.
c. Focus of Memorandum Response to Staff Comments after Pre -Application Meeting is water
demand (Jo Higgins to Rachel Falkenstein, Dec 7, 2015). Engineering accepts Future Analysis
(demand) based on USEPA Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual as reasonable. Memo,
p. 2: "Peak usage for Phase I is 534 gpd added to this projection = 1,236 gpd. This is only 76% of
the 1,625 gpd allowed [by SP2009-34]. Using the average of 408 gpd the projected [Phase II peak
usage] is 1,110 gpd or 68% of the allowable 1,625 gpd." These figures appear reasonable. Note:
These figures are based on 49 total employ. Reference to this projection (sentence, above):
"projected water usage based upon employees in Phase 11 is 702 gpd. [Future Analysis]." Ref.
Water Usage Analysis dated 12/8/15, p. 2. [rev.] No response required.
d. [rev.] Delete/Withdrawn.
e. Dec 2015 Applicant response does not include revised Tier 3 Groundwater Assessment water
budget estimate; response includes original Oct. 3 2008 Tier 3 Groundwater Assessment. [rev.]
Addressed via 2/18/16 email.
f. [rev.] Deleted
g. [rev.] (M. Craun) Re -store N Station Phase II Amendment (2/18/16; email: 2/18/2016 11:25 AM):
-reports Estimated Groundwater Withdrawal — 1,625 GPD
-reports/calculates Estimated Total Long Term Groundwater Recharge based on Median Recharge
(1.4978 Ac. pervious); Rainwater Harvesting (7,075 SF rooftop/95% capture); SWM infiltration
(2.3998 impervious runoff to BMP; Hayesville soils —v. permeable) — 5,842 GPD.
The estimated long term ground water recharge at the site is 5,842 gpd and the estimated
groundwater withdrawal is 1,625 gpd. —M. Craun. County accepts calculations/reported values.
h. [rev.] Deleted
John Anderson, Engineering, if any questions.
janderson2a,albemarle.org / 434-296-5832 —x3069
File: SP201500032 Re-Store'N Station -Phase 11011416 rev021816
Memorandum — RESPONSE TO STAFF COMMENTS AFTER PRE - APPLICATION
MEETING
To: Rachel Falkenstein
From: .to Higgins
Date: December 7, 2015
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM: Zoning/ Ron Higgins dated September 29,,2015
Subject: Mandatory Pre -app Meeting Comments for "Re -Store 'N Station Phase II"
The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the
September 21, 2015 pre - application meeting, listed as "exploratory" but revised to "mandatory"
1. General comments.
a. Proposal — Amendment to SP200900034 and Major Site Plan amendment for
Re -Store 'N Station (now Mulberry Station) Use per Section 24.2.2 #13 — water
consumption exceeding 400 gallons per acre per day.
RESPONSE: The letter of approval for SP2009 — 00034 dated November 12,
2010 is attached with requested changes to conditions 4,5,6,8 and 9 are
noted and narrative is also attached.
b. Required parking for use — Calculations on plan are correct for retail and office
but shall also include parking for the "Auto Repair - Service" of: One (1) space per
employee lus two 2 s aces per each service stall.
RESPONSE: Parking calculations are included on the concept plan using
this information along with the parking requirements for retail and office as
stated in the ordinance.
c. Building setbacks /build to lines ok as shown.
RESPONSE: Setbacks are shown on the concept plan.
d. Supplementary Regulation Section as applicable- See Section 5.1.31 for
supplementary regulations _specific to auto repair.
RESPONSE: Per Section 5.1.31, the following items will be addressed on
the Major Site Plan amendment per the ordinance:
5.1.31.a. No parts, materials, or equipment are to be stored outside.
b. No vehicles awaiting repair will be visible from any public street
as parking is provided at the rear of the site and fencing along the west
edge and south edge will wrap the auto repair area at the rear.
c. The enclosed building provides 4 service bays that are
adequate to provide parking for 2 vehicles per bay so 8 vehicles are inside
the enclosed bldg.
d. The auto repair building is not located within fifty (50) feet of
agricultural district at the west side or south side of the property.
2. Application Plan or Concept Plan for SP.
a. An Application Plan or A Concept Plan is needed — Include as much detail as
possible applicable to the proposed water use, including: Proposed changes to
the plan approved with the original Special Permit and changes
to conditions listed in the November 12, 2010 approval letter for SP200900034.
RESPONSE; The Concept Plan is included with this submittal. Additional
information that pertains to water use within the expanded building area is
also included.
3. While it is noted that no changes are being requested to SP conditions regarding water
flow restriction devices and the water use limit, you might want to include some water
use analysis of the proposed additional uses as there are likely to be questions raised
about this during the review.
