Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSP201700020 Correspondence 2017-08-17Bill Fritz From: Musxit@aol.com Sent: Friday, November 17, 201712.14 PM To: David Stoner Cc: Bill Fritz; ericacroz@aol.com; crutchfieldjk@gmaii.com; Ann Maliek Subject: Re: Agenda - Crozet CAC Meeting Wed Nov 15, Follow Up Information Attachments: RS.History1nput.Nov.2017.pdf; FreeTown-PropOwnerResponses.pdf Dave - I wanted to thank you for providing the opportunity to present the information about the pending application to amend the Re-Store'N Station Special Use Permit conditions #5 & #6 to the CCAC last night. I have always made it a high priority to dedicate whatever time necessary to work with neighbors, listen and make adjustments to the extent possible and reasonable when involved with any land development project. I did it when building schools for Ablemarle County and any development since that time. Most feedback is helpful to improve the design details for the property owner of the development property and the neighboring property owners. At the CCAC meeting since the Special Use Permit "use" is well water and there is no site plan changes proposed, I focused on the water usage as the AC Land Use Handbook is clear and the revised conditions must be evaluated on that basis. I didn't present any information about the significant input and changes incorporated as a result of numerous meetings with neighbors and input received from staff, neighbors, ARB, PC and Board members throughout the process covering the past years. During the process prior to construction, the majority of revisions to the site plan design resulted from neighbor & public input. I regret this history was left out. I am unable to just walk away from the CCAC meeting and leave out the significant history showing the evolution of the site layout over the duration of this process. A few individuals seemed intent that lack of addresses neighbor concerns should be reason to voice no support for the current application. If the CCAC members will take a bit of time to review the history, it hopefully will provide some understanding of how much effort was dedicated on both sides to working with the neighbors. I have attached the RS Time Line which started in 2008. 1 have boxed the events associated with specific input from all parties. Here is a summary of some of the most notable interaction with neighbors: 1. Initial Site Plan submitted in 2008- 2010 -After meeting with the neighbors and hearing input at the ARB meeting: - The site layout was totally re -designed to move the building from the east edge close to Free Town Lane & closer to RT250 to away from Free Town at central location. This was done to the extent possible respond to those neighbors eventhough the setback was less along Free Town Lane and there is no buffer strip required along that side. - A buffer was created - as the vegetative strip along Free Town Lane was changed from being cleared of trees to preserving the existing trees (this is not a required buffer strip as the truck storage yard is also zoned HC). Initial Layout is included in the attachment. 2. Mtg Jan 29,2009 - At Old Trail & Follow up letter from Neighbors dated 2/3111 - The feedback questions involved asking for more information on the "future" phase as it was info given at the mtg. This info was not hidden or left out - but since it was years in the future - there was no substantive info to provide. It was later required County StafflARB that the future phase notesloutline was to be removed from the site plan so it was clear that it would not be approved at that time. (note for ARB purposes only was not enough) See Attachment for Agenda & follow up letter 3. After SP approval in 2010 During the Site Plan process when the more detailed design was started: Mtg with VDOT and neighbors to address the Free Town Lane entrance at RT250. - Working with VDOT & neighbors - VDOT pushed to consolidate the entrances. I actually defended the desires of the neighbors because it was not within their power to force their entrance to be removed. Two options were offered and I sent a letter to each asking for feedback.. Four(4) property owners were not supportive to consolidate and provide access across RS so extending the decel lane past the RS entrance was a compromise. . See 2nd Attachment - FreeTown-PropOwnerREsponses pdf file - Regardless, an access easement to serve Free Town purposes was recorded in the land records and added to the site plan so a future connection was left open. (See Final site plan layout in attachment) 3. Mtg With Neighbors on West side: I sent a letter to request a meeting with 2 property owners on the other side (behind Moose Lodge) as it seemed the Free Town residents had lots of input but Ms. Haskins and Ms Whiting had a different view point. (Mr. Crutchfield was not a property owner at that time). - We met on Saturday, Feb 19, 2011 - They preferred a privacy fence instead of trees and fence was added at edge of pavement to better address the visual screen at t the higher grade instead of at the property line which was too low. In the follow up letter, the board on board fence was proposed and later approved by ARB. This style is most expensive but both sides look similar instead of looking at the backside of boards. See Attachment - Rs.History includes Letter to Haskins/Whiting 4. Ms. Malleck mtg/more neighbor input: Ms. Malleck pushed for more changes to address the concerns of neighbors. This resulted in reducing the scale of the paved area, bldg changes, increased buffer at the rear by taking away paved area, delete 1 island under rear canopy, reduce scale/size of