HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201700021 Review Comments Letter of Revision 2 2019-05-31County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: Justin Shimp
From: Tor! Kanellopoulos- Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: May 31, 2019
Subject: LOR#2: SDP201700021 Malloy Ford
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will grant or recommend approval of the Letter of Revision
referenced above once the following comments have been addressed:
Planning:
1. Parking Comments:
a. Sheet 3: Required parking is listed as 105 spaces, however I calculate 106 spaces (101 +
5 accessible spaces).
b. Sheet 3: 1 calculate provided parking (12 + 26 + 55 + 5 + 10) to be 108 spaces (or 113
with the 5 accessible spaces), not 112 as listed under `Total Parking Provided". I counted
112 spaces on the site plan (Sheet 1). Please revise to be consistent.
2. Based on my calculations, only three (3) loading spaces are required (55,138 — 8,000 — 20,000 —
20,000 = 7,138 which is less than 20,000).
a. Either: Remove loading spaces in the 15' travelway and revise to be a one-way
travelway per Engineering standards; or revise back to the approved design on the
Minor Amendment SDP2017-21; or stripe to indicate that it is not a travelway and keep
the space there per Engineering comments.
3. Lighting Comments:
a. There are lights on the ground (front portion of the site) and on Sheet 1 of this LOR that
were not previously shown on the Minor Amendment or LOR#1. Submit a lighting plan
that includes this front portion of the site.
1. Additionally, these light poles are shown on Sheet 1 but not on Sheet 3 (but light
poles are shown for the other areas of the site on Sheets 4 and 5). Show light
poles consistently on all sheets.
b. Sheets land 5 show the two light poles still in the 15' travelway area adjacent to the 5
customer spaces and 10 customer spaces toward the rear of the development, however
the lighting plan on Sheet 9 does not show these two poles. Are they being removed?
c. Show light poles on the landscaping plans.
4. It is unclear why the plan is being phased. Several buildings are shown in Phase 2, however the
parking has been calculated for both Phases. Please clarify.
5. Show parking and labeling on the Phase 2 area that is consistent with approved SP2018-5 (e.g.
label area as 'future employee parking' per what is shown on the SP).
6. Include the square footage of the buildings on the LOR. The LOR submittal states that the square
footage of one of the buildings has been altered, however this is not reflected on the LOR site
plan.
Engineering:
1. Please see separate attachment.
Inspections:
1. Proper number of accessible parking spaces. Need to verify that the spaces and accessible
routes do not exceed 1:48.Otherwise no objection.
2. Additional comments pending. Accessible spaces may not be acceptable.
Fire/Rescue:
1. No Objection.
ARB:
1. The present location of the dumpster and its enclosure is not the location illustrated in the
Minor Amendment and approved on 1-11-2018. The present location of the dumpster is
oriented towards and is visible from the Entrance Corridor. Either relocate the dumpster and its
enclosure to the previously -approved, location or add additional screening to mitigate the view
of this refuse area from the Entrance Corridor.
2. Light poles have been added south of the building and east of the building, in the vehicle display
area. There is no LOR for these lights, and so this LOR application must show the lights south
and east of the building in order to request their relocations from what was approved with the
Minor Amendment in 1-11-2018. Therefore, the lighting and photometric plan needs to
encompass the lighting south and east of the building. Revise.
3. A site visit was conducted by AR8 staff on 5-24-19. ARB staff has observed that the actual
placement of trees on east of the building, in the vehicular display area, does not reflect what
was approved in the first letter of revision on 11-13-2018. Therefore, this LOR application's
landscape plan must be revised to reflect exactly what is on the ground as of 5-24-19.
4. Coordinate the lighting and landscape plans. Staff is concerned that the two lights placed in two
of the four islands in the vehicular display area east of the building will conflict with the large
shade trees (Acer x freemanil 'Jeffersred', or Autumn Blaze Maple) that will have a mature
height of 40-55' and a mature spread of 30-40'.
5. Add the standard plant health note to the revised landscape plan: "All site plantings of trees and
shrubs shall be allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height; the topping of trees is
prohibited. Shrubs and trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of
the plant."
Please contact Tori Kanellopouios in the Planning Division at vkanellonoulos@albemar_le.ore or 434-296-
5832 ext. 3270 for further information.