RESPONSE: This is to confirm that no changes are being requested to the SP
conditions regarding water flow devices and the water use limit which are stated
in conditions 1,2 and 3. As presented In the initial application for this SP, there
was never any intent to exceed the "by- right" amount of water allowed for this
property. Our contention is that a special use permit should not have been
required because the use is by -right in HC if less than 400 gallons per acre per
day or 1,624 gpd is not exceeded. The installation of the flow restriction device
and water meter was voluntary. Only 1 gallon per day was requested to enable
an SP to be granted because it was mandated by staff at that time that only with
an SP would the site development plan be approved.
After Re- Store'N Station was opened in fall of 2014, we requested and had a pre —
application to prepare the submittal for Phase II. Staff advised in that October
2014 pre- application meeting that the water meter readings for a complete year
of operation would be needed to consider the water usage to be well
documented. The water meter has been read every week over the past year to
prove that the existing conveniencelretail store with office above uses an
average of 408 gallons per day. The first 6 months data showed an average of
much lower water usage but the higher amount is being used for this request.
At 408 gpd, the water usage is 25% of the "by- right" amount of water. Included in
this average is the period from 619115 to 7121115 which is seven weeks when
there were nine (9) days that the average was exceeded. In late July, it was
discovered that uninformed employees were using exterior spigots to wash the
sidewalk instead of the broom cleaning that is typically done. Once this was
corrected, the average gallons per day dropped back to less than 400 gpd and it
has been even lower over the month of October and November.
In addition to the meter reading data, additional documentation is provided by
the February 2, 2015 Commissioning Report— Water and Wastewater System for
TM 558 -1 done by Old Dominion Engineering which is attached to this this
submittal. It states that for period Sept 12, 2014 to October 23, 2014, the average
water usage was confirmed to be 204.4 gallons per day. For period October 23,
2014 to January 28, 2015, the average water usage was confirmed to be 243.4
gallons per day. These lower quantities are not used in the average calculated
over the past 6 months because initially the store was operating at less than
anticipated customer activity. After 6 months, the store achieved the anticipated
customer activity.
4. Process — regarding completeness of the application
a. Provide a completed application. Make sure all boxes are checked and you have
provided the information noted on the application by that checkbox.
SP Application link
hfto://www.albemarle.ocg/upload/imggeg forms center/departments/Co
m
munity Develo ment/forms /S ecial Use Permit A lications /S eciai
U se Permit A lication. df
RESPONSE: Two Applications — one for amendment of the SP2009
— 00034 and one for the new drive through window SP are being
submitted with the appropriate fees.
b. The SP checklist is needed. It will need to be the copy of the checklist provided
to you with the mandatory comments not one filled out only by vou.
RESPONSE: Rachel provided a checklist for both applications. Each is
included with this submittal.
c. Provide a recorded plat of the property with the Deed Book & Page #.
RESPONSE: The latest recorded plat with recording receipt is included
with this submittal.
d. Please note that all real estate taxes, nuisance charges, stormwater
management utility fees, and any other charges that constitute a lien on the
subject property, which are owed to the County of Albemarle must be paid prior
to accepting the application.
RESPONSE: The property owner has mailed the real estate taxes check so
it is postmarked prior to the applicable deadline. Coincidentally, the
deadline is the same day of this submittal. I don't know how fast the real
estate department posts tax payments received but there are no
outstanding charges known.
e. The appropriate signature of the owner, the owner's agent, or a contract
purchaser. If either the owner's agent or a contract purchaser signs the
application then include the owner's written consent that the agent or contract
purchaser may file the application on their behalf. See below for applicable
signature requirements for ownership not in the name on an individual person or
persons.
RESPONSE: Owner has signed both applications.
Limited liability companies ( "LLCs ")
Authorized signatories: The authorized signatories are: (1) if the LLC is not a
manager - managed LLC, any member; (2) if the LLC is a manager- managed LLC, the
manager or any member unless the articles of organization limit the members' authority
(Virginia Code § 13.1- 1021.1(A)); or (3) unless otherwise provided in the articles of
organization or an operating agreement, the members have the power and authority to
delegate to one or more other persons, including agents, officers and employees of a
member or manager of the LLC, members' rights and powers to manage and control
the business affairs of the LLC, and to delegate by a management agreement or other
agreement with, or otherwise to, other persons (Virginia Code § 13.1- 9022(D)).
Supporting documentation: The supporting documentation is the articles of
organization (Virginia Code § 13.9- 1021.1(A) and when the power is delegated to
someone other than a manager or a member, also the operating agreement and, if
applicable, any other agreement (Virginia Code § 93.9- 1022(D)).
RESPONSE: The property owner Jeffries II LLC signature authority is spelled out
in the operating agreement for the LLC. The operating agreement pages covering
this are attached to each application.
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
5.1.29 CONVENT, MONASTERY
a. The ownership of the convent/monastery shall conform in all respects to the provisions of
Chapter 2 of Title 57 of the Code of Virginia, as the same may be amended from time to time,
or any successor statute;
b. This provision is intended to accommodate the longterm residency of nuns, monks or friars in
a communal setting as opposed to transient occupancy as may be experienced in other
religious retreats, provided that nothing contained herein shall be deemed to preclude
temporary lodging of guests as an accessory use to the convent or monastery.