rear canopy, move recycle/dumpsters away from Free Town Lane. (Site plan BEFORE revision included in attachment and Final Site Plan) Deleting island under rear canopy was to reduce service/view/noise at the rear canopy and increase clearance to homes. It was a compromise. I charted the home locations of the 5 property owners that had expressed specific concerns to get an idea of distance from home to rear property line. (Chart included in attachment) 7 homes are accessed via Free Town Lane. Only 2 parcels actually abut the RS parcel. There are 2 homes behind Moose Lodge/Pro-Renata and 1 of these touch the corner of RS parcel. There are also a few vacant parcels served by Free Town Lane. The 200ft clearance to property line is the blue line. The distances to home location ranges from 200ft to 384ft. A couple homes are closer to and down gradient of commercial properties to the east rather than to RS. Regardless, the site plan was revised to cut off the pavement by approx. 40ft to create a distance of 95ft. The total distance from rear canopy to closest of the 5 neighbors that expressed concern is 295ft and ranges up to to 479ft. Since the zoning required bldg set back is 50ft and this is approx doubled - this was voluntary. The store building is 185ft from rear property line. So double the setback to the canopy and almost 4 times the required set back to the main bldg exists today. This is greater than required even for industrial use. This was done as Ms. Malleck asked for the benefit of the neighbors at the rear. 5. Last year/ 2016 when Phase II was in process - I met with Ms. Haskins/Mr. Crutchfield at school then back at their house. Concerns were: - Wanted to purchase a strip of land off the RS parcel where their driveway is located. (RS's water usage is calculated on acreage so this was not possible) a - Wanted the RS owner to fix the drainage culvert where driveway turns West. (Storm water runoff does not come from RS) - The pole light at the rear East side was impacting their view. This last concern was something that could be addressed with site plan revision. To install a shorter pole with shielding and re -use the existing pole at the front when Phase II was built,rReduce the hours the pole lights operated, and reduce use of the rear pump once the 2 were added under the front canopy with dual fuel. At the public hearing, they spoke in opposition. The BOS did not approve Phase II. These changes were not done. Overall, the neighbor input resulted in changes that were compromises on both sides and all these changes did not relate to the Special Use Permit for water use but did pertain to site plan design. All done voluntarily as they did not relate to ordinance requirements. The revisions were purposeful and all worthwhile to work with the neighbors. Regardless, there was support but not from the neighbors. I don't have an expectation that this information will influence the CCAC to change their position but this is part of the public record and worth being considered. have worked with the Sprouse family on this project and others. Their family business of convenience store operation experience spans the past 30 some years and Michelle's parents did the same. At this point, it is 3 generations with their son, Logan, operating this store. The Sprouses go back several generations of Albemarle County residents. Navigating the development process in Albemarle County is one of the most complex. If they are not comfortable handling presentations/meetings and all the paperwork involved, this should in no way have negative impact on evaluating any application in process. Actually, consultants & land developers handle all the applications in AC and this is no different. I have many years of experience in the development process, site design, site construction, zoning & special use permits, understanding the rules and which apply in specific circumstances is what I do. We will continue to strive to comply with requirements that are imposed and hopefully receive relief from conditions that inhibit fair market competition as the water usage has been proven over a 2 year period to be 114 of what is allowed for this property. This warrants allowing the changes to conditions as requested. If there is any questions I can answer or information I can provide, please advise. Best Regards - Jo ,70 YiW im PROJECT DEVELOPMENT LLC 434 - 326 - 0334 musxit@aol.com 2564 MT Torrey Road, Lyndhurst, VA 22952 CC: Sprouses, A. Malleck, B. Fritz, Haskins/Crutchfield - Various persons if I had their email address and are mentioned above or requested information. From: David Stoner <davidastonerl@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, November 12, 2017 at 11:42 AM To: Crozet Community Advisory Council CCAC <crozetcac@googlegroups.com>, Notification about CCAC <ccac- n otify@googl egrou ps.co m> Cc: <Musxit@aol.com>, Frank Stoner <fstoner@mllestonepartners.co>, "jim.neligan@welisfargoadvisors.com" <jim.neligan@wellsfargoadvisors.com>, Emily Kilroy <ekilroy@albemarle.org>, Jennie Moody <jenmoody0@gmail.com>, Ann Mallek <amallek@albemarie.org>, Elaine Echols <EECHOLS@albemarle.org> Subject: Agenda - Crozet CAC Meeting Wed Nov 15, Crozet Library 7-9pm Ali — Please find attached the agenda for this month's Crozet Community Advisory Committee meeting to be held Wed, Nov 15 at the Crozet Library from 7-9pm. If anyone has any comments on the agenda, please let me know. I am forwarding separately a few emails that pertain to these agenda items, so look for those. Regards, Dave ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ David A. Stoner CCAC Chair 434-227-2105 A davida'tonerl@gmail.com