Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP200800154 Review Comments 2008-10-24Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District October 24, 2008 706 Forest St, Ste G Charlottesville, VA 22903 975-0224 TO: Summer Frederick I Planning DepartmerE RE. Soils Report and Comments for Re-Store'n Station c; ul Fi Ir ru all co Cl) F u: -{7 /\ (". Tom..- . ._'i•J crJ cn 03 r ) D• cn i V N V \ 1 co oj C o f, co iE r _— I' - ', ,!( j Dui > \ '; `• Ji P, EE"{{YY yb / [ J , \ \y ... y I .J ' 1 r- ,- '' f J 111/// ,,,JJ"' / / / - (• USDA united States natural Prepared by: Thomas Jefferson Soil & Water Department of Resources Conservation District Agriculture Conservation 434- 975 -0224 Service Soils Report SOILS REPORT FOR: Re- Store'n Station Soil Survey Area: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Unit: 7B Braddock loam, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Braddock is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 8 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderately low content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a moderate shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 2e. The Virginia soil management group is O. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 36B Hayesville loans, 2 to 7 percent slopes Description Category: Virginia FOTG Hayesville is a gently sloping to moderately sloping, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is loam about 7 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 2e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 37C3 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to 15 percent slopes, severely eroded Description Category: Virginia FOTG Hayesville is a strongly sloping to moderately steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 7 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. Tile slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 4e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Map Unit: 37D3 Hayesville clay loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded Description Category: Virginia FOTG Hayesville is a moderately steep to steep, very deep, well drained soil. Typically the surface layer is clay loam about 7 inches thick. The surface layer has a moderate content of organic matter. The slowest permeability is moderate. It has a high available water capacity and a low shrink swell potential. This soil is not flooded and is not ponded. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of more than 6 feet. The land capability classification is 6e. The Virginia soil management group is X. This soil is not hydric. Small Commercial Buildings - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Thomas Jefferson SWCD 1 10/24/08 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 7B Braddock loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited percent slopes Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited percent slopes Map 370 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Very limited 15 percent slopes, severely 7B Braddock loam, 2 to 7 eroded percent slopes 37D3 Hayesville clay loam, 15 Very limited to 25 percent slopes, percent slopes severely eroded 3703 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Septic Tank Absorption Fields - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published eroded Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 37D3 Hayesville clay loam, 15 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 to 25 percent slopes, Map severely eroded Symbol Soil Name Rating 7B Braddock loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited percent slopes 36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 Somewhat limited percent slopes 370 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Somewhat limited 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 37D3 Hayesville clay loam, 15 Very limited to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded Mapunit Hydric Rating Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 7B Braddock loam, 2 to 7 Not hydric percent slopes 36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 Not hydric percent slopes 3703 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Not hydric 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 37D3 Hayesville clay loam, 15 Not hydric to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded Thomas Jetterson SWCD 2 10/24/08 am Soil Shrink -Swell - Dominant Soil Top Depth : 0 Bottom Depth : 0 Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 7B Braddock loam, 2 to 7 1.5 percent slopes 36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 1.5 percent slopes 370 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to 1.5 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 37133 Hayesville clay loam, 15 1.5 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded Corrosion Concrete - Dominant Condition Soil Survey: Albemarle County, Virginia Survey Status: Published Correlation Date: 12/01/1981 Distribution Date: 10/21/2002 Map Symbol Soil Name Rating 7B Braddock loam, 2 to 7 Moderate percent slopes 36B Hayesville loam, 2 to 7 Moderate percent slopes 370 Hayesville clay loam, 7 to Moderate 15 percent slopes, severely eroded 37133 Hayesville clay loam, 15 Moderate to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded Thomas Jetterson SWC13 3 10/24/08 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 DAVID S. EKERN, P.E. COMMISSIONER November 4` 2008 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments November 6` 2008 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the November 6` 2008 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP - 2008 -00146 Hollymead Town Center -Area C Block 9 -Maior (Gerald Gatobu) 1. Indicate whether Laurel Park Lane is proposed to be public or private. If it's public, the entrances will need to be evaluated. SDP -2008 -00154 Re- Store'n Station — Preliminary (Summer Frederick) 1. The overall layout, transitions, and turn and taper lengths are adequate and in accordance with VDOT standards. Dependant upon the results of the Traffic Impact Study, there may be a need to extend the left turn storage lane to 200 feet. This will only require an adjustment of the striping plan. 2. The outlet for the pipe that extends under the existing gravel needs to be identified. If there is a pipe that runs along the edge of the existing road, it will need to be located outside the proposed new pavement. 3. The 20 foot radial return should be evaluated for it's adequacy with a template of the design vehicle. This radius may need to be closer to 40 feet. 4. The pavement structure needs to be determined by note 3 in the WP -2 standard. The milling and overlay section in the typical sections needs to be in accordance with note 4 on the WP -2 standard. 5. The proposed right turn lane in the typical curb section needs to be 12 feet to the gutter pan, not the face of curb. 6. CG -7 should be used for design speeds greater than 45 mph. When the posted speed is 45 mph, it is assumed that the design speed is 50 mph. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 7. The CG -12 detail needs to be updated to the latest standard to show truncated dome detectable warning devices. 8. A drainage and striping plan will need to be submitted with the final site plan. Please request the applicants provide a written description of revisions with re- submissions. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me prior to sharing these comments with the applicants. Sincerely, Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434 -293 -0011 cc Bill Fritz, David Benish, Juan Wade, Elaine Echols, Joan McDowell, Judith Wiegand, Margaret Maliszewski, David Pennock, Francis McCall, Jon Sharp, Summer Frederick, Patrick Lawrence, and John Giometti WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING ALB, COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 November 4, 2008 Nat Perkins NP Engineering Via email: nat.perkins @gmail.com RE: SDP2008 -154 Re- Store'n Station Dear Mr. Perkins: The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer) Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner) Albemarle County Division of Planning (E911) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Architectural Review Board) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Water Protection) Virginia Department of Transportation Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that could affect approval of the proposed project. Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site Review Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in writing justification for not incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) full size copies and one (1) 11" x 17" copy to the Department of Community Development including responses to each of the attached comments of the Site Review Committee by November 17, 2008. Failure to submit this information by this date will result in suspension of the review schedule. Review will resume when revisions are submitted along with a reinstatement fee of $65. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Summer Frederick Senior Planner Zoning & Current Development IIhC1S County of Albemarle Department of Community Development To: NP Engineering From: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner Division: Zoning & Current Development Date: November 4, 2008 Subiect: SDP2008 -154 Re- Store'n Station - Preliminary The Planner for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approval of the preliminary plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] 1. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] Please provide owner, zoning, tax map and parcel number, and present use for all adjacent parcels. This includes those parcels on the opposite side of SR 250. 2. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a), Sec. 18 -21.4] Because the height of the building is in excess of 35' by 3', an additional 6' must be added to the setback lines for those boundaries abutting property zoned RA -Rural Area. Please correct information on Cover Sheet, and adjust lines shown on plans. 3. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(b)] Please provide maximum number of employees. 4. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(b), Sec. 18- 4.12.4(a)] The amount of provided parking cannot exceed the minimum required parking count by more than 20 %. Please reduce number of provided parking spaces to comply. 5. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(b), Sec. 18- 4.12.6] For purposes of parking calculations, gas stations are categorized as "Retail use not otherwise identified ". Please use formula found in this category to determine minimum number of parking spaces required. 6. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(b)] Please provide maximum amount of paved parking and vehicular circulation areas. Please contact Summer Frederick at the Department of Community Development 296- 5832 ext. 3565 for further information. F ALg, 7 1 %kC:IN County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Summer Frederick, Planner From: Amy Pnaum, Engineering Review Division: Current Development Date: November 4, 2008 Subject: SDP200800154, Re- Store'n Station - Preliminary The preliminary site plan for Re- Store'n Station, received on October 13, 2008, has been reviewed. The engineering review for current development can recommend approval once the following items are adequately addressed: 1. Please label more clearly the existing right -of -way and edge of asphalt of Route 250 on Existing Conditions and Road Improvements sheets. 2. Please add sight distance triangles and easements to the entrance onto Route 250. [DM] 3. The Road Improvements Plan states that the existing 15" and 18" pipes in the Route 250 right -of- way will be extended, please show the proposed extension on the Site Plan. Please also add direction of flow to these pipes. "Invert In = 701.91" is lower than "Invert Out = 702.14 ". 4. The Grading Plan should show proposed grading associated with the new lanes on Route 250. There appears to be a low spot where the 15" and 18" pipe meet, will this be filled in? 5. Proposed grades between the parking lot and the existing 15' roadway appear steeper than 2:1, please revise the grading or use a retaining wall to maintain slopes no greater than 2:1. [DM] 6. Guardrail is required along the edge of the parking lot in all locations where the elevation of the parking lot is 7 feet higher than the toe of the tie -in slope. [DM] 7. An island is necessary at the edge of the 8 proposed parking spaces toward the back of the site. DM] 8. The proposed dumpster pad must extend 8 feet beyond the front of the dumpster. [18- 4.12.9] 9. The proposed loading space should be adjacent to the structure. [18- 4.12 -13] 10. The proposed Atlantis D- Raintank does not have a water quality removal rate, please specify the type of water quality measures that will be provided for this site. [I 8-32.5.6.k] 11. The proposed level spreader may not satisfy the requirements of VESCH MS -19. The exit slope may not have a grade greater than 10 %. An adequate channel and easement may be necessary through neighboring properties. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 DAVID S. EKERN, P.E. COMMISSIONER November 4th , 1008 Mr. Glenn Brooks Department of Engineering and Development 401 McIntire Rd. Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Site Review Meeting Comments November 6` I ', 2008 site review meeting Dear Mr. Brooks: Below are VDOT's comments on the Site Plans for the November 6` I ', 2008 Site Review Committee Meeting: SDP- 2008 -00146 Hollvmead Town Center -Area C Block 9 -Maior (Gerald Gatobu) 1. Indicate whether Laurel Park Lane is proposed to be public or private. If it's public, the entrances will need to be evaluated. SDP - 2008 -00154 Re- Store'n Station — Preliminary (Summer Frederick 1. The overall layout, transitions, and turn and taper lengths are adequate and in accordance with VDOT standards. Dependant upon the results of the Traffic Impact Study, there may be a need to extend the left turn storage lane to 200 feet. This will only require an adjustment of the striping plan. 2. The outlet for the pipe that extends under the existing gravel needs to be identified. If there is a pipe that runs along the edge of the existing road, it will need to be located outside the proposed new pavement. 3. The 20 foot radial return should be evaluated for it's adequacy with a template of the design vehicle. This radius may need to be closer to 40 feet. 4. The pavement structure needs to be determined by note 3 in the WP -2 standard. The milling and overlay section in the typical sections needs to be in accordance with note 4 on the WP -2 standard. 5. The proposed right turn lane in the typical curb section needs to be 12 feet to the gutter pan, not the face of curb. 6. CG -7 should be used for design speeds greater than 45 mph. When the posted speed is 45 mph, it is assumed that the design speed is 50 mph. WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING 7. The CG -12 detail needs to be updated to the latest standard to show truncated dome detectable warning devices. 8. A drainage and striping plan will need to be submitted with the final site plan. Please request the applicants provide a written description of revisions with re- submissions. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me prior to sharing these comments with the applicants. Sincerely, Joel DeNunzio, P.E. Staff Engineer VDOT Charlottesville Residency 434 -293 -0011 cc Bill Fritz, David Benish, Juan Wade, Elaine Echols, Joan McDowell, Judith Wiegand, Margaret Maliszewski, David Pennock, Francis McCall, Jon Sharp, Summer Frederick, Patrick Lawrence, and John Giometti WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Application #: FS — DP260 - 8001 - 54 f Short Review COmi a tS Project Name:'iRe - StoWn Station - N Preliminary — Non - res Date Completed: 11/04/2008 Reviewer: Amy Pflaum Engineer Z &CD Review Status: Requested Changes Reviews Comments: SRC 11 16108 Date Completed: 10/20/2008 Reviewer: Andrew Slack Review Status: No Objection Reviews Comments: NO OBJECTION. Date Completed E911 Reviewer: Eryn Brennan Planning Review Status: Requested Changes Reviews Comments: This project is scheduled for ARB review on December 1 st and comments will be provided after that I meeting. Date Completed: 11/04/2008 Reviewer: Josh Rubinstein Water Resources Manager Review Status: Requested Changes Reviews Comments: Excellent Tier III Groundwater Assessment. Please show the primary and contingency well sites on the plat. Please submit a hard copy and an electronic copy of the final Tier III Groundwater iAssessment. Since the 725 gallons per day projected water usage for the four acre lot is less than 400 gallons per day per acre and the store will only discharge domestic waste, no special use permit is required under chapter 18 section 24.2.2 (14) of the Albemarle County Code. Date Completed: 10/22/2008 Reviewer: Jay Schlothauer Inspections Review Status: No Objection Reviews Comments: [Based on plans dated September 18, 2008. No comments or conditions. Page: 1.00 County of Albemarle Printed On: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development To: Nat Perkins; NP Engineering via email: nat.perkins @gmail.com From: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner Division: Current Development Date: November 20, 2009 Subject: SDP2008 -154 Re- Store'n Station - Preliminary The Planner for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County Department Community Development will recommend approval of the preliminary plan referred to above when the following items have been satisfactorily addressed. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time. Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.) [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.] 1. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] Please provide a north point arrow for all applicable sheet. 2. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] Please provide present use for all adjacent parcels. 3. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(a)] The setback lines for the rear of the property are the same as those for the West side of the property, as the adjacent parcels to the rear are also zoned RA. Please change information on plans accordingly. 4. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(b)] Topography must be shown for fifty (50) feet outside the property on all sides. It seems that the topography outside the eastern boundary does not go to 50'. Please correct. 5. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(e)] Please accurately label landscape features shown on Existing Conditions sheet. 6. [Sec. 18- 32.5.6(n)] Dimensions and location for all proposed improvements must be shown on plan. If fences or walls are to be located around dumpster pads, or elsewhere, please include required information. 7. [Sec. 18- 24.2.2.13] The Zoning Manager has determined that the proposed use will exceed the by -right allowable usage of water, therefore a special use permit is required for the proposed project. Please contact Summer Frederick at the Department of Community Development 296- 5832 ext. 3565 for further information. Review Comments Project Name: Re- Store'n Station - Prel Preliminary — Non - residential Date Completed: ITuesday, November 04, 2008 Reviewer: Josh Rubinstein Department /Division /Agency: Water Resources Manager Reviews m Excellent Tier III Groundwater Assessment. Please show the primary and contingency well sites on the plat. Please also include in the projected water usage the source of the actual water usage data for comparable convenience /gas /take out establisments. Please submit a hard copy and an electronic copy of the final Tier III Groundwater Assessment. Since the 725 gallons per day projected water usage for the four acre lot is less than 400 gallons per day per acre and the store will only discharge domestic waste, no special use permit is required under chapter 18 section 24.2.2 14) of the Albemarle County Code. Review Status: Requested Changes Page: 11 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 03/02/2011 Review Comments Project Name: Re- Store'n Station - Prel Preliminary — Non - residential Date Completed: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 Reviewer: Joel DeNunzio Department/Division /Agency: VDOT Reviews Restore'n Station SDP - 2008 -00154 Preliminary Site Plan Y, I have reviewed the revisions to the plan and the response comments and have no additional comments. The items identified in the response that will be addressed with the final plan can wait until the final plan is submitted. If you have any questions, please let me know. Thanks, Joel Review Status: No Objection Page: 11 County of Albemarle Printed On: 03/02/2011 of ALB t RGINt COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone(434)296 -5832 Fax(434)972 -4126 October 28, 2009 MEMO Regarding SDP 2008 -154 The applicant will need to submit a complete application for full ARB review. All items on the ARB application and appropriate checklist must be submitted. The ARB checklists are available online at lit forms _ash ,"ectio icl do artmcnt =c cl Although a full review has not been conducted by ARB staff, possible issues the applicant may want to consider before submitting an ARB application include: The location and /or screening of the two enclosed dumpster areas behind the 3 -pump fuel canopy. The steep grading around the southern parts of the proposed development. The layout, overall design, and minimal plantings along the Entrance Corridor. The layout and overall design of the plantings along the eastern edge of the parcel. Any proposed landscaping around the monument sign. The excessive lighting under the fuel pump canopies. Make sure all lighting measurements are clearly legible on the photometric plan. November 17, 2009 Ms. Jo Higgins Project Development Limited LC 2564 Mt. Torrey Road Lyndhurst, Virginia 22980 Re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION Re -Store N' Station — Revised Preliminary Site Plan & Water Use Data As proposed in SDP2008 -154, TMP55B -1, (New Data of October 23, 2009) Dear Ms. Higgins This letter is a determination of whether the proposed use described in the resubmitted site development plan application materials for the Re -Store N' Station (SDP 2008 -154) will require a special use permit under the use classification in Albemarle County Code Sec. 18.24.2.2 (13). It is my determination, after careful review of your new data and analysis dated October 23, 2009, the pertinent sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and discussions with Albemarle County Officials, that the proposed Re -Store N' Station, SDP2008 -154 will require a Special Use Permit in accordance with Section 18.24.2.2, (13) of the Albemarle County Code (Zoning Ordinance). This determination is based on the conclusion that there is a significant likelihood that the project's water consumption will not stay below the 400 gallons per site acre per day consumption threshold stated in this Zoning Ordinance Section. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have the right to appeal it within thirty 30) days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Virginia Code Sec. 15.2- 2311(A). If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120. Notice of this determination is being given as of the same date as this letter. Sincerely, Ronald L. Higgins, AICP Chief of Zoning /Deputy Zoning Administrator cc: Jeffries II, LLC, P. O. Box 910, Crozet, VA 22932 Service Auth4rity TO: Summer Frederick FROM: Gary Whelan, Civil Engineer DATE: November 20, 2009 RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: Re- Store'n Station SDP200800154 TM55B -1 The below checked items apply to this site. X 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for: A. Water and sewer B. Water only X C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service X 2. An 8 inch water line is located approximately 100' distant. 3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is Gpm + at 20 psi residual. X 4. An 8 inch sewer line is located approximately 1,800' distant. 5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. X 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future easements. 7. and plans are currently under review. 8. and plans have been received and approved. X 9. No plans are required. 10. Final and plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting tentative approval. 11. Final site plan may /may not be signed. 12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections. 13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer. Comments: This project is in the ASCAJA for water to existing structures only. The ACSA has no comment. The site plan does not show or incorrectly shows: meter locations water line size waterline locations sewer line size sewer line locations expected wastewater flows easements expected water demands 168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698 www.serviceauthoriy.org C 9 GIRGIN` County of Albemarle Department of Communitv Development Memorandum To: Summer Frederick, Planner From: Amy Pflaum, Engineering Review Division: Current Development Date: November 4, 2008 REV #1: November 23, 2009 Subject: SDP200800154, Re- Store'n Station - Preliminary The preliminary site plan for Re- Store'n Station, resubmitted on October 19, 2009, has been reviewed. The engineering review for current development can recommend approval once the following items are adequately addressed: i; €i 'I, .. r `.i {: , ;Z t I , ... i ' .. .. REV #1: Conrrnerit has been acldre.ssed. 1i: e.'i a{litl 4S i It € \ €7i.E frl3 €':z t 3 1 ., , e tt i €Z { ,j \ P { ! d REV #1: Comment has been addressed. 3. The Road Improvements Plan states that the existing 15" and 18" pipes in the Route 250 right -of- way will be extended, please show the proposed extension on the Site Plan. Please also add direction of flow to these pipes. "Invert In = 701.91" is lower than "Invert Out = 702.14 ". REV #1: Please show the existing culverts under and adjacent to Route 250 and the proposed changes to these culverts on the Site Plan (Sheet 5), the Grading Plan (Sheet 6), and the Utility Plan (Sheet 7). Please add the new invert elevation to the extension of the 18" concrete pipe. 4. The Grading Plan should show proposed grading associated with the new lanes on Route 250. There appears to be a low spot where the 15" and 18" pipe meet, will this be filled in? REV #1: Proposed grading shows that the existing low spot will be moved as the pipe is being extended, however, the pipes do not show up on the Grading Plan, see Comment #3. 1 {}4,.i1 ° 1.!i li €lti S'i. €€ Ilil ; }. € {{':9. 15 • aI dw i k sttIE }; i 111C t,t<t €at €« 01' i€ C r.1 IVII I6r €l,_ t: 11 to main"; mainta k,kwc C :J REV #1: Comment has been addressed. Proposed grading has been remised to provide a 2:1 slope in this area. 1i4: €'' €; {t rj €i. ;W 1 : ai £?:. si.1'.! i f`, It i, =1€; REV #1: This comment will be addressed with the final site plan. 7. Sn :. €a €3t €\ €L`S i.l € € a €i t € €i se.€ i or REV# 1: Comment has been addressed. 8. The proposed dumpster pad must extend 8 feet beyond the front of the dumpster. [ 18- 4.12.9] REV #1: Two proposed dumpster enclosures are shown at 25'x30', meeting the requirement. However, a 10'x15' dumpster enclosure is shown at the rear of the building. If this dumpster is to be serviced by standard garbage trucks, the pad must meet the requirements of the ordinance. holl d i% >atRi lcc ?o to 11'„ Ni, iw u!C Comment has been addressed. 