HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800057 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2018-11-30County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434-296-5832
Memorandum
To: Rusty Coan
From: Paty Saternye, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: Final: September 18, 2018
Rev. 1: November 30, 2018
Subject: SDP201800057 Caliber Collision— Final Site Plan
Fax 434-972-4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the following
comments 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, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
Initial Site Plan Comments (from conditional approval letter dated 6/8/18):
2. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See comments below
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. See comments below.
[SP2017-161 A site plan meeting all the requirements of the conditions of SP201700016.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a) Approval of an Access Management Exception Request by VDOT is required prior to the final site plan approval.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed. VDOT approval letter for the Access Management Exception, dated May 23,
2018, was received by the County.
b) Revise the SUB Notes: # 1 on Sheet 8 to precisely repeat the SP condition #3 of "Upon request of the County, the
applicant shall dedicate land within the 100-year floodplain and stream buffers to public use near Moore's Creek
for a potential future greenway trail. Actual trail planning, permitting, and construction is to be carried out by
others."
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
c) Please note that VDH has approved the construction permit for the installation of the septic system.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
[32.5.1, 32.5.2(a) & 4.20] Setbacks. Revise the setback descriptions to fully specify the setback requirements. There
are maximums and minimums, there are special circumstances (such as from ROW versus from back of sidewalk
outside of the ROW), there are special criteria based upon the adjoining properties and there are setbacks for parking
and loading. The descriptions provided to not state the setback requirements fully, and therefore not correctly. Also
note that the setback information is not consistent between sheet 1 or 1 and sheet 8.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a) The setback descriptions on Sheet 8 do not fully match those shown in the code. Ensure the descriptions include
the details and the possible options.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following on sheet 8:
i. Add the front setback for RA.
ii. Revise the note that states, `YIN HC, ADJACENT TO HC)" instead to read `(IN HC, ADJACENT TO
HC & PD-SC)".
iii. Label the setbacks table copied from the County Code to specify that the table is for "HC SETBACKS"
since the setbacks shown do not apply to the RA district.
iv. Revise the note under "Site Data" to state "SEE HC SETBACK TABLE ON THIS SHEET FOR FULL
DESCRIPTIONS."
b) The setback descriptions on Sheet 2 do not match those on Sheet 8. Ensure setbacks are described correctly on all
sheets where they are provided.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. On sheet 2 change "SETBACKS:" to "SETBACKS FOR HC
(SEE SHEET 8 FOR RA SETBACKS):"
c) Revise the label for the rear setback to the RA zoned area to specify "50' Rear Setback to RA District Boundary".
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
[32.5.1(c) & 32.5.2(a)] General information. Address the following:
d) On Sheet 1 or 1, in the "Zoning Data" area, include all of the overlay districts for the parcel. It also resides in the
Airport Impact Area, the Dam Inundation Zone, and the Flood Hazard Overlay districts.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Please also add the Steeps Slopes — Preserved overlay district to the lists
provided on the site plan.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
i) Revise sheet numbers. The cover sheet has no sheet number, there are two "Sheet No. 1 of 1" and then the next
sheet is labeled "Drawing 4". These need to be consistent naming and linear numbering of all sheets. All of these
need to match the sheet numbers specified in the "Drawing List:" on the cover sheet.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. The roadway improvement plans are not listed in the "Drawing List:" the
way they are numbered on the individual sheets. Also, Sheet 3 of the roadway sheets has no sheet number in the
bottom right title block and "213" in the upper right title block. Ensure the sheet numbers on the sheets match
those shown on the "Drawing List:"
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
j) Provide the present use for the abutting parcels.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
i. Revise the use for TMP 77-11. It is not vacant.
ii. Provide the use for TMP 77-10. It is also adjacent.
iii. This information could be provided on the existing conditions sheet.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
11. [32.7.4.2, 32.5.20) & (k)] Easements for stormwater management facilities; Drainage Easements; Proposed sewer
and drainage facilities. Address thefollowing:
c) As specified in the engineering comments a stormwater easement plat and deed is required and must be submitted,
reviewed, approved, signed and recorded prior to final site plan approval.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. An easement plat has been submitted. Its approval and recordation of the plat
and deeds of easement for all proposed easements, and a PDF scan of the circuit court receipt of recordation of Deed of
Dedication, must be provided prior to final site plan approval. See the engineering comments.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet addressed. An easement plat has been submitted. Its approval and recordation of the
plat and deeds of easement for all proposed easements, and a PDF scan of the circuit court receipt of
recordation of Deed of Dedication, must be provided prior to final site plan approval. See the engineering
comments.
12. [32.5.2(k)] Private & public easements. Provide the location and dimension of all proposed private offsite easements.
Note that in addition to other possible easement there appears to be the need for offsite easements, construction and
grading easements, landscaping easements and sidewalk easements.
