HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800048 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2018-12-28COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Memorandum
To: Jonathan Q. Ritchie, P.E. (jritchie@bohlereng com)
From: Tim Padalino, AICP — Senior Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: December 28, 2018
Subject: Review Comment Letter #3 — SDP-2018-00048 (Wawa — Final Site Plan dated 11/30/2018)
The plan referred to above has been reviewed by the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County
Department of Community Development (CDD) and by other members of the Site Review Committee (SRC).
The Planner the will approve the plan referred to above when the following items (below, from the Planner and from
other SRC plan reviewers) have been satisfactorily addressed and when all SRC plan reviewers have indicated in
writing their tentative approvals.
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.]
Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) — Tim Padalino, tpadalinogalbemarle.org — Requested Changes:
[Z.O. Section 32.5.2(a), 32.5.2(k), 32.5.2(n)]: The "Site Data" Table on Sheet C-103 ("General Notes and
Legend") indicates the "Site Area" is 1.44 acres (existing) and 1.52 acres (proposed). Proposed construction
activities (such as demolition and grading) and proposed permanent improvements (such as travelways, a
dumpster pad, and underground storm sewer and sanitary sewer infrastructure) are shown in the approximate
0.8-acre area that is currently located on the adjoining property to the north (TMP 032AO-02-00-OOlAO) owned
by Sentara Martha Jefferson Hospital (per Albemarle County GIS-Web).
These activities and improvements are currently not permissible in this area, as they would require control of
that portion of the Sentara Martha Jefferson Hospital property (through a recorded easement or through fee
simple ownership by way of a recorded boundary line adjustment plat). The County cannot approve Final Site
Plan SDP201800048 unless and until this issue is resolved. Please demonstrate control of this (approximate)
0.8-acre area, or submit a boundary line adjustment plat application for review.
Note: Staff acknowledge the note on Sheet C-202 ("Demolition Plan') stating `property line to be
vacated with boundary line adjustment" — however, a search of the County View application tracking
system indicates that no such application for a boundary line adjustment plat has been submitted,
reviewed, approved, or recorded.
Note: Staff acknowledge the letter from Ms. Amelia S. Black, DNP, MSN, RN, NEA-BC, Chief
Operating Officer for Sentara Martha Jefferson Hospital (dated June 18, 2017) intended to serve as
"evidence of Sentara's willingness to work with Mark and Wawa on this project. " However, the letter
does not provide authorization for SDP201800048 to include proposed construction activities or
proposed permanent improvements on TMP # 032-AO-02-00-OOIAO.
Comment #1 Update (10/31): Partially addressed. An application for a boundary line adjustment plat
(SUB201800150) has been submitted and reviewed, and tentative approval has been provided. The County is
currently waiting for the signed, notarized signature copies of SUB201800150 to be delivered for approval
signature by the Agent at the applicant's discretion. Staff also acknowledge the comment response letter which
states the "Boundary Line Adjustment Plat will be provided and approved prior to Site Plan approval."
Comment #1 Update (12/28): Partially addressed. No update; see above. Staff acknowledges the response
comment letter dated 11/30 which states that "Signed, notarized signature copies of Boundary Line Adjustment
Plat SUB201800150 are currently being coordinated and signature will be provided prior to site plan
approval. " After final County approval and after recordation of boundary line adjustment plat SUB201800150,
please ensure the final site plan reflects the adjusted property boundaries and includes reference to Deed Book
and Page number(s) of recorded plat.
2. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(a)]: Property boundaries shown on Sheet C-201 ("ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey") do not
match property boundaries shown on Sheet C-301 ("Site Plan") or on other sheets throughout the plan set.
• Note: Staffacknowledge the note on Sheet C-202 (`Demolition Plan') stating `property line to be
vacated with boundary line adjustment" — however, a search of current applications indicates that no
such application for a boundary line adjustment plat has been submitted, reviewed, approved, or
recorded.