(§ 5.1.29, 7 -6 -83)
5.1.30 AGRICULTURAL MUSEUM
a. Items for display in such museum shall be directly related to past or present
agricultural/forestal uses in Albemarle County;
b. Activities may include: passive display; active demonstration including tours of processing
areas; and public participation in such agricultural activity;
c. Sale of display items and accessory items may be permitted only upon expressed approval by
the board of supervisors.
(§ 5.1.30.12-2-87)
5.1.31 AUTOMOBILE OR TRUCK REPAIR SHOPS, BODY SHOPS, MOTORCYCLE AND OFF -
ROAD VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICE SHOPS, AND PUBLIC GARAGES
Each automobile or truck repair shop, body shop, motorcycle and off-road vehicle sales and
service shop, and public garage shall be subject to the following:
a. All parts, materials and equipment shall be stored within an enclosed building.
b. No vehicle awaiting repair shall be located on any portion of the site so as to be visible from
any public street or any residential property, and shall be limited to locations designated on
the approved site plan.
c. All services shall be performed within an enclosed building.
d. No buildings in which services are performed shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet from
any residential or agricultural district.
(§ 5.1.31, 12 -7 -88; Ord. 13-18(l).4-3-13)
5.1.32 TOWING AND TEMPORARY STORAGE OF MOTOR VEHICLES
a. This provision is intended to provide locations for the towing and/or temporary storage of
collision/disabled vehicles. No body or mechanical work, painting, maintenance, servicing,
disassembling, salvage or crushing of vehicles shall be permitted; except that the commission
may authorize maintenance and servicing of rental vehicles in a particular case;
18 -5 -16.1
Zoning Supplement #78,4-3-13
Re- Store'N Station — Phase II — Parking Calculations:
Parkinq Spaces _— REQUIRED
Retail Use
Convenience /Retail Expansion of Ext Store: 2,647 + 75 = 2,722 sf
(this is portion of new bldg & 5 x 15ft addition)
Retail/Tenant Space Front Bldg 2,850
Retail —Auto Repair Counter & Tires (Rear Bldg) 1,275
Retail — Auto repair shop/Tire Room 324
New Retail area is 7,171 sf
Parking Calculation: 7,171 sf x 0.8 = 5,736.8 sf net ultimate usable floor area)
x 1 space1100 sf net area = 57.37 s ace
Office Use
Office -2nd floor of front bldg (partial second floor) 4,300
(the front 18ft x 66ft is one story)
Office — 2nd floor over Auto retail 1,275
Office — 2nd floor over Auto repair shop 3.600
New Office area is 9,175sf
Parking Calculation is 9,175 sf x 0.8 = 7,340 sf of net ultimate usable floor area)
X 1 space/200 sf net area = 36.70 spaces
Auto Repair Shop — calculation:
4 vehicle bays x 2 spaces /bay = 8 spaces
1 space /employee x 4 employees = 4 spaces
Requirement is 12 s aces.
TOTAL NUMBER OF REQUIRED SPACES 106 1
PARKING SPACES PROVIDED ON THE CONCEPT PLAN:
Spaces located at the side and front of bldg.
14 spaces along the front internal travelway
4 spaces added to front row — west end
5 spaces taken from existing (Existing RV spaces converted to 5 spaces to offset)
3 spaces added to front row at bldg
10 spaces at outer edge — north end of drive through stacking lane
11 spaces along west side of new bldg
47 spaces
Spaces located at the side and rear of bldg.
2 spaces at door into Auto Retail bldg
2 spaces at back door of Auto shop (east side)
16 spaces at side outer edge
31 spaces at rear of Auto repair shop
8 spaces inside auto shop (4 bays x 2 cars each)
59 spaces
TOTAL NUMBER OF PROVIDED SPACES 106 1
Page 1 of 1
Subj: Re- Store'N Station Mandatory Pre - Application meeting
Date: 9/30/2015 9 :34 :05 A.M. Eastern Standard Time
From: rfalkenstein albemarle.or
To: musxitabaol.com
Jo,
Attached is a comment letter from your pre -app last Monday for Restore'N Station. Again, I apologize that
engineering staff was not present at the meeting. Glenn Brooks has reviewed the proposal and has provided
comments to me (included in the letter), mostly relating to circulation on the site.
Let me know if you have any questions on your application as you proceed. Please keep us updated about the
community meeting.
Thanks.