UPDATE: Comment still valid. Also note that required easement plats and deeds must be submitted, reviewed,
approved, signed and recorded prior to final site plan approval.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. An easement plat has been submitted and is under review. However, the
easement plat does not appear to include all of the easements that will be required. Construction and grading
easements on the adjoining parcels also appear to be necessary. Their approval and recordation of the plat and deeds of
easement for the proposed easements, and a PDF scan of the circuit court receipt of recordation of Deed of Dedication,
must be sent to planning prior to final site plan approval.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. An easement plat has been submitted and 11t round comments have
been provided. Construction and grading easement was added prior to the 1st round easement plat comments.
The approval and recordation of the plat and deeds of easement for the proposed easements, and a PDF scan of
the circuit court receipt of recordation of Deed of Dedication, must be sent to planning prior to final site plan
approval.
2
13. [32.5.2(1)] Existing and proposed utilities. Show all required proposed easement utilities. The submission, review,
approval and recordation of a plat and deeds of easement for all proposed easements will be prior to final site plan
approval.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. An easement plat has been submitted. Its approval and recordation of the plat
and deeds of easement for all proposed easements, and a PDF scan of the circuit court receipt of recordation of Deed of
Dedication, must be sent to planning prior to final site plan approval
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. An easement plat has been submitted and 11t round comments have
been provided. The approval and recordation of the plat and deeds of easement for all proposed easements, and
a PDF scan of the circuit court receipt of recordation of Deed of Dedication, must be sent to planning prior to
final site plan approval.
15. [32.5.2(n)] Existing and proposed improvements. Clearly label and/or delineate areas of sidewalk and walkways. The
sidewalks along Avon Extended are not clearly marked and are not hatched as "Concrete Paving/Sidewalk" according
to the legend. Also, there are areas that may be for pedestrian access, between the parking lot and the front door that
are also not labeled or hatched. Ensure there is sufficient pedestrian access from all customer parking spaces to the
main entrance to the building.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Provide a pedestrian connection from the three parking spaces near the
entrance to the sidewalk in front of the buildings entrance.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
16. [32.5.2(o)] Areas to be dedicated or reserved. Address the following:
c) Submission, review, approval, and recordation of the special lot subdivision plat for ROW dedication is required
prior to final site plan approval. The special lot plat is done by separate, with an application and fee.
FINAL: Comment addressed. Address comment.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. A special lot plat for right of way dedication has been submitted
and is under review. Its approval and recordation of the plat, and a PDF scan of the circuit court receipt of
recordation of plat, must be sent to planning prior to final site plan approval.
17. [32.5.2(p)] Landscape Plan. Address the following:
c) UPDATE: Provide all required information on existing trees, landscaping, limits of clearing and grading and tree
protection fencing as specified in 32.7.9.4
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Tree protection fencing is required not only to protect trees on the
immediately adjacent site but also in order to ensure that the "20' No Disturbance Buffer" is not disturbed and that
no trees within it are damaged. Tree protection fencing must be shown on the site plan and not just the ESC Plans.
Provide the required tree protection fencing in both the landscape plan and the grading plan sheets.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Revise the Landscape Plan to provide tree protection fencing for
the 1120' No Disturbance Buffer". A note has been added stating that "Silt fence to be used as tree
protection fence...". Engineering has stated that "Silt Fence" is not sufficient for this purpose. The "Tree
protection fence" shown in the detail, "Super Silt Fence" or "orange safety fence" could be used, but not
simple "silt fence". Revise the note and provide a detail on the tree protection fencing for the 1120' No
Disturbance Buffer".
19. [32.6.20) & SP2017-161 Landscape plan. A landscape plan is required in the final site plan that complies with section
32.7.9 and condition #1 of the special use permit.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a) Provide the required, filled out, and signed conservation checklist within the landscapes plan portion of the site
plan.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. A form was submitted with the site plan. However, the filled out,
and signed conservation checklist must be incorporated into the site plan and not submitted separately.
Add the conservation checklist to the site plan.
b) Show the location of the tree protection fencing on the landscape plan and the grading plan sheets in the site plan.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. See comment #17 above and address it.
c) Ensure that the street tree information (required and proposed) is correct and matches on all sheets. The street tree
information on Sheet 8 does not match those shown on the Landscape Plan. Please note that landscaping was
shown on the Special Use Permit (SP) exhibits/plans. The Landscaping Plan appears to match the SP and Sheet 8
does not.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Revise the note on sheet 8 to specify that 7 large shade trees and 6
ornamental trees are provided.
3
d) Clarify the location of the "13 LG. EVGR. SCREENING TREES" that are specified to be on the "west" side of
the building. This may be a typographical error. Ensure the number specified matches the number shown.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. This note was in two areas of the Landscape calculations, but was
only revised in one of the two. It is also specified under "Building Landscaping Required:". Revised this
location as well.