10. The proposed Atlantis D- Raintank does not have a water quality removal rate, please specify the type of water quality measures that will be provided for this site. [18- 32.5.611 REV #]: Three Filterra units are proposed, capturing only the front portion of the site. It is unclear what water quality features will treat the rear of the parking lot and the building. 11. The proposed level spreader may not satisfy the requirements of VESCH MS -19. The exit slope may not have a grade greater than 10 %. An adequate channel and easement may be necessary through neighboring properties. REV #l: Comment still appropriate. It appears that meeting the requirements of MS -19 will be a challenge for this site. Sizing a detention facility to over - detain stormflows may be necessary. New comments based on most recent plan submittal: 12. The grading of the pad for a future building creates a channel along the eastern side of the site. This will need to be properly stabilized to prevent erosion. This will be addressed with the final site plan. 13. Details on Sheet 7 show the D- Raintank under a parking lot, noting elevations. However, the Raintank is not shown in the plan view. [18- 32.5.6.k] 14. If stormwater from Route 250 enters the proposed stormsewer system, public drainage easements will be necessary to encompass the entire pipe system to its outlet. Please show easements on the Site Plan. Structures, such as dumpster enclosures, are not allowed within public drainage easements. [ 18- 32.5.6.11 pZ :17. ji r as COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Room 227 Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 November 24, 2009 Nat Perkins NP Engineering Via email: nat.perkins @gmail.com RE: SDP2008 -154 Re- Store'n Station Dear Mr. Perkins: The Site Review Committee has reviewed the development proposal referenced above. Preliminary comments for the following divisions of the Department of Community Development and other agencies, as applicable, are attached: Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Engineer) Albemarle County Division of Zoning & Current Development (Planner) Albemarle County Division of Planning (E911) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Architectural Review Board) Albemarle County Division of Planning (Water Protection) Virginia Department of Transportation Comments reflect information available at the time the development proposal was reviewed, and should not be considered final. However, the Site Review Committee has attempted to identify all issues that could affect approval of the proposed project. Please make the revisions that have been identified as necessary for preliminary approval by the Site Review Committee. If you choose not to make the requested revisions, please submit in writing justification for not incorporating such revisions. Submit eight (8) full size copies and one (1) 11" x 17" copy to the Department of Community Development including responses to each of the attached comments of the Site Review Committee by December 7, 2009. Failure to submit this information by this date will result in suspension of the review schedule. Review will resume when revisions are submitted along with a reinstatement fee of $65. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information. Sincerely, Summer Frederick Senior Planner Zoning & Current Development lF AQ1 rl 1j County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Summer Frederick, Planner From: Amy Pflaum, Engineering Review Division: Current Development Date: November 4, 2008 REV #1: November 23, 2009 Subject: SDP200800154, Re- Store'n Station - Preliminary The preliminary site plan for Re- Store'n Station, resubmitted on October 19, 2009, has been reviewed. The engineering review for current development can recommend approval once the following items are adequately addressed: REV #1: Comment has been addressed. REV 41: Comnient has been addressed. 3. The Road Improvements Plan states that the existing 15" and 18" pipes in the Route 250 right -of- way will be extended, please show the proposed extension on the Site Plan. Please also add direction of flow to these pipes. "Invert In = 701.91 " is lower than "Invert Out = 702.14". REV #1: Please show the existing culverts under and adjacent to Route 250 and the proposed changes to these culverts on the Site Plan (Sheet 5), the Grading Plan (Sheet 6), and the Utility Plan (Sheet 7). Please add the new invert elevation to the extension of the 18" concrete pipe. 4. The Grading Plan should show proposed grading associated with the new lanes on Route 250. There appears to be a low spot where the 15" and 18" pipe meet, will this be filled in? REV #1: Proposed grading shows that the existing low spot will be moved as the pipe is being extended, however, the pipes do not show up on the Grading Plan, see Comment #3. REV #1: Comment has been addressed. Proposed grading has been revised to provide a 2:1 slope in this area. RET #1: This comment will be addressed with the final site plan. REV# 1: Comment has been addressed. 8. The proposed dumpster pad must extend 8 feet beyond the front of the dumpster. [ 18- 4.12.9] REV #1: Two proposed dumpster enclosures are shown at 25'x30', meeting the requirement. However, a 10'x15' dumpster enclosure is shown at the rear of the budding. If this dumpster is to be serviced by standard garbage trucks, the pad must meet the requirements of tine ordinance. Comment has been addressed. 10. The proposed Atlantis D- Raintank does not have a water quality removal rate, please specify the type of water quality measures that will be provided for this site. [ 18- 32.5.6.k] REV #1: Three Filterra units are proposed, capturing only the front portion of the site. It is unclear what water quality features will treat the rear of the parking lot and the building. 11. The proposed level spreader may not satisfy the requirements of VESCH MS -19. The exit slope may not have a grade greater than 10 %. An adequate channel and easement may be necessary through neighboring properties. REV #1: Comment still appropriate. It appears that meeting the requirements of MS -19 will be a challenge for this site. Sizing a detention facility to over - detain stormflows may be necessary. New comments based on most recent plan submittal: 12. The grading of the pad for a future building creates a channel along the eastern side of the site. This will need to be properly stabilized to prevent erosion. This will be addressed with the final site plan. 13. Details on Sheet 7 show the D- Raintank under a parking lot, noting elevations. However, the Raintank is not shown in the plan view. [18- 32.5.6.k] 14. If stormwater from Route 250 enters the proposed stonnsewer system, public drainage easements will be necessary to encompass the entire pipe system to its outlet. Please show easements on the Site Plan. Structures, such as dumpster enclosures, are not allowed within public drainage easements. [18- 32.5.6.1] 1"- Vr-' '-.V Review Comments Project Name: Re- Store'n Station - Prel Preliminary — Non - residential Date Completed: ITuesday, December 15, 2009 Reviewer: James Barber Department/Division /Agency: Fire Rescue Reviews Must comply with the Virginia Statewide Fire Prevention Code. Final approval is subject to field inspection and verification. Review Status: No Objection Page: 11 County of Albemarle Printed On: 03/02/2011 Review Comments Project Name: Re- Store'n Station - Prel Preliminary — Non - residential Date Completed: 1wednesday, December 30, 2009 Reviewer: Ron Higgins Department/Division /Agency: Building Code Zoning Reviews The proposed project is likely to use water in excess of 400 gallons per acre per day and therefore requires a special use permit in accordance with Section 18.24.2.2, (13) of the Albemarle County Code (Zoning Ordinance). A special use permit application has been submitted by the applicant. Review Status: Pending Page: 11 County of Albemarle Printed On: 03/0212011 o ar., - v F IkGI, County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Summer Frederick, Planner From: Amy Pflaum, Engineering Review Division: Current Development Date: November 4, 2008 REV #1: November 23, 2009 REV #2: January 8, 2010 Subject: SDP200800154, Re- Store'n Station - Preliminary The preliminary site plan for Re- Store'n Station, resubmitted on October 19, 2009, has been reviewed. The engineering review for current development can recommend approval once the following items are adequately addressed: o V" s, OF FJ . _ ,.T ... . . .=o<a F.<I REV #2: Comment has been addressed. Please add the 4 notes written in the response letter to the Route 250 Entrance Plan in the Final Site Plan. t _,c. .,. , 'd. +I ( 5..: fll 4.• z .Y. z , u :R REV #2: Comment has been addressed. r`: I'. k., .., f' 4`.,. .,x= .`, i, c i' "ti,'t L f:. . ° Its {. .r:i .., e, f,•. , A, . € = F ,. REV #2: Comment has been addressed. s §a . } zY' <. 