Comment #2 Update (10/31): Partially addressed. An application for a boundary line adjustment plat
(SUB201800150) has been submitted and reviewed, and tentative approval has been provided. The County is
currently waiting for the signed, notarized signature copies of SUB201800150 to be delivered for approval
signature by the Agent at the applicant's discretion. Staff also acknowledge that the comment response letter
which states the "Boundary Line Adjustment Plat will be provided and approved prior to Site Plan approval."
Comment #1 Update (12/28): Partially addressed. No update; see above. Staff acknowledges the response
comment letter dated 11/30 which states that "Signed, notarized signature copies of Boundary Line Adjustment
Plat SUB201800150 are currently being coordinated and signature will be provided prior to site plan
approval. " After final County approval and after recordation of boundary line adjustment plat SUB201800150,
please ensure the final site plan reflects the adjusted property boundaries and includes reference to Deed Book
and Page number(s) of recorded plat.
3. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(b)]: Please add the following information to the "Site Data" Table on Sheet C-103
("General Notes and Legend"):
A. area of proposed improvements:
i. 6,001 SF building area identified as a percentage of overall site
ii. total parking/circulation area: (in acreage) and (as a percentage of overall site)
B. total area of impervious surface cover: (in acreage) and (as a percentage of overall site)
C. area of paved parking and vehicular circulation: (in acreage) and (as a percentage of overall site)
Comment #3 Update (10/31): Addressed.
4. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(m)]: Please show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection
from proposed point(s) of ingress and egress; or indicate the location of this information (if it has been provided
since the Initial Site Plan review).
Comment #4 Update (10/31): Addressed.
5. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(n)]: Please show the proposed location(s) of outdoor trash containers, and add a
corresponding symbol to the Legend on Sheet C-103 ("General Notes and Legend").
Comment #5 Update (10/31): Addressed.
6. [Z.O. Sections 32.5.2(q) and 32.7.9]: Please revise Sheet C-701 ("Landscape Plan") to address and resolve the
following issues, and to more generally ensure and demonstrate that the proposed Landscape Plan complies
with Z.O. Section 32.7.9:
A. The first row reads "Section 34-869 Tree Cover Requirements" but the correct reference appears to be
"Section 32.7.9.8(a)-1 Tree Canopy." Please revise this Section reference, the associated
Requirements and Calculations, and the Landscape Plan as may be necessary.
Comment #6-A Update (10/31): Addressed: 10% site coverage required; 10.8% provided.
B. The second row reads "Section 34-870 Streetscape Trees" but the correct reference appears to be
"Section 32.7.9.5 Landscaping Along Streets." Please revise this Section reference, the associated
Requirements and Calculations, and the Landscape Plan as may be necessary.
Comment #6-B Update (10/31): Partially addressed: (US 29) — 1 medium shade tree required for
every 40 feet of road frontage, with 6 understory trees provided for 230 feet of road frontage; and
(Proffit Road) — one large street tree required for every 50 feet of road frontage, with 3 trees provided
for 138 feet of road frontage. Staff also acknowledge the 47 Ilex verticillata proposed along Proffit
Road and additional landscaping near the intersection with US 29. However, the species of the three
proposed trees along Proffit Road is not specified; and a note near those three trees incorrectly states
"Proffit Road right of way / adjacent portion 138 LF / (4 trees required)." Please identify the tree
species (Cercidiphyllum japonicum?) and change "4" to "3" in the annotation. Staff also acknowledge
the 47 Ilex verticillata proposed along Proffit Road and additional landscaping near the intersection
with US 29.
Comment #6-B Update (12/28): Not addressed. Regarding "Landscaping Along Streets"
requirements for the Proffit Road street frontage:
i. Please identify the species of the three unidentified proposed trees along Proffit Road.
ii. Please revise the note near those three unidentified trees stating "4 trees required" to
be consistent with the calculation in the "Landscaping Compliance Chart" (only three
trees are required).
iii. Please indicate with a "*" the proposed landscaping materials which are intended to
satisfy the requirements for landscaping along Proffit Road (per Z.O. Section
32.7.9.5). The "Landscaping Compliance Chart" states that this "*" symbol is used to
indicate plant material(s) utilized to fulfill this requirement, but no such "*" symbol is
present on the proposed landscaping along Proffit Road.