Rachel Falkenstein, AICP
Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
ph: 434.296.5832 ext. 3272
Friday, December 4, 2015 AOL: MusAt
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 2290245%
Phone 434 2% -5832 Fax 434 972 -4.126
Memorandum
To: Jo Higgins
From: Rachel Falkenstein
Date: 9/30/2015
Subject: TMP 55B -1, Restore'N Station Pre - Application Meeting Date: 9/21/2015
The following are County staff comments regarding the above noted pre - application meeting. This meeting may
satisfy the requirements for the mandatory pre- application. The purpose of for the meeting is summarized
below:
The purposes for a pre - application meeting are to: (i) provide the applicant and the county a common
understanding of the proposed project; (11) inform the applicant about the proposed project`s consistency with the
comprehensive plan, other relevant policies, and county regulations; (iii) broadly identify the planning, zoning and
other issues raised by the application that need to be addressed by the applicant; (iv) inform the applicant about
the applicable procedure; and (v) allow the director to identify the information the applicant must submit with the
application, including the supplemental information delineated in subsection (c). Receiving the relevant
supplemental information will allow the application to be comprehensively and efficiently reviewed
(1) Common understanding of the proposed project
• The applicant is proposing to amend the existing Special Use Permit, SP 2009 -34 to allow for an expanded
convenience /retail store, a drive - through window, office space and an auto repair shop.
• These uses are by -right within the HC zoning district. The SP is required for uses permitted by right not
served by public water exceeding 400 gallons per site acre per day [18- 24.2.2(13)].
• A new SP is required for the proposed drive- through window [18- 24.2.2(12)].
(H) Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
• The parcel is designated as Rural Area in the Comprehensive Plan which calls for protection of agricultural,
forestal, open space, and natural, historic and scenic resources.
• The Crozet Master Plan has the following recommendation for this stretch of Route 250: "No commercial
use is recommended on Route 250 West in order to retain Route 250 West as a Scenic Byway. Additional
commercial uses will add traffic to this road, which would damage the rural character of Route 250 West."
• Zoning of this parcel is HC Highway Commercial. The proposed uses are by -right but Special Use Permits
are required for the water usage and proposed drive- through.
1
(Ill) Broadly Identify the planning, zoning or other issues raised by the application that need to be addressed by
the applicant. Important items for consideration with your SP application are as follows:
* Water uses SP
o The application for the amended Special Use Permit should include water analysis for the
additional uses as well as water analysis for existing uses (as provided with pre -app materials).
• Drive- through SP
• A separate SP application and fee are required for the proposed drive - through window.
• It is recommended that the drive - through lane obtain adequate circulation and site distance.
• The plan does not appear to show enough stacking space for the drive- through window. Section
4.12.6 states that drive - through lanes serving restaurants shall provide a minimum of five (5)
stacking spaces that shall not impede any required parking or loading spaces or any pedestrian or
vehicular circulation aisles. The five (5) stacking spaces shall be provided at the order board and
additional spaces may be provided at the payment or pick -up windows
o A bypass lane may be necessary for the drive- through window. Section 4.12.17 states a travelway
width of up to sixteen (16) feet may be required to allow for bypass traffic, when deemed
necessary by the county engineer. In making this determination, the county engineer shall
consider the site specific factors including, but not limited to, the length of the travelway, nature
of the land use, and internal traffic circulation.
o An ARB application is needed for the drive - through SP.
• Site Plan Amendment
• A major site plan amendment will be required for the proposed changes.
• It is recommended that the site entrance throat not be reduced.
• Turn warrants should be provided for the additional uses.
• Minimum yard requirements adjacent to Rural Area properties is 50' for buildings and 20' for
parking; screening shall be provided adjacent to Rural Area parcels.
• A Ter 3 Growndwater Assessment is required for the proposed uses.
• Elevations should be provided with the ARB site plan application.
(iv) Applicable procedures
• SP Application and associated information:
o The proposed use requires the submittal of an SP application and additional information (see
below).
• Community Meeting:
• The applicant is required by ordinance to undertake a community meeting process as part of the
review of the SP request. The applicant should work with the Crozet Community Advisory Council
(CCAC) to use their monthly meeting as the community meeting for this project.
• Please keep staff informed of the community meeting location and time. Staff will attend the
meeting to answer questions, but the applicant is responsible for facilitating the discussion.
• Staff has compiled a list of neighboring property owners that should be notified of the meeting
(attached).
• White Hall District Board and Planning Commission members should also be notified of the
community meeting.
(v) Identify the information the applicant must submit with the application, including the supplemental
Information.
• An SP application along with the application fee ($2000 for a new SP for the drive- through; $1000 to
amend existing SP for water usage), plus the cost of public notice requirements when the application is
being processed.
• A concept plan that is consistent with Zoning Ordinance requirements for Special Use Permits (see
attached checklists).
• The latest recorded plat(s).
• Authorized owners' signatures.
• See attached SP checklist for other required information.
• Additional comments from Zoning are attached.
4
Sincerely,
i
Rachel Falkenstein
Senior Planner
Eric: Zoning comments
SP checklist
Community meeting guidelines
List of contacts and map for community meeting notifications
3
ALBEMARLE COUNTY CODE
5.1.29 CONVENT, MONASTERY
a. The ownership of the convent/monastery shall conform in all respects to the provisions of
Chapter 2 of Title 57 of the Code of Virginia, as the same may be amended from time to time,
or any successor statute;
b. This provision is intended to accommodate the long term residency of nuns, monks or friars in
a communal setting as opposed to transient occupancy as may be experienced in other
religious retreats; provided that nothing contained herein shall be deemed to preclude
temporary lodging of guests as an accessory use to the convent or monastery.