5s.r. -; zf.' z e$C'T.4• R I Ci!1 g , t JnF I. REV #2: Comment has been addressed Eleven Filterra units are now shown on the plan. 11. The proposed level spreader may not satisfy the requirements of VESCH MS -19. The exit slope may not have a grade greater than 10 %. An adequate channel and easement may be necessary through neighboring properties. REV #1: Comment still appropriate. It appears that meeting the requirements of MS -19 will be a challenge for this site. Sizing a detention facility to over - detain stormflows may be necessary. REV #2: There does not appear to be a receiving channel downstream of the detention facility. It can be expected that the property downstream of the proposed level spreader will be subject to an increase in the volume of discharge it receives even ifpeak rates are held to existing conditions and a level spreader is installed. The applicant can obtain easements through downstream properties to the point where the project meets the I % rule as outlined DCR for potential channel improvements. An adequacy evaluation will need to be performed during the WPO and Final Site Plan process. Any improvements required in the 20foot undisturbed buffer will require a waiver from the Planning Commission. Another option is to increase the on -site detention to reduce discharge levels below the existing conditions per the following from the AC Design Standards Manual: In cases where there is the likelihood of erosion, such as a swale, or where channels are not adequate for existing conditions, the method of state code 10.1 -561 shall be acceptable as an on- site solution. It is summarized in these three requirements; (A level spreader may be necessary where no channel exists.) 1. Detain the WQV (F runoff) and release over 48 hours. 2. Detain the 1 year 24 -hour storm and release over 24 hours. 3. Detain and reduce the peak flow for a 1.5, 2 and 10 year 24 -hour storm, to the following level; peak flow <= Qf (Vf /Vpost), where Qf is flow from the site in a well forested condition (C = 0.25, or CN = 51), and Vf is volume from the site in a well forested condition. REV #2: Raintanks and Filterra unites are now shown on the Utility Plan. It is recommended that these features are shown on the Site Plan sheet of the Final Site Plans so that Zoning inspectors are aware of their locations. REV #2: The property owner will own and maintain all stormsewer pipes and facilities within the parcel, other than the length ofpipe to the first structure downstream of the public right -of- way as shown in easement. 15. NEW COMMENT: At the Site Review Committee Meeting on November 23, 2009, residents of Freetown Lane raised concerns regarding the proximity of the Restor'n Station and the Freetown Lane entrances onto Route 250. Please work with VDOT and these residents to explore other options, such as moving the Restor'n Station entrance farther west, combining Freetown Lane & Restor'n Station to one entrance, extending the proposed right -turn lane to and providing a taper east of Freetown Lane, providing inter - parcel connection between Restor'n Station and Freetown Lane. 16. NEW COMMENT: The owner of neighboring parcel 55B -3 has recently changed. Please be sure to update this information on the final site plan. [18- 32.5.6.a] County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Summer Frederick, Senior Planner From: Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning Division: Zoning Administration Date: March 24, 2010 Subject: SP2009 -034, Re- Store' N Station Water Use — Comments and Official Determination I have reviewed the information supplied by the applicant as well as the letters and memorandum submitted by Joseph Associates (on behalf HE & J, Inc.) and Scenic 250. I have also reviewed previously submitted materials for this project, the Shadwell Store SP and the ZTAs for the "400 gallon /acre /day" provisions in the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. My comments are: Whether the anticipated discharge is "domestic waste ": both the Albemarle County Code (Chapter 16) and the Department of Health website define the discharge from the Re- Store'N Station to be within the limits of "domestic waste." This decision was originally rendered in March of 2009 for this property and is not subject to appeal at this time. 2. Whether the proposed use(s) are permitted in the HC zoning district: the retail, office and gasoline sales elements of the proposed facility are all permitted uses in the HC zoning district as listed in Section 24.2.1. Of these three uses, only gasoline sales is not explicitly listed as a category of use. Gasoline sales have consistently been permitted as accessory to convenience stores and are allowed under the category of use: automobile service station (Section 24.2.1 43). Whether the storm water re -use is considered "consumption" in the use category: Based on my research of the staff reports and minutes of the Zoning Text Amendments that established and amended this special permit use: This use category spoke of the Public Purpose being to "protect surface and groundwater supplies from overdraft and pollution." It was also stated, in the February 13, 1985 minutes of the BOS, that "Special Permit review would be required for both groundwater and surface water withdrawal." Both of these remarks support the position that intercepting storm water could be a form of consumption. It is agreed that the capturing of storm water and use of it prior to allowing it to discharge /recharge into the ground is a form of consumption. However, since there is no reasonably practical way to quantify this and separate it from other rainwater, it is not counted in the consumption figures. However, because it is a form of consumption, the commission and board can consider this in their review depending on how the water to be captured will be used in the proposed plan. SP2009 -034 -2- March 23, 2010 Since Comments 2 and 3 above are determinations, in accordance with Section 15.2 -231 1 of the Code of Virginia, they may be appealed by any person aggrieved by the determinations. An appeal must be made within thirty (30) days of the date this notice is given. If a person aggrieved does not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final. An appeal application must be completed and filed with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals. A one time processing fee of $120 must accompany the appeal application. I have no other comments on the special use permit application. Other recipients: Jo Higgins Marcia Joseph Jeffries II, LLC COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Amelia McCulley, Zoning Administrator Ron Higgins, Chief of Zoning /Deputy Zoning Administrator FROM: Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney DATE: March 25, 2010 RE: Re -Store 'N Slulion This memorandum addresses several questions raised by the applicant and County staff pertaining to the proposed Re- Store'N Station project. The applicant is seeking a special use permit authorized in the Highway Commercial ( "HC ") zoning district under County Code § 18- 24.2.2(13), which provides: 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. (Added 6- 14 -89) The scope of this memorandum is limited to certain questions related to water consumption and the special use permit. The Department of Community Development is addressing other issues related to this project. 1. Questions asked by the applicant The applicant's questions have been narrowed to two because they all focus on a single issue — the applicability of a special use permit and its conditions if the use's water consumption is less than 400 gallons of water per site acre per day. Under County Code § 18-24.2.2(13), the special use is permission to consume more than 400 gallons of water per site acre per day, up to some ultimate daily limit that may be imposed as a special use permit condition. In response to the applicant's questions below, we have assumed that the 1,624 gallons per day referenced in the applicant's questions is the site acre equivalent to the threshold of 400 gallons of water per site acre per day established in County Code 18- 24.2.2(13). A. Question: Does the special use permit "exist' if the water consumption is less than 1,624 gpd? Answer Yes. The "special use" is permission to consume more than 1,624 gpd and that permission exists regardless of whether the water consumption is less than 1,624 gpd. B. Question: Would the conditions imposed by a special use permit be enforceable if water consumption remained in the by -right range (less than 1,624 gpd) or would they be enforceable only when water consumption exceeds the 1,624 gpd threshold? Answer The conditions would be enforceable at all times although, as explained below, the Board of Supervisors could determine that some conditions apply only once some water consumption threshold is exceeded. The County has already determined that "there is a significant likelihood that the project's water consumption will not stay below the [ 1,624 gpd] consumption threshold." Official Determination dated November 17, 2009 (Ron Higgins). Because the special use is permission to exceed 1,624 gpd, a condition requiring the ongoing and daily monitoring of water consumption would be a reasonable condition to not only determine whether the threshold is exceeded on any day, but also to determine compliance with any special use permit condition limiting water consumption. Since on any given day the threshold or limit could be exceeded, ongoing monitoring could be required even if water consumption on any given day does not exceed 1,624 gpd. However, the Board of Supervisors also could impose conditions related to water consumption that would provide that they would not apply until, for example, water consumption exceeded a prescribed amount for the first time. if daily water consumption never exceeded that amount, those conditions would not apply. 