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone 434 296-5832 Fax 434 9724126
Site Plan review
Project: Malloy Ford -- LOR#2
Primary Contact: Justin Shimp iustin(@.shimp-engineeriLn.g.com
Shimp Engineering P.C., 912 E. High Street, Charlottesville, VA 22902
Owner or Rep: B Properties LC, P.O. Box 7627, Charlottesville, VA 22906
Plan received date: 21 May 2019
Date of comments: 31 May 2019
Reviewer: John Anderson
Project Coordinator: Tori Kanellopoulos
SDP2017-00021
Please ref. Final Site Plan checklist for plan reviewers (FSP), and consider reference standards:
1. Protect power /light poles located on (marked) line separating rows of parking spaces with bumper blocks,
similar to 18' L parking spaces adjacent to 5' sidewalk (ACDSM, pg. 17}. Please note that edge of light
pole is equivalent to face of curb in ACDSM diagram. Depth of parking space must be 16' measured from
face of bumper block. This does not appear to be the case (LOR#2, sheet 1). Design should consider pole
base dimension and may require revised drive aisle width to preserve one parking space (equipped with
bumper block), but not both. If drive aisle width is reduced to 24', it appears one space could provide 16'
depth, with 2' between face of bumper block and face of light pole. Engineering will approve design that
meets ACDSM guidance.
2. Protect power /light poles located in parking spaces with bollards at four corners, and stripe /mark /sign any
parking space 'No parking' if a bollard restricts access by any amount. That is, if vehicles do not have 9'
clear width directly in front of a space, that space should be striped 'No parking.' (18-4.12.16.d; proposal
does not 'preserve the required dimensions' of at least three spaces)
3. Ensure Waste Management vehicles need not reverse a significant distance before switching to forward
drive (100' is significant).
4. Sheet 9: Note reads 'Original plan except one pole has ben removed.' It appears two poles have been
removed. Please clarify. Also, item 7.c., below.
5. A block wall appears to be installed along phase line. Please depict wall on LOR#2. If wall height exceeds
3', it requires a building permit. Please confirm wall height, and if > 3', coordinate any inspection
requirements with County building inspections.
6. 'All employee and customer parking areas south of buildings should be protected by curbed islands.' (FSP,
Parking and Circulation, item 5 . Revise design to provide curbed islands.
Minimum 3' width of curbed islands (FSP, Parking and Circulation, item 6 .
7. LOR#2, Sheet I /Additional:
a. Label TNT 04500-00-00-112BO to south (adjacent parcel); provide deed bk.-pg. ref. /owner name.
b. Label 1W 04500-00-00-068CO to north (adjacent parcel); provide deed bk.-pg. ref. /owner name.
c. If LP located in 3.1' wide space between eastern -most loading space and western -most customer
parking space is to be removed, provide curb island between customer parking and loading space.
If LP is not removed at this location, a curb island may still provide effective protection for LP
base (if island poured around base). Bollards may intrude on western -most customer parking
space, and thereby eliminate this parking space.
8. Meaning of'SP' and 'R' is ambiguous. (Ref. phase line.) Please provide an abbreviation guide.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 2
9. Sheets 1 /2, please label:
a. Sidewalks
b. Buildings
c. Fencing
d. Sidewalk width, E side of building, sheet 1
e. Shared access easement likely approved with Minor Amendment (parcel to south)
f. Land cover type (turf, asphalt, concrete)
g. If ` x — x — x' line -type indicates silt fence, please delete (ESC need not be shown.) If line -type is
permanent fencing, please provide label/s.
Link to ACDSM:
http://www.albemarle.or�/uplloadlimages/fonns center/departments/community development/forms/design standards man
uai/Albemarle CounIX Design Standards Manual 2015-04-25 draft, df
Please call if any questions: 434.296-5832 —0069
Thank you
SDP201700021 LOR2 Malloy Ford 053119
Tor! Kanello oulos
From: Tori Kanellopoulos
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 8:40 AM
To: Kendra Patrick; John Anderson; Heather McMahon
Cc: Justin Shimp, P.E.; Lisa Green; Keith Bradshaw, Scott Reuschling; Michael Dellinger
Subject: RE: Malloy LOR2 Latest Revision
Hi All,
Remaining Planning comments (please feel free to send me just the updated pages electronically once they are
updated):
1. Sheet 3 Parking: Sheet says "101 spaces (Includes 5 HC)" required, however I calculate 106 including HC. Please
revise.
a. 8 + 78 + 15 + 5HC =106 spaces.