(§ 5.1.29,7-6-83)
5.1.30 AGRICULTURAL MUSEUM
a. Items for display in such museum shall be directly related to past or present
agricultural/forestal uses in Albemarle County;
b. Activities may include: passive display; active demonstration including tours of processing
areas; and public participation in such agricultural activity;
c. Sale of display items and accessory items may be permitted only upon expressed approval by
the board of supervisors.
(§ 5.1.30. 12 -2 -87)
5.1.31 AUTOMOBILE OR TRUCK REPAIR SHOPS, BODY SHOPS, MOTORCYCLE AND OFF -
ROAD VEHICLE SALES AND SERVICE SHOPS, AND PUBLIC GARAGES
lach automobile or truck repair shop, body shop, motorcycle and off -road vehicle sales and
service shop, and public garage shall be subject to the following:
a. All parts, materials and equipment shall be stored within an enclosed building.
b. No vehicle awaiting repair shall be located on any portion of the site so as to be visible from
any public street or any residential property, and shall be limited to locations designated on
the approved site plan.
c. All services shall be performed within an enclosed building.
d. No buildings in which services are performed shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet from
any residential or agricultural district.
(§ 5.1.31, 12 -7 -88; Ord. 13-18(l),4-3-13)
5.1.32 TOWING AND TEMPORARY STORAGE OF MOTOR VEHICLES
a. This provision is intended to provide locations for the towing and/or temporary storage of
collision/disabled vehicles. No body or mechanical work, painting, maintenance, servicing,
disassembling, salvage or crushing of vehicles shall be permitted; except that the commission
may authorize maintenance and servicing of rental vehicles in a particular case;
18-5-16.1
Zoning Supplement #79,4-3-13
01V '44 �Otov
of
ti
L
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Rachel Falkenstein
i
From: Ron Hi ins
Division: Zoning '
Date: September 29, 2015
Subject: Mandatory Pre -app Meeting Comments for "Re- Store'N Station Phase II"
The following comments are provided as input from the Zoning Division regarding the
September 21, 2015 pre - application meeting, listed as "exploratory" but revised to "mandatory".
1. General comments.
a. Proposal — Amendment to SP200900034 and Major Site Plan amendment for
Re -Stare `N Station (now Mulberry Station) se per Section 24.2.2 #13 — water
consum 'one eedin x100 gallons Per ggre per
b. Required parking for use — Calculations on plan are correct for retail and
office but shall also include parking for the "Auto Repair-Service" of: One
1 saace ner emodovoe pigs two 2 spaces R1r each service stall.
c. Building setbacks/build to lines ok as shown.
d. Supplementary Regulation Section as applicable - See Section 5.1;31 for
a-upplementary reaulafigns scocific to agla repair.,
2. Application Plan or Concept Plan for SP.
a. An Application Plan or A Concept Plan is needed —Include as much detail
as possible applicable to the proposed water use, including: Proposed
changes to the plan approved with the original Special Permit and changes
to conditions listed in the November 12, 2010 approval letter for
SP200900034.
3. While it is noted that no changes are being requested to SP conditions regarding water
flow restriction devices and the water use limit, you might want to include some water
use analysis of the proposed additional uses as there are likely to be questions raised
about this during the review.
4. Process — regarding completeness of the application
a. Provide a completed application. Make sure all boxes are checked and you have
provided the information noted on the application by that checkbox.
i. SP Application link
htt : //www. lbem rle.o u adtma es/forms centeL/deoartmeatstCom
mun' velo ntff rms/S ecial Use Permit A lice ions/S ecial U
se Permit AvOication.0f
b. The SP checklist is needed. It will negg to be the cony of the checklist
orgyjded to you with the mangatory cmments of onefill2g out only
you-
c. Provide a recorded plat of the property with the Deed Book & Page #.
d. Please note that all real estate taxes, nuisance charges, stormwater
management utility fees, and any other charges that constitute a lien on the
subject property, which are owed to -the County of Albemarle must be paid prior
to accepting the application.
e. The appropriate signature of the owner, the owner's agent, or a contract
purchaser. If either the owner's agent or a contract purchaser signs the
application then include the owner's written consent that the agent or contract
purchaser may file the application on their behalf. See below for applicable
signature requirements for ownership not in the name on an individual person or
persons.
Limited liability companies ("LLCs ")
Authorized signatories: The authorized signatories are: (1) if the LLC is not a
manager - managed LLC, any member; (2) if the LLC is a manager-managed LLC, the
manager or any member unless the articles of organization limit the members' authority
(Virginia Code § 13.1- 1021.1(A)); or (3) unless otherwise provided in the articles of
organization or an operating agreement, the members have the power and authority to
delegate to one or more other persons, including agents, officers and employees of a
member or manager of the LLC, members' rights and powers to manage and control the
business affairs of the LLC, and to delegate by a management agreement or other
agreement with, or otherwise to, other persons (Virginia Code § 13.1- 1022(D)).