2. The proper scope of review when considering a special use permit under County Code & 18- 24.2 .2(13) County Code § 18- 242.2(13) authorizes any by -right use in the HC zoning district, but requires a special use permit if the use will consume more than 400 gallons of water per site acre per day. In evaluating a special use permit under County Code § 18- 24.2.2(13), the proper scope of review does not include the underlying by -right use. For example, if an applicant proposes an "automobile service station" use, which is a by -right use in the HC zoning district under County Code 18- 24.2.1(3), but the proposed automobile service station would consume more than 400 gallons of water per site acre per day, a proper special use permit analysis would not include consideration of whether automobile service stations are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan or, whether the automobile service station use satisfies the criteria for evaluating a special use permit under County Code § 18- 31.6.1. By allowing automobile service stations as a by -right use in the HC zoning district, the Board of Supervisors has already legislatively determined that the use is within the class of by -right uses that satisfy the purpose and intent of the HC zoning district and that the use does not generate impacts that require a case -by -case evaluation under the special use permit process. As a by -right use within the HC zoning district, any impact resulting from the automobile service station use is addressed by existing site regulations such as those pertaining to the buildings' height, setbacks, noise, parking and outdoor lighting. A by -right use would neither change the character of a district nor be contrary to the district's purpose and intent because the range of by -right uses allowed in a zoning district defines the district's essence. Therefore, the review of an application for a special use permit authorized by County Code § 18-24.2.2(13) is limited to the issue of water consumption. Even though the scope of this special use permit review is more limited than a typical special use permit, the same special use permit criteria apply. The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors will need to determine whether the water consumption use is consistent with the County's Comprehensive Plan and whether it satisfies the criteria delineated in County Code § 18- 31.6.1, i.e., whether the water consumption: (1) poses a substantial detriment to adjacent property; (2) could cause a change to the character of the district; and (3) would be in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the uses permitted by right in the district, with additional regulations provided in section 5, and with the public health, safety and general welfare. Because the proposed Re- Store'N Station site is designated Rural Areas in the Comprehensive Plan even though it is within the HC zoning district, whether the water consumption for the proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan would also be a key issue. In addition, because of the difference between the proposed project site's Comprehensive Plan designation and zoning district, whether the proposed project is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance (rather than merely the purpose and intent of the HC zoning district) would be another crucial issue. 3. The proper scope of the conditions imposed under the special use permit Based on the analysis in Section 2, a special use allowed under County Code § 18- 24.2.2(13) pertains to water consumption only and, therefore, the scope of the conditions are limited to impacts arising from water consumption, and not from the underlying by -right use. Any conditions imposed must be reasonably related to the impacts of water consumption, and the extent of the conditions must be roughly proportional to those impacts. In granting a special use permit under County Code § 18- 24.2.2(13), the County may impose reasonable conditions that pertain to not only monitoring water consumption as discussed in the answers to the applicant's questions in Section 1, but also which pertain to the consumption of water in general. Some of these conditions could indirectly pertain to the by -right use, provided that they reasonably relate to addressing the impacts of water consumption, e.g., hours of operation to control total water consumption per day or restrictions on using groundwater to wash down parking areas or watering landscaping. 4. The applicable criterion for determining the amount of water consumed per day A question was asked whether compliance with the special use permit or determining whether the water consumption is above or below the 400 gallons of water per site acre per day threshold could be based on a periodic average. County Code 5 18-24.2.2(13) requires a special use permit if water consumption exceeds 400 gallons per site acre per day. In determining whether a special use permit is required, daily consumption, rather than by a weekly, monthly or other periodic average, is the applicable standard. See, Board of Zoning Appeals ex rel. County of Eork v. 852 L.L.C., 257 Va. 485 (1999) (zoning administrator could not, through interpretation, vary from the clear ordinance standards which established density credits of 0 %, 50% and 100% and allocate a reduced density credit based on what the administrator determined was an appropriate percentage under the circumstances; the Court said that if the board of supervisors had intended the zoning administrator to "have such latitude, it would have so provided in the ordinance, such latitude may not properly be created by administrative interpretation "). Once the special use permit is obtained, however, measuring water consumption is not tied to the per day standard. Thus, special use permit conditions could provide that they would become applicable once water consumption exceeded a specified amount that could be determined on a per day, per week or other periodic basis, or a daily, weekly or other periodic average. Likewise, a condition limiting water consumption could be based on a similar measurement standard. try: COUNTY OF ALI3EMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126 August 19, 2010 Ms. Jo Higgins Project Development LLC 2564 Mt. Torrey Road Lyndhurst, Virginia 22980 Re: OFFICIAL DETERMINATION Re -Store N' Station — Revised Proposal to Limit Water Use As proposed for SDP2008 -154, TMP5513-1, (New Proposal of July 23, 2010) Dear Ms. Higgins This letter is a determination of whether the proposal to limit the water use, as described in your memorandum (with attachments) to me, dated July 23, 2010, will eliminate the requirement for a special use permit under the use classification in Albemarle County Code § 18- 24.2.2 (13). It is my determination, after careful review of your new proposal and specifications, dated July 23, 2010, the pertinent sections of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance and discussions with Albemarle County Officials and suppliers, that the proposed Re -Store N' Station, SDP2008 -154 will not require a Special Use Permit for water consumption in accordance with Section 18- 24.2.2, 13) of the Albemarle County Code (Zoning Ordinance). This determination is based on the conclusion that the safeguards outlined in your proposal will assure that the project's water consumption will stay below the 400 gallons per site acre per day consumption threshold stated in this Zoning Ordinance Section. This is also based on the County's acceptance of all conditions of operation outlined in the written proposal including, but not limited to: 1) the installation of the "dole" flow control valve with calibration certification provided to us that assures it will not exceed the flow rate of 1.125 gallons per minute; 2) Installation of the tamper proof water meter as described in the proposal; 3) Inclusion of the proposal as part of the final site plan along with bonding as required, and; 4) Inclusion of the maintenance of the well water system in the SW management Maintenance Agreement as described in the proposal. Ms. Jo Higgins August 18, 2010 Page 2 This determination is based on, and is limited to, the use's ongoing compliance with the conditions of operation stated in the written proposal. If you are aggrieved by this determination, you have the right to appeal it within thirty 30) days of the date notice of this determination is given, in accordance with Virginia Code Sec. 15.2- 2311(A). If you do not file a timely appeal, this determination shall be final and unappealable. An appeal shall be taken only by filing with the Zoning Administrator and the Board of Zoning Appeals a notice of appeal which specifies the grounds for the appeal. An appeal application must be completed and filed along with the fee of $120Notice of this determination is being given as of the same date as this o L. Higgins, AICP Chief of Zoning /Deputy Zoning Administrator cc: Jeffries II, LLC, P. O. Box 910, Crozet, VA 22932 Richard