PARKING
Required Parking:
a es -- 1 space per 1,500 Sf display area
11,735 5f display / 1,500 SF = 8 crrstarner spaces
Services — 1 employee space + 2 additional spaces per service stall
26 atdS a 26 aroyee + 52 customer =78 pa
Body Son-1 employee space + 1 sdditionol spaces per servce stall 5 stalls: 5 employee spaces + 10 customer spaces - 15 spaces
Leadirgl Areas — 1 loading space per 15,000 SF +1 for e=h odditicnol 20,000 5F
55,138 SF ietal gross leasable area = 3 spaces
Access' — 5 accessllale spaces per 101-150 parlking spades
Provided Parking:
w 12 custom spaces
Servic - provided) . 30 employee Spam + 55 aunt
w : 5 Onployee allwas + 10 =Starner epam
Laodir ,—Area _ ■r 3 l abo am spdm
Total Parkipig Required = -H+w 101 eprm � 5.HC) + 3 logdirg qWn
Total Porkir�g Provided — � odes 112 ep5 HC + 3 looting spates
b. _-- <_ _ _ _ _ . _ .
2. Planning has no objection to bumper blocks and light poles, just a note to please keep in mind that if applicant
decides to remove the bumper blocks (per our discussion yesterday), they should not be shown on the plan. The
inspectors will look for exactly what is shown on the plan.
3. In progress: Will look for revised access easement on next electronic submittal showing new deed book/page
number with all obstructions outside of easement. Although this is a private easement, it is also a travelway for
public customers, therefore it must be an unobstructed travelway.
No objection from ARB, just a note for potential future conflicts:
I. There are four lights (B-1, B-2, B-3, and A-1) that are positioned within a few feet of the center of large shade
trees. Had this issue come to my attention in the previous LOR or before site work was done, I would never have
approved this configuration because the tree canopies will conflict with the light poles eventually. He has added
the note to Sheet 6 which is the property owner's pledge to only prune/trim (and never top) trees to maintain
their health and to allow the trees to attain maturity. This, as I said in the meeting, doesn't preclude site
readiness and may not be an issue for years to come, but someday it may be a violation.
Engineering comments are pending.
Remaining steps:
1. New deed book and page number for adjusted access easement to remove conflicts with obstructions already
installed on the ground.
2. Final LOR addressing all remaining review comments as they are received.
a. Once LOR is signed by Planning (Tor! or someone else depending on who is available in the office),
Building and Zoning inspections will be needed. What is on the ground must match the approved LOR
exactly.
3. Fix sidewalk and HC spaces on the ground to meet ADA/County standards.
1 want to note that all reviewers and inspectors are doing their best to address this submittal in an expedited manner,
given workloads and existing commitments. There are many other projects in the queue as well and we want to ensure
that projects are reviewed fairly and consistently. I will do my best to get this signed before I leave for the conference
next week, however another Planner can sign off if needed to continue moving this forward.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Best,
Ton
From: Kendra Patrick <kendra@shimp-engineering.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2019 7:35 PM
To: John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org>; Tori Kanellopoulos <vkaneilopoulos@albemarle.org>; Heather
McMahon <hmcmahon@albemarle.org>
Cc: Justin Shimp, P.E. <justin@shimp-engineering.com>
Subject: Malloy LOR2 Latest Revision
All,
Attached is the latest version of the Letter of Revision with changes that were talked about in the meeting today.
Thank you all,
Kendra Patrick
2
Tori Kanello oulos
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kendra, well done —thank you
One remaining (New comment:
John Anderson
Thursday, June 6, 2019 11:31 AM
Kendra Patrick
Justin Shimp, P.E.; Tori Kanellopoulos
SUB201700021 -1-0112 - Malloy Ford
t
(IMAGE below from .PDF Attachment, K. Patrick 6/5/2019 7:35 PM email)
11. Please include width dimension for far right, far left of 15 — 9' X 18' customer parking spaces —image
below. Ensure width (incl gutter width) > 9' Width ap ears to scale < 9'. .PDFpreview welcome.
In CUSTOMER PARKING 2,442SF I2VICE it .'' ,,
2 __SPACES — _ — DROP—OFF -- — ~ , RA P
li h - $'� I ` _ ^ ` DIRECT
1Z CUSTOMER SPACE
.{SERVICES)
7.I3` � � •
T A
ITAfCCESS EASEMENT�� -
_ PARKING SPACES
j B POPIES STLC •
n a -7nn rrtn
Please send .PDF preview, and Engineering should be able to revise review LOR2 status to No objection.
John Anderson, PE, Civil Engineer II • (434) 296-5832 -x3069
Community Development Dept. f Engineering Division
County of Albemarle 1 401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
1
Tori Kanellopoulos
From: Tori Kanellopoulos
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 5:06 PM
To: Justin Shimp, P.E.