Supporting documentation: The supporting documentation is the articles of
organization (Virginia Code § 13.1- 1021.1(A) and when the power is delegated to
someone other than a manager or a member, also the operating agreement and, if
applicable, any other agreement (Virginia Code § 13.1- 1022(D)).
COMMUNITY MEETING GUIDELINES
1. Purpose of community meeting:
a. Provide interested members of the public the opportunity to receive information about
the proposed project, the applicable procedures, and the policies of the comprehensive
plan, other relevant policies, and regulations applicable to the proposed project.
b. Allow the public to ask questions about the proposed project.
C. Inform the Board of Supervisor and Planning Commissioner of the proposal. The BoS and
PC member representing the area where the proposal is located must be notified
of /invited to the meeting. Scheduling the meeting around their availability is strongly
encouraged.
II. Required of all ZMAs and SPs, and particularly important if the proposal is likely to generate
public concerns because of the nature of the approval requested, acreage affected, proposed
density and /or scale, potential impacts of the proposal (traffic, noise, etc.) , or due to the
history of the proposal /property.
lll. May be waived if proposed project is not likely to generate public concerns, is or such a small
scale as to have negligible impacts to surrounding properties /area, or the applicant has already
held one or more community meetings which conform to County required community meeting
expectations (so as to make another community meeting unnecessary).
1V. Waiver of community meeting determined during proposed project's pre -app process
a. Determine no later than required pre -app meeting comment deadline.
b. Note requirement for community meeting in pre -app meeting comments to applicant.
V. The community meeting should be held no later than 31 days after fee is paid activating the
review (this will allow information from the meeting to be included in lead reviewer's first round
of comments, is necessary). The meeting may be held at a later date, if circumstances warrant.
VI. Conduct of meeting
a. Scheduled by applicant after consultation with staff.
i. Hold in location deemed reasonably accessible to residents in the area of the
proposed project.
ii. If there is an active Master Plan Community Advisory Council which covers
proposed site, strong consideration should be given to using a CAC meeting for
the venue for the community meeting and discussion. Other
standing/ "recognized" community bodies may also be acceptable for
community meetings (neighborhood association or community associations
such as EARL (Earlysville Area Residents League).
iii. As a general rule /guideline, notification of meetings should be sent to all
property owners of record within a .25 to .5 mile radius in a Development
Area /.5 to 1 mile radius in the Rural Area of the location of the proposed project
or such other area as deemed appropriate for the proposed project. This
specific area to be notified shall be determined by the planning staff based on
the specifics of the proposal.
1. County can provide applicant an invitation letter and property owner
list, if needed. '
2. Applicant to sign invitation letter and send by certified mail
3. Documentation of notifications shall be provided to staff.
4. If a CAC meeting Is the venue far the community meeting and
discussion, notice to surrounding the project area needs to be sent to
advise of this meeting location consistent with the guidelines of iii.,
above unless it is determine that comment from the CAC body alone is
sufficient for the proposal. Abutting owners should always be notified
of any CAC or community meeting regarding the proposal).
iv. Staff, PC and BoS members for the district in which proposed project is located
shall be invited.
v. If held after fee is paid activating the review, signs may be posted at the
proposed project site before the meeting is held to assist in notification, if
deemed appropriate or necessary.
b. The meeting is to be facilitated by applicant.
i. Staff to provide general information on applicable County policies /process (but
not comments about the proposal itself).
ii. Applicant to provide overview of the proposal. Location maps, concept plans
shall be provided; additional narratives, codes of development may be provided
if available.
iii. Various formats for the meeting are acceptable and may vary depending on
project type (open house/ "walk- through" format or presentation with Q & A
period are acceptable formats).
VII. Meeting follow -up
a. Staff to document issues identified in the meeting and provide to the applicant and to
the PC and BoS in staff report as appropriate.
b. No requirement to revise proposed project based on public questions and comments, but
applicant can at their own discretion.
C. If the applicant decides to revise the proposed project to address public comments,
revisions should be included in applicant's re- submittal.