E. Carter, Esquire, 414 Park Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902 Duane H. Zobrist, Esquire, 3 Boar's Head Lane, Charlottesville, VA 22903 i (-11 , ALl, County of Albemarle Department of Community Development To: Summer Frederick Memorandum From: Bill Fritz Division: Zoning and Current Development Date: February 18, 2011 Subject: SDP 2008 —154 Re- Store'n Station I have reviewed the applicants request for a modification of the buffer requirements contained in Chapter 18, Section 21.7(c) of the Code of Albemarle. This section states: Buffer zone adjacent to residential and rural areas districts. No construction activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than twenty (20) feet to any residential or rural areas district. Screening shall be provided as required in section 32.7.9. The applicant has requested a waiver as provided by Chapter 18, Section 21.7(c)(2) of the Code of Albemarle. This section states: Waiver by the agent. In accordance with the procedures stated in section 2.5 of this chapter, the agent may waive the prohibition of construction activity, grading or the clearing of vegetation in the buffer zone in the following circumstances: (i) adequate landscape screening does not currently exist and the installation of screening which meets or exceeds the requirements of this chapter would result in disturbance to the buffer; (ii) an arborist or landscape architect certifies that trees in the buffer are dying, diseased or will constitute a fall hazard; (iii) the county engineer determines that disturbance of the buffer is necessary in order to address an existing drainage problem; or (iv) disturbance of the buffer will result in improved screening through the use of a berm, a retaining wall or similar physical modification or improvement. In such a case, the developer or subdivider shall illustrate the result of both the existing screening without disturbance of the buffer and the screening that would be provided as a result of the disturbance of the buffer. Two distinct areas of disturbance are proposed by the applicant. I will comment on each individually. Location 1— This area is located in the southwest portion of the site. It is labeled as "20' Disturbed Utility Esm't" on sheets 6, 7, 8, and 10 of the plan titled "Re- Store'n Station" prepared 9/19/08 last revised on 12/13/10. This area has some vegetation. This vegetation consists of small scrubby vegetation that provides limited screening and a few larger deciduous trees. The waiver request for Location 1 is conditionally approved. The waiver is approved subject to the installation of fencing as shown on the plan and the preservation of trees within the buffer that are 6 inches in diameter or larger. These trees shall be shown on the final site plan. This waiver has been approved because it meets one of the standards for a waiver shown above. I will address each criterion individually. i) adequate landscape screening does not currently exist and the installation of screening which meets or exceeds the requirements of this chapter would result in disturbance to the buffer; Fencing is proposed in this area. No fence detail is included in the site plan application. However, the applicant describes the fence as a "privacy fence ". Further detail is provided for the fence, describing it as a 6 foot "shadow box style" fence constructed of ... "'Woodshades' which is a no maintenance fiber material in `rustic cedar' color ". Adequate landscaping does not currently exist in Location 1. The fencing described by the applicant meets the screening requirements. Therefore, this provision has been met. ii) an arborist or landscape architect certifies that trees in the buffer are dying, diseased or will constitute a fall hazard; No certification has been submitted. Therefore, this provision is not met. iii) the county engineer determines that disturbance of the buffer is necessary in order to address an existing drainage problem; or No existing drainage problem has been identified. Therefore, this provision is not met. iv) disturbance of the buffer will result in improved screening through the use of a berm, a retaining wall or similar physical modification or improvement. In such a case, the developer or subdivider shall illustrate the result of both the existing screening without disturbance of the buffer and the screening that would be provided as a result of the disturbance of the buffer. No berm, wall or other physical modification to provide screening is proposed. Therefore, this provision is not met. Location 2 — This area is located on the southern boundary. The proposal is to install landscaping within the 20 foot buffer. After consultation with the Zoning Administrator it has been determined that no wavier is required because no construction, clearing or grading is proposed. However, the applicant is put on notice that no clearing of vegetation is authorized to install the proposed plantings. The plantings proposed within the buffer are to be considered supplemental to any required landscaping. I have done no evaluation to determine if the plan provides screening as required by Chapter 18, Section 32.7.9.8.C. Due to the slope of the property it is my opinion that the plantings within the 20 foot buffer will do little to screen the site from adjacent residential property. The above comments address only the proposed activity within the buffer. They are not intended to comment on landscaping, screening or design requirements contained within the ordinance or required by the conditions of the Special Use Permit. HYDRO- EN '\Tf`RONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, LLC April 16, 2010 Marcia Joseph. CLA, AICP Joseph Associates LLC 481 Clarks Tract Keswick, Virginia 22947 RE: Hydrologic Evaluation of the Proposed Restore N' Station, TMP 5513-1, Crozet, Virginia Dear Ms. Joseph: Hydro - Environmental Consultants, LLC, (HEC) is pleased to present this evaluation of potential hydrologic impacts associated with the subject project. HEC understands that the site developer Jeffries ii, LLC plans to construct a convenience store /gas station on an approximately 4 -acre parcel (TMP 55B -1) located at 6115 Rockfish Gap Turnpike in Albemarle County, Virginia. This report is based on the information you provided, available public information on the hydrologic, soil, and hydrogeologic conditions at and in the vicinity of the project, and HEC's experience on similar projects. Background Information Jeffries II, LLC has submitted a site development plan to Albemarle County to develop a convenience store /gas station the 4 -acre site. Water supply for the project will be provided by a Class II B public water supply well to be installed and permitted in accordance with the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) Waterworks Regulations (12VAC5 -590). Sanitary wastewater will be managed with an onsite sewage system that HEC understands will include two 1500 gallon septic tanks connected in series, a 5,000 gallon equalization tank, and two conventional drainfields. The onsite sanitary system was sized based on a flow rate of 1,600 gallons per day (gpd). Old Dominion Engineering completed a Tier III Groundwater Assessment and Groundwater Management Plan dated October 3, 2008 in general accordance with the Albemarle County Groundwater Ordinance. The Tier III report provides a summary of available information on site soils, geology, hydrogeology, existing groundwater use, and potential threats to groundwater quality. To HEC's knowledge no field investigations, other than a site reconnaissance and soils investigation for the onsite sewage system have been performed. In this report groundwater withdrawal was estimated to be 725 gallons per day (gpd) based on water use at similar facilities, and groundwater recharge was estimated to be 2,115 gpd. The report concluded that "it is not anticipated that groundwater withdrawal of this magnitude will impact existing wells on adjoining properties or elsewhere in terms of groundwater supply ". The report's groundwater HYDRO- ENVIRONMENTAI. CONSULTANTS, LLC PO BOX 3505, GLEN ALLEN, VIRGINIA 23058 PHONE (804) 290 -0031 • FAX (804) 290 -0373 • MOBILE: (804) 512 -7185 management plan stated "The proposed development will seek to minimize degrading groundwater recharge by implementing runoff - neutral site design and storm water management strategies that minimize offsite runoff. Albemarle County determined that a Special Use Permit was required because there is a significant likelihood that the project's water consumption will not stay below the 400 gallons per site acre per day consumption threshold" in the Zoning Ordinance. In a January 20, 2010 addendum to the Tier III report, True North Environmental revised the groundwater withdrawal estimate to 1,643 gpd or approximately 400 gpd /acre. The addendum also stated that the original estimate of groundwater recharge (2,115 gpd) was very conservative and that recharge would exceed this estimate. Surface water quantity will be managed in two Raintank systems. One Raintank system in the northern portion of the site will collect water from roof drains. HEC understands that water collected in this Raintank will be used to supplement onsite irrigation of landscaped areas. The