Cc: John Anderson; Kendra Patrick
Subject: RE: SUB201700021 -1-0112 - Malloy Ford
Zoning determination is that either:
I. A BLA is needed so all improvements are on the correct parcel.
2. The maintenance and access of the improvements (parking and landscaping) needs to be included in the
updated easement (that is, the private access easement you discussed updating during the meeting yesterday).
It is acceptable to keep all improvements where they are if they are covered by the new easement.
A BLA may be preferable in the sense it leaves the adjacent parcel less encumbered with easements, however l am not
sure which way is faster.
Tor!
From: Justin Shimp, P.E. <justin@shimp-engineering.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2019 3:22 PM
To: Tori Kanellopoulos <vkanellopoulos@albemarle.org>
Cc: John Anderson <janderson2@albemarle.org>; Kendra Patrick <kendra@shimp-engineering.com>
Subject: Re: SUB201700021-LOR2 - Malloy Ford
Tor!,
Please let us know what you hear, they are out there now fixing the sidewalk and we would probably just move the tree
islands over rather than file the BLA due to the timing issues we are facing.
Thanks for your quick review of the last LOR submittal!
Justin Shimp, P.E.
434-953-6116
On Jun 6, 2019, at 2:06 PM, Tori Kanellopoulos <vkanellopoulos@albemarle.ore> wrote:
Thank you for the updated comments, John!
After talking with Megan this morning, a BLA is likely needed. Am confirming with Zoning and waiting to
hear back. It is a possible an easement may cover this but a BLA is probably needed. Required
improvements (that is, landscaping and parking) need to be on the parcel associated with the site plan.
On SDP2017-21 the landscaping and parking was all on one parcel, but on the LOR it is now partially on
the adjacent parcel.
Minor Amendr
Review Comments for SDP201700021
Prot Name: Mallby Ford - Minor DIGITAL
Date Completed:) Wednesday, June 12, 2019 Department/DivisionlAgency: Reviev
Reviewer: Heather McMahon CDD ARB i Roque
Note for future potential conflict on the site
There are four lights (B-1., B2, B-3, and A-1) that are positioned within a few feet of the center of large sha+
issue come to my attention in the previous LOR or before site work was done; I would never have approved
because the tree canopies will conflict with the light poles eventually. He has added the note to Sheet 6 whic
owner's pledge to only prune/trim (and never tap) trees to maintain their health and to allow the trees to attaii
I said in the meeting, doesn't preclude site readiness and may not be an issue for years to come, but some
violation_
6112119 —
Keith Bradshaw provided photos of the dumpster from the EC on a site visit on 6110/19_ The dumpster is cle
due to the use of a chain -link gate which offers maximum transparency. This unapproved material change is
the EC and does not elminite visibility of the refuse area _ Changes to the gate material to reflect the approve
enclosure materials are required. The gate must also be closed at all times except when the dumpster is beii
new and unapproved orientation and placement of the refuse area will require this constant compliance..
Tori Kanello oulos
From: Heather McMahon
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2019 1:09 PM
To: Kendra Patrick
Cc: Tori Kanellopoulos; Keith Bradshaw; Justin Shimp
Subject: RE: Malloy Ford Dumpster Enclosure
Kendra,
Yes, the materials of the dumpster enclosure are nothing like what was approved in the original plan; the approved
materials for the dumpster enclosure were brick walls and a wooden gate, while a wooden fence and chain -link gate
were installed instead. However, the wooden fence eliminates views of the refuse area, so if a wooden gate of the same
height, material, design and color of the present constructed fence were to replace the extant chain link gate AND if the
replacement gate successfully eliminates all views of the dumpster from the EC, then this would be approvable.
The contractor will attain an approval to make said change when the LOR reflects the changes in the dumpster
enclosure's materiality/design in addition to the refuse area's relocation and orientation. You all will need to add a new
detail of the dumpster enclosure to the LOR that reflects what has been changed. This will be reviewed before approval
is granted.
I hope this clarifies how the process is intended to work.
Thanks,
Heather McMahon, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
434-296-5832 x3278
hmcmahon@albemarle.org
From: Kendra Patrick <kendra@shimp-engineering.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 201912:53 PM
To: Heather McMahon <hmcmahon@albemarle.org>
Subject: Malloy Ford - Dumpster Enclosure
Heather,
have spoken with the site contractor to let him know that the dumpster enclosure he installed is not per plan and will
need to be fixed. I am aware the materials are not per original plan, especially the chain -link gate. Would ARB approve
the enclosure if he fixes the gate to make it match the rest of the enclosure? He wants to be sure it will be approved
before making these changes.
Thank you,
Kendra Patrick
KENDRA PATRICK, EIT