C. The third row reads "Section 34-873 Parking Lots — Screening and Interior Landscaping" but the
correct reference appears to be "Section 32.7.9.6 Landscaping Within a Parking Area." Please revise
this Section reference, the associated Requirements and Calculations, and the Landscape Plan as may
be necessary.
Comment #6-C Update (10/31): Partially addressed: Staff acknowledge that the required minimum
number of shade trees [based on the number of parking spaces and as required by Section 32.7.9.6(b)]
appears to be met through the 4 Quercus alba and 1 Acer rubrum proposed to be sited around the
periphery of the parking area. However, the "minimum area" requirements contained in Section
32.7.9.6(a) are not fully met; the minimum area is "at least five (5) percent of the paved parking and
vehicular circulation area shall be landscaped with trees or shrubs." The Landscape Compliance Chart
on the Landscape Plan states that the "parking lot area" is 37,343 SF, which would mean that 1,867
SF of landscaping is required; but only 1,007 SF of landscaping is proposed. Additionally, the
parking lot area specified on the Landscape Plan (37,343 SF) appears to be discrepant with the Site
Data table on the Cover Sheet which states that the "Area of paved parking and vehicular circulation"
is "1.00 AC" or 43,560 SF. Please ensure consistency between Site Data table and Landscape
Compliance Chart; and please address the minimum area requirements.
Comment #6-B Update (12/28): Addressed: per email correspondence (dated 11/29, see attached).
D. The fourth row reads "Section 34-87(b)(2) Parking Lots Screening and Interior Landscaping" but
the correct reference appears to be "Section 32.7.9.7 Screening." Please revise this Section reference,
the associated Requirements and Calculations, and the Landscape Plan as may be necessary.
Comment #6-D Update (10/31): Addressed.
Comment #6-E Update (10/31): Withdrawn (comment provided in error; redundant with 6-D).
7. [Z.O. Sections 32.5.2(q) and 32.7.9.6]: The "Zoning Ordinance Requirements" table on Sheet C-701
("Landscape Plan") indicates that two Waivers have been requested. To date, no such Waiver requests have
been received.
• Note: Based on the preceding review comment (regarding incorrect references to "Zoning Ordinance
Requirements, " Staff acknowledge the waivers referenced may potentially not be applicable or
required, subject to further revision and additional review of Sheet C-701.
Comment #7 Update (10/31): Addressed; comment response letter clarifies that no waivers are required or
requested.
8. [Z.O. Section 32.5.2(q)]: Please provide the specified traffic generation figures (trip generation estimates); or
indicate the location of this information (if it has been provided since the Initial Site Plan review).
Comment #8 Update (10/31): Staff acknowledge the annotation added to the Site Plan sheet (196 VPD exiting
towards Proffit Road and 786 VPD exiting onto US 29).
9. [Z.O. Sections 32.7.3(a), 21.3, 4.12.4(a), and 4.12.6]: The parking information contained in the "Site Data"
table on Sheet C-103 ("General Notes and Legend") is not correct and must be revised.
Specifically, the "Parking Required" tabulation states that 53 spaces are required; however, the applicable
required (minimum) number of off-street parking spaces for the proposed use have been identified as 30. This
figure was generated in consultation with CDD staff in the Zoning Division and Planning Division, using the
following definition in Chapter 4 ("General Regulations"), Section 12 ("Parking, Stacking, and Loading"),
Subsection 6 ("Minimum Number of Required Parking Spaces for Scheduled Uses"):
Food store: One (1) space per two hundred (200) square feet of gross floor area.
Per the information contained on the initial site plan, this calculates to a minimum requirement of [(1 x 6,000
GSF)/200] = (6,000/200) = 30 parking spaces.