second Raintank system in the southern part of the site will collect runoff from paved areas. This Raintank system will discharge through a level spreader to a broad swale onto adjacent land south of the subject project. HEC understands that the Albemarle County storm water regulations do not consider infiltration as a means of storm water management. Therefore, there is no infiltration from the Raintanks. Hydrologic Evaluation The proposed development will have an effect on the hydrologic balance for the site. Pre - development the site hydrology was dominated by groundwater recharge, and sheet flow runoff to the south. The True North recharge estimate is reasonable for the existing site conditions (un- developed open field) but does not accurately estimate post - development recharge. Post - development impervious surfaces, the increase in slopes around the perimeter of the impervious surfaces, and the site landscaping will negate approximately 75% of the recharge. Therefore, post - development natural recharge will be reduced to approximately 525 gpd. A portion of the lost recharge will be made up from induced recharge from the drainfield. It is difficult to quantify the induced recharge from the onsite sewage system as the net consumptive use of the proposed development is difficult to quantify. Water use at the facility was originally estimated to be approximately 725 gpd based on data from similar facilities. This estimate was increased to 1,643 gpd in the January 20, 2010 addendum. The facility will need to obtain a transient non - community water system permit from the VDH in accordance with the Virginia Department of Health Waterworks Regulations (12VAC5 -590). The required capacity of the waterworks is detailed in 12VAC5- 590 -690. According to the VDH regulations, service stations are required to have a capacity of 10 gallons per vehicle served. Although the capacity of the waterworks includes a safety factor and does not equate to anticipated use, it does provide an estimate of maximum groundwater use. According to Table 2 of the Tier III report there are 10 private wells within 2,500 feet of the proposed development. The total depths of the wells suggest that two of these wells and possibly four additional wells are bored wells completed in the residuum- saprolite above the crystalline bedrock. Bored wells typically have a very limited saturated thickness (generally 15 feet or less) from which to draw water and are completed at the water table. These features make bored wells particularly susceptible to small changes in water table levels either caused by natural climatic conditions or man -made changes. Figure 3 of the Tier III report shows that two of these wells are within a few hundred feet of the proposed development. Drawdown of the water table from the facility well may cause water table drawdowns that extend beyond the property boundary and could measurably affect water levels in the nearby bored wells. The potential effect of shallow bored wells with limited water depths depends on the depth of the water column in the well, the proximity to the development supply well, and the hydraulic connection between the residuum and the deep bedrock aquifer. The potential impact to any nearby private wells completed in the bedrock are likely negligible due to the greater saturated thickness typically found in deeper, drilled wells. Water from the southern Raintank system that is discharged to the swale south of the subject property through a level spreader will likely effect the hydrologic conditions on the adjacent property and may adversely affect the usability of the property. HEC is not aware of any drainage easement with the adjacent land owner to the south. Conclusions The proposed development will alter the hydrologic balance for the site. The development will decrease the net ground water infiltration at the site and increase the ground water withdrawal in the area. Several of the nearby private wells appear to be bored wells that are most susceptible to changes in the local ground water conditions. Drawdown of the water table from the facility well may cause water table drawdowns that extend beyond the property boundary and could measurably affect water levels in the nearby bored wells. There is insufficient information on the construction, yield, use, static water level and saturated thickness at nearby private wells and the site specific hydrogeologic conditions to accurately evaluate potential impacts to the private wells. HEC appreciates the opportunity to present this evaluation. I trust this information meets your needs. If you have any questions, please call me at your convenience. Sincerely, Hydro - Environmental Consultants, LLC Douglas R. Fraser, PG Virginia Professional Geologist #000707 COMMONWEALTH of VIRCjINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARLOTTESVILLE RESIDENCY OFFICE 701 VDOT WAY CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 22911 GREGORY A. WHIRLEY COMMISSIONER April 15`', - Mr. Glenn Brooks, P.E. Albemarle County Engineer Community Development 401 McIntire Road North Wing Charlottesville, VA 22902 Subject: Re- Store'n Station Chapter 527 TIA Dear Mr. Brooks, In accordance with § 152 - 2222.1 of the Code of Virginia and the Virginia Traffic Impact Analysis Regulations, 24 VAC 30 -155, a traffic impact analysis was prepared by Davenport Transportation Consulting on the site plan for the proposed development project entitled Re- Store'n Station by Jefferies 11, LLC. We have evaluated this traffic impact analysis and prepared a report that summarizes the key findings and conclusions of the analysis. Our report is attached to assist the county in their decision making process regarding the proposed development. I am available at your convenience to meet and discuss VDOT's finding if you need assistance. And finally, I ask that you include VDOT's key findings of the traffic analysis in the official public records on the proposed project and have this letter, our report, and the traffic impact analysis placed in the case file for this site plan. VDOT will make these documents available to the general public through various methods including posting them on VDOT's website. Sincer N Y 1---oel DeNunzio Land Use Engineer Cc: Joseph Wallace WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING Key Findings for Traffic Impact Analysis entitled Re- Store'n Station, Crozet VA Albemarle County, VA Project ID: SDP -2008 -00154 Prepared by Davenport Transportation Consulting for Jefferies II, LLC Below are VDOT's key findings for the TIA on the above project: Errors and Omissions: No errors or omissions have been identified by the VDOT review of the traffic impact study. Summary of Data: The study adequately addresses the Chapter 527 Traffic Impact Analysis regulations. The study does not identify any major impacts to the transportation network from the development. The only significant queuing resulting from the proposed site will occur within the site entrance for vehicles exiting the site to take a left onto Route 250. It appears that the site plan provides sufficient space within the entrance throat to accommodate this queue without spillover into the internal circulation of the site. Trip distribution did not assign any new trips to Old Trail Dr. 15% of the trips should have been assigned to this road with the remainder 32% assigned to the downstream intersection. After review of the affected movements, revising the study to reflect this modification will not change the study and therefore a revision is not necessary. Study Recommendation: Mitigation for the site entrance should include left and right turn lanes as shown in the preliminary plan for the site. It is recommended that the left turn storage length be extended to a minimum of 200 feet and a revision to the striping plan to accommodate a left turn lane into the site across Route 250. This can be accomplished with the final site plan. VDOT recommends consolidation of this entrance with Freetown Lane as a safety improvement. This will require concurrence by the landowners on Freetown Lane. An internal access to adjacent sites with a platted easement should be provided for future adjacent site development to accommodate adequate access management standards. The final site plan should be revised to allow for the safest ingress and egress along the frontage improvements for the turn lane widening to adjacent sites to allow these users to make turn movements outside of the through lanes of Route 250. Other Items: An exception to the VDOT Access Management Standards is required for the entrance to this site. The applicant has submitted the request to VDOT and it is currently under review. The Route 250 corridor from this site to the east to the intersection at Old Trail Dr. has commercial entrances that are not well defined nor do they meet the current spacing standards. It is recommended that this site along with future site development be planned to consolidate and define entrances along this corridor to provide adequate spacing and interconnectivity among the sites. This will provide safer access to both the road users and the movement of vehicles in and out of entrances and improve the operation of the transportation corridor.