W
w
w
� W
.� -1 O
z ° w am O z
W
Z m m p O a U�r
O W V U Z z z `' =2
w - = z w D m O t¢n w � IL) Ca
�Z� W w>` Q ¢zv = LU >- w ¢ �Jo
zaz wujz� �� zz�z w U OU w >.z�
>- z z >- }x} xF- WCo Oz - O-- m �� x- W 0-lz
�m mJ?o-? x2W� X 00-0 Qx�m zx LU zQ z
p W 2 U F- U) rA 0 U m N O� Q Q p a N�} p
OxOxOOaOg�F- OZwm¢'� ~ ~J� �x z ¢ C9 C4 ¢�Om
0 m0 W x xxJW -m x- cI) F- xp U
��Z�ZZToZOOxoz ww WM0W�� F-F- °zz�zx LLI
u�W w UQm x� ❑u�0� UJ� Op00¢xm O F- xx� O - .xx ❑m
Q{) J{� aF -a'0EL xQ�0 x �axV f��VmWmW —g�20o
❑ xfr x�0 LL .J mm
2❑ ❑MMZ� >rncnz UQ:W ° C0 5LL- -1 xxxz -,❑¢❑
OxrjroO =OzzM< QpF-yaF- °4°dT -6>-�- j � -J-jxW- OOw¢WW � =�
xm-mr =0x000 °2g =aW� C7 (9 CD¢p =J- F- �aiY1r Y(} W}LLI ❑UW
F- J F- F- gF- rnmx }UON ZZ z -❑ .¢
}}x� xxOwNxzjcC9°93c.)zm UF- cnz{lL >zzUZax} - <xV
F,WW WLUtW2XU1 Z O Z �W OOWO� W
mac_,g�YYUYWWm�xF- aF- _?c=xx= waLLIW— a ❑m ❑❑m z= zZ
to ❑O = -xY W W W Y �� =F- N Q
SO�WWOO<Ogg�gx a ❑� =�ooMO -1 ¢aWz�❑m�zz�zzw0¢p� I.
0222 7c72{ �aQ= mrUn�¢�=�t;iXLLwcxiLUR:<O<b=m=) n- ❑xO>xao
��LLL ZO❑Wm�',
Y Y
Y Y
W W
H H
H H
H H
CL z CL z
O0 0
CL
IL CL
�0
00
O
m
H
H
UALLh LL
L� LL
Y Y
) i
z =z=
UU
00
UU
�.
w 00
.zJ J?Z
CD Go
Q¢ N O
Q Q Q O O Q a Q
��
Q Q Q c' i M Q Q
O C,4
M Z co co co 0
Z Z Z c°p 8 Z Z Z
Z Z Z Go r�
cpc�ZZ
Y Y Y
Y
Y
H H
H
H
QH
Z
Ut�C7
O
0 _j JZ
.zJ J?Z
C0 fn w
W
c=
Y
0000
aGYY
000
0
Y0000
0LuWLuLu
wLJJWw
ocxx
x
w0 owcrm
xxxx
r O V)
m LL LL LL LL
LL LL LL LL
ODMOpa 1C1¢Q¢raC)0 < arLo, �QQ
e.rr N�� �rLgp7r(�� ��trrNT- -- �
to co cozco2ZZcpLC -VMZZzvv W v z z
p O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r Q O r NV M p O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p g O 0 0 0 o 0 0 o o 0 o 0 o
OQmU❑ W LL- OQQOaQ`¢aQ�OQ00 mooQmUQ000OOooOOOo0oo
!']c+]MMMMMM �p �G�OCbS(p 11- 00 W IAOr rrrNrNM I�CDOOrNM�i(j
O C o 0 0 0 o C C O O O O p o 0 0 0
O C O O O C o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O o 0 0
000a0000000o0o0oa0000o00000000a000000000ao
= O O o O O o O O O Q O O O O O O O Q O o O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 o o o o c o g$ 000
g
m0000000000ao0000000a0000o00000000000000000
°as°{°n�MLoWLoinLoLLoto0 wLaInL0 Lo LD Lo toit) n�0toMW)W)W) mLmc,umiW) V)comnIn
�oo00000000000000000000 LC) 0000000000000000000
J
O
O
U
2
C7
2
W
J
Q
F Y Y Y Y LL Y
W
m
° Cc
J
Q
UU Z
Ix
JJ J tu
LU
} } Cl)
a�S oLS (} ❑
} } D
Q
Q F
UU a
ti
4)
Lo JJ J_j
c
(p O
��UWWLLULLIL100
W_ V�
•
�
J F F F 2
J "y
WLUwowwWOJ
W>a0- CL W
N E
D
�W OOOJ
O
y U
�Q¢ a.aa¢
O
= 2r r_
oo❑w6azzz2
w W
2
o
LL] LL7 1C3 0 t[) �g
Cw
UUU_W2»>¢
Z� =0��g }0
lm=1
UU x x x_
O Z m
z m
0CQQ¢Q¢O 00� 2 �U
a.a.aa
a
F F F
¢F ¢F
16600
0
3: co w
w 0 cc co
O a: LL LL LL ❑ lL
F Y Y Y Y LL Y
W U0L) -� U
W
° Cc
OOOOO O
O o a O in S Z Z L
v 0 co co in
Q F
ti
4)
c
(p O
aQQaO�
W_ V�
•
�
aiiCDCOc5l
O
0)0ati
r r^ r r t^ a 0 0 r
0 CD CD CD
N E
D
Q O O O 0 Q O O p
0 0 a 0 0 0 a b Q
O
y U
OQa OOrr -rp
O O O O O O O O a
O
= 2r r_
O a O Q a 0 0 0 a
M M M M M W W W Q
B'2 'E
LL] LL7 1C3 0 t[) �g
t6
L �p
acoo�000a
is CL
C
.2 ? ? ? N ?