The number of proposed spaces is 54, which meets this minimum requirement. However, the proposed project
is also subject to maximum off-street parking limitations per 18-4.12.4(a) ("Parking Areas — Maximum Number
of Parking Spaces"), which is as follows:
Maximum number of spaces. The number of parking spaces in a parking area may not exceed the number
of spaces required by this section by more than twenty (20) percent.
This calculates to a maximum limitation of (1.2 x 30 spaces) = 36 parking spaces. The number of proposed
spaces is 54, which does not comply with Z.O. 4.12.4(a). Therefore, you may address this issue by: a.) reducing
the number of proposed parking spaces; or b.) providing more detailed information about the proposed use(s) of
the primary structure, if the structure is to include multiple different "Scheduled Uses" (as identified in Z.O.
4.12.6), for the purposes of (potentially) re -calculating the parking (min.) requirements and (max.) limitations in
a way that (potentially) allows for more parking spaces; or c.) requesting a "modification or waiver" pursuant to
Z.O. 4.12.2(c), which is an administrative review process. For reference, Z.O. 4.12.2(c) states (in part):
"Modification or waiver. The limitation on the maximum number of parking spaces required by subsection
4.12.4(a)... may be modified or waived ... in an individual case if the zoning administrator finds that the
public health, safety or welfare would be equally or better served by the modification or waiver and that
the modification or waiver would not otherwise be contrary to the purpose and intent of this chapter."
Comment #9 Update (10/31): Partially addressed. Staff acknowledge the submission of the Parking
Modification Justification Memorandum prepared by Kimley-Horn, requesting a parking waiver pursuant to
4.12.2(c) to allow for a total of 46 parking spaces. That memo / waiver request, as well as a copy of the revised
final site plan and the prior review comment letter, were transmitted to Zoning staff on 10/10. However, as of
the date of this review comment letter being finalized, that parking waiver is still under administrative review
by Community Development staff.
Comment #9 Update (12/28): Addressed. CDD-Zoning staff provided updated guidance (dated 11/14/2018,
see attached) clarifying that the required number of parking spaces and the provided number of parking spaces
are acceptable.
10. [Provided via email on 8/10/2018 in response to meeting at the Community Development
Department on 8/9/20181: A note must be added to SDP201800048 that confirms the proposed off -site
improvements/modifications do not compromise the MJ property's compliance with the applicable
minimum parking requirements. More specifically, please add a note to reference the "Layout Plan" (Sheet
8 of 15) and "Cover Sheet" (Sheet 1 of 15) of approved final site plan SDP201000029, and state that 165
parking spaces were required; 198 parking spaces were provided, and with these modifications shown on
SDP201800048 (the elimination of four (4) spaces) the minimum parking requirements are still met by MJ.
Comment Update (10/31): Addressed.
Albemarle County Zoning Division (Zoning)
Francis MacCall, fmaccall ci,albemarle.org — Zoning staff provided updated guidance on the parking requirements in an
email dated 11/14/2018 (attached for reference).
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB)
Heather McMahon, hmcmahongalbemarle.org — "Pending" (12/19/2018); see attached comments regarding ARB
review and approval, which must occur prior to final site plan approval.
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)
David James, djames(cbalbemarle.org — PENDING (as of 12/28/18); Engineering comments will be forwarded upon
receipt.
Albemarle County Service Authority
Richard Nelson, rnelsongserviceauthority.org — PENDING (as of 12/28/18); ACSA review comments will be
forwarded upon receipt.
Virginia Department of Transportation
Adam Moore, Adam.Moore(a,vdot.vir ig nia.gov — PENDING (as of 12/28/18); VDOT previously requested
changes on 11/26 (previous comments attached for reference). VDOT review comments will be forwarded upon
receipt.
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Elise Kiewra, ekiewra@albemarle.org — "No Objection" (7/20/18).
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Michael Dellinger, mdellinger@albemarle.org —"No Objection" (10/31/2018).
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue
Shawn Maddox, smaddox@albemarle.org — "No Objection" (10/27/2018).
Please contact Tim Padalino at the Department of Community Development at (434)-296-5832 ext. 3088 or
1padalinokalbemarle.org for further information or assistance.