20. [32.6.2(k)] Outdoor lighting. A photometric plan is required on the final site plan that meets all requirements of
section 4.17.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a) Provided specification sheets for each light fixture model number utilized. These specification sheets must be
integrated into the site plan sheets.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Either revise "Fixture Type `P1 " to instead be "Fixture Types
`Pl' & `P211' or provide a specification sheet for the P2 light fixtures.
b) Ensure that all light fixture that emit 3,000 lumens or more meet the full cut off requirements.
Rev. 1: Comment may be fully addressed. If the specification sheet labeled "Fixture Type `P1 " is actually
for both the `Pl' & `P2' fixtures then this comment has been addressed.
c) Provide the maximum lumens for all light fixtures in the fixture schedule and ensure those lumen correspond to
the information provided in the specification sheets.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
d) Ensure the specification information for each fixture type specifies the lamp type (LED, etc.).
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
e) Spill over lighting from luminaries onto public roads and rural areas shall not exceed one-half (1/2) foot candle. It
appears that this ordinance may not be met along the proposed street right of way line.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. It appears that there is a location, near the top right corner of the
building and at the "proposed right of way" line where the footcandles will be above'/2 footcandles. Revises
the Photometric Plan to address the following:
i. Show the correct "proposed right of way line".
ii. Show the foot candles at that "proposed right of way" line and along the whole frontage of the lot
including the entrance to the shared driveway.
iii. Ensure that at no point adjacent to the public road or Rural Area district that the footcandle
exceeds '/2.
f) Ensure that all of the property lines, the proposed street right of way line, and the zoning line (between HC and RA
on the property) are clearly shown and labeled in the photometric plan.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following:
i. The street right of way line is the existing and not the "proposed" right of way. Show the correct
right of way line.
ii. The "Property Lines" to the top and left side of the sheet are incorrect. Label the correct lines as
"property lines".
g) Ensure that the foot candle information is provided at all property lines, the proposed street right of way line, and
the zoning district line (between the HC and RA zones on the property). It appears the information is not provided
at the entrance and it is uncertain if it is shown at the property lines or the zoning line since these lines are either
not shown or are not labeled.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following:
i. No foot candle information is provide at the entrance to the property (shared driveway) where the
"proposed right of way" line will be. Provide labels along the "proposed right of way" line for the
full distance of the entrance.
ii. At the top right corner of the building there is a label of +2.1 and then a +0.4 at the "existing right
of way line". Therefore it appears that at the "proposed right of way" line the footcandles could
very possible be above the allowed limit of % footcandle. Address comment 20 (e) above.
h) All outdoor lighting, regardless of the amount of lumens, shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from
adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. It appears that one of the building light fixtures, in the top right
corner and near the entrance to the shared driveway, is not shielded to reflect light away from the road.
Revise the Photometric Plan to meet this requirement.
i) Rev. 1: [NEW COMMENT] Revise the Fixture Schedule such that the LLF is set to 1.0 and all of the data is
based on LLFs of 1.0 and not the 0.912 specified.
21. [Comment] Provide a detail for the gates in the screening fence. Ensure that the gates are opaque.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. Address the following:
a) Integrate the details into the site plan and not only as separate documents/plan sheets. Although the screening
fence is included in the plan set the Sliding Ornamental Gate it not.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
b) Ensure the sliding gate works with the site plan. It appears that the gate is supposed to open in only one direction
(detail provided). However, there is insufficient room for it to do so. Ensure the gate shown in the plan view of
the site plan, and the detail that you will be adding to the site plan, match and have sufficient space to function.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
c) The gate in the "Sliding Ornamental Gate" separate exhibit that was submitted appears to be see-thru. Full
screening of the vehicle storage is required. Ensure the gate provides full screening (that it is "Opaque" as
specified above).
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. The gate shown on sheet 11 does not appear to be "opaque" and
the note on the gate says "fabric screening from wind" which does not mean it is a visual screening fabric.
Vehicle storage areas cannot be visible from the public street. Address the following:
i. Revise the gate so that is it opaque and that nothing can be seen through it.
ii. Ensure the opaque nature of the gate is for the full height of the gate and not iust its middle portions.
24. [Comment] See the majority of the other SRC reviewer comments attached. Other comments will be forwarded to
you when they become available. At this time VDOT, and RWSA have not submitted comments. The final VDH
comments are also still pending. All SRC reviewer comments must be sufficiently address prior to final site plan
approval.
UPDATE: See the other SRC reviewer comments attached. All SRC reviewer comments must be sufficiently address
prior to final site plan approval.
FINAL: Comment not fully addressed. See the other SRC reviewer comments attached. All SRC reviewer comments
must be sufficiently address prior to final site plan approval.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Fire Rescue and Engineering comments have been attached. VDOT
and ACSA comments will be forwarded to you when they are received.