0{D000
C1 C)
I
O Q 0 0 0
H LL LL U- LL I L
�MCONOI�I�COr 1��C'»C3fN1�CACOCDC�NCONrN� O NNCQf�f1tt7CprCANMrN
vO00Nr CDC ^ CV) Q>OOOCV (ON1�- 00 MNMAl0r, arm r 70 Orp QM et a7OQicV f� 'i CQN NC�jOli 6Opf� V— CDll�O
Or Nr N r COrC9r V 04 ICI rr r(DC140
O
x
f
t
I
r r M
0 M N CA CA W I
N CO W ^ N N
N r N N r N i
>NW a to LO Nccn >Na T
CY N N CV N N N N Cl N N J co CO N CAE N N M M N M N N N N N N N N CV N a CV N N w N
NNNNNNN NNNN(,ZO >NN >aaN¢NNNCOQ!tiN > >aNNapMNN >00
¢¢¢¢Q a¢a¢¢ aWWZ¢ 0¢avW,ca ❑�❑a¢a¢N¢w0 z ¢¢OzN¢¢W¢a`
a » » » » » >wU_ »Xzz >z »» >�OO »❑ ¢ »� »_
�- W��- �����- ►- r��00� zz 5 = o=0= a03 W >i-
ZwWWwWW WwWw .IJ �y �g- �JlLi - .ZWW1ooNNN X W NN NNO W N,-Wo_I N00o0o QVZWoo 0 0ooaLL,Lu w no0a0�oW N�
v i .
UUUUUC�c�vUUC�c. �U( �au.. c�U.. ��a�U�t�UC�U ►- UC�C74.000�¢c�c�UUU,
O
LLJO
r
W W
Y � W
_Y
❑ a N
Y Y w Y 0: O ❑ W ❑ z o
a a U a� �❑ ❑¢aC ❑ ❑a❑ ~_ m 0 CL
Jaz (L ZZU.ZIL aZ =W 0 ❑o- 00x0 a W �w a WZ Ow
�g� °ga¢g =c� try =¢ zzz¢z _ja zo wo ¢w�gZ�g
OS2OS2O0w0��0wH }a❑to J� z�0y Oa ¢z ��m3�
oD�(n�Lmm =m�L -m ¢❑toW Lua a LL u> ZaHO I- ¢m0000LO
NY�YwU) coYYm�W ZYOY+� m ¢ppm m r Qfrr 0
..iUJUJJaJUU-i W—m C -) O 2P��2JUrJQO❑ �00000Q�=C7HH�F -_r
O O�' -W�00 3: O -1OXU »¢❑�OX.�>>60C" C66Z*DQ9Wwww�C
_ _W______=Z� woWmg❑o�❑ =Im =im20000N 0WXXX0:
V 9T OIr NO(Olhe- Il)IOOM OOef 0I-cD r OUmmco LLLCOLLmE
CO COCQ (3 LO CaOMQ ry crlcOQ NQ0 rOOOr CO 0:
NONONNON00 wr OM OQOCIOMN Nr c'rJOOOOOCliLO
co to COcOCC(OrCp(GCO�Nr CIQrCOa1-_M c"] 1OM(D(oa(DCV)0- T� -01a. dfL rT- N V �MI�
CC
04N N
$< �5
q�A %P� �-i
&�CM��C4��
&CO@ CN CM Ngm
$ ><$1
-i q -wLUwwq
N���NNNNW
wmxw9222ƒ
000Y00000
Boa
LU LU/
qdW
0-555
Z0O 0.U.LLLQ
5ww0 «000«
LU w 0
$R(D 3L) U��
U.
ywwF-
LU w
pp O6w6Z
WP�kMTTYO
M v- v- W M E O o_
V Lc)T- 0 0 V
T��
X32 32
000
CO) oMM ¥@nLO
I—
2NNr-
d ®�
Aq¢
C14
CC
04N N
$< �5
q�A %P� �-i
&�CM��C4��
&CO@ CN CM Ngm
$ ><$1
-i q -wLUwwq
N���NNNNW
wmxw9222ƒ
000Y00000
Boa
LU LU/
qdW
0-555
Z0O 0.U.LLLQ
5ww0 «000«
LU w 0
$R(D 3L) U��
U.
ywwF-
LU w
pp O6w6Z
WP�kMTTYO
M v- v- W M E O o_
V Lc)T- 0 0 V
v �
n
4
r
Ifs
woo
5 �Y
R
CVET
lt(;l
L �
r
r
w
r
R
w7
0 #A2ULAA
YT
.y.'.' R'oil J J
r
h
P
e
r
I�
SU I
� b
LQ
C
0
�
Z
v �
n
4
r
Ifs
woo
5 �Y
R
CVET
lt(;l
L �
r
r
w
r
R
w7
0 #A2ULAA
YT
.y.'.' R'oil J J
r
h
P
e
r
I�
SU I