Additional comments for Final Site Plan:
25. [Comment] At the bottom of the title on Sheet 1 add the following site plan project number: SDP201800057
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
26. [32.6.2(i)] Parking and loading areas. Address the following:
a) Relocate the handicapped parking signage to not block the handicapped parking spaces. The space between the
wheel stop and the sidewalk is intended for vehicle overhang. Therefore the signage cannot be places within that
distance. The signage should be place behind the sidewalk and/or mounted on the retaining wall at the correct
height. See the additional information from engineering attached to these comments. Contact the engineering
reviewer for any clarification on appropriate locations and heights.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
b) Add typical parking space dimensions in the two parking space areas outside of the gate that have 3 and 6 spaces
in them.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
27. [Comment] Revise the Grading Plan to include a label for the maximum wall height of each wall.
Rev. 1: Comment not vet fully addressed. Max wall height was added to wall at southwest corner of the parking
lot but not along each of the walls at the entrance to the building. Revise the Grading Plan to include a label for
the maximum wall height of all walls.
Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is kept up to
date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under
"Departments" at Albemarle.org.
In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a revised final
site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter the application shall be deemed
to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the developer.
Please contact Paty Saternye in the Planning Division by using psaternye(&albemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3250 for
further information.
5
Review Comments for SDP201800057 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name: CALIBER COLLISION - FINAL
Date Completed: Wednesday, November 28, 2018 aepartmentUvisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Jahn Anderson
CDD Engineerina Requested Changes
1. As follow-up to ISP Engineering review comment 10_h_ and in response to proposed Access easement, Engineering
requests Applicant confirm that yellow highlight accurately identifies proposed SWM Facility /Access Easement -ref. photo
image Attached to review email (8f2312018 4.31 PM)- (Rev. 2) Addressed_
2. As follow-up to Applicant request to approve SWM easement location (ISP review comment 4.), location appears to
encompass the proposed stormwater BMP, and appears acceptable. A 15' private drainage easement from proposed SWM
facility to natural drainage feature is also provided with FSP_ Easements must be recorded; a .PDF scan of circuit court
receipt of recordation of Deed of Dedication must be sent to Engineering prior to FSP approval. (Rev. 2) Addressed. Note.
Engineering has no objection to Easement Plat, including SWM Facility Easement (see email, SUB201800160, 1012212018
3:41 PM).
3. As noted elsewhere, VSMP approval is required prior to FSP approval. VSMP fWPO is in process, and reviewer is
in contact with Applicant re_ VSMP 1WPO plan status. No further WPO plan revisions are required, but nutrient credit
purchase, tree conservation plan, SWM Maintenance Agreement, and Easements are required, and are for the moment
outstanding_ (Rev_ 2) Not addressed_ As of 11128118, all items remain incomplete: nutrient credit purchase, tree conservation
plan, SWM Facility Maintenance Agreement, and easement recordation. It is Engineering's understanding that the SWM
Facility Maintenance Agreement is at impasse since property has not transferred to future owner, which is entity applying for
Site Plan Approval. If this understanding is incorrect, please notify. Most recent correspondence on SWM Facility
Maintenance Agreement: email sent 11f28f2018 8:29 AM.
4. As fallow -up to ISP Engineering review comment 10.g., keynote °U° appears in legend, sheet 8, but unless
overlooked, this symbol does not appear on the site layout; please include symbol at each location to receive a CG-12 ramp,
on site layout, sheet S. (Rev. 2) Not addressed. Three sidewalk ramp details appear on sheet 9_ Add symbol (°U°, ramp type
2) to plan view to show VDOT CG-12 location at radius curb north of entrance on Avon Street Ext. This ramp should be
constructed with entrance curb_
5. As fallow -up to ISP Engineering review comment 19.: Engineering defers to VDOT to request or require specific
additional MUTCD traffic control measure detail, or Maintenance of Traffic Plan (if any), beyond level of detail presented with
the FSP_
Supplement to item #3, above, 7/17/18 VSMP-WPO Plan review comment: 'This project is denied, but eligible for approval
pending receipt of Agreement of Sale for 1.38 lb. nutrient credits, in document format acceptable to county, and upon receipt
of scan of recordation of Deed of Dedication of SWM Facility, Access, and Permanent Drainage Easement (acquisition of
easements, and purchase of Nutrient Credits are in process)."
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 11/30/2018
Review Comments for SDP2018OOO57 Final Site Development Plan LJ
Project Name: CALIBER COLLISION - FINAL
Date Completed: Wednesday, Nflvember 14, 201$ DepartmenVDiuisiorVAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Shawn Maddox Fine Rescue No Objection El
Fire Rescue has no objections_ SNM
.A
Page: 1 County of Albemarle Printed On: 11/30/2018