HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900021 Review Comments Initial Site Plan 2019-06-20COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
June 20, 2019
Justin Shimp, P.E.
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
912 E. High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 227-5140 / justin&shimp-en ing eering com
RE: Site Review Committee Comment Letter for SDP-2019-00021(Flow Mazda -VW — Initial Site Plan)
Dear Mr. Shimp:
The Planner for the Planning Division of the Albemarle County Community Development Department (CDD) and
other members of the Site Review Committee (SRC) have reviewed the development proposal referenced above.
Initial review comments from the following SRC members are attached:
Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner)
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) — (attached)
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) — (attached)
Albemarle County Information Services (E911) — (attached)
Albemarle County Building Inspections — (attached)
Albemarle County Department of Fire -Rescue — (attached)
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) — (attached)
Virginia Department of Health (VDH) — (attached)
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) — (attached)
Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference to Chapter 18 of the Albemarle County Code (Zoning
Ordinance), unless otherwise specified. (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time;
additional comments may be added or eliminated based on further review.)
The Lead Reviewer will either approve with conditions or deny the Initial Site Plan within 15 days of the Site
Review Meeting.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions, or require additional information or assistance.
Sincerely,
Andy Reitelbach
Senior Planner / areitelbachkalbemarle.org / (434)-296-5832 x 3261
1
Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) — Andy Reitelbach, areitelbachgalbemarle.org — Requested
Changes:
1. [32.4.2.1(f)] The mailing notification fee of $215.00 has not been paid. The fee must be paid prior to Friday,.
July 5t'', in order for the initial site plan to be approved.
2. [General Comment] A special use permit for outdoor display and storage is required for this property before
the initial site plan can be approved. It is recognized that an application for such a special use permit has been
submitted to the County, and it is currently under review. However, this initial site plan cannot be approved
unless the special use permit is approved first. If there are further questions about the special use permit, please
speak to Margaret Maliszewski (mmaliszewskigalbemarle.org), the planner leading the review of the special
use permit application.
3. [General Comment] A boundary line adjustment plat is required to be reviewed by the County, approved by
the County, and recorded with the Clerk of the Court, before this site plan can be approved, as the proposed
boundary lines do not match the lines currently in existence.
There is an arrow labelled as "Existing Boundary Line." However, it is not pointing to a line.
4. [General Comment] These subject parcels potentially lie within the Monticello Viewshed. It is recommended
that the applicant reach out to Liz Russell of Monticello to discuss this project. She may be reached at 434-984-
7589 or lrusselKDmonticello.org.
5. [General Comment] An access easement is proposed for adjacent properties to accommodate the proposed
Pantops Corner Way private street. This proposed access easement crosses the northeastern portion of 78-5C as
well. Depending on the approval chronology of these various plans, the access easement may need to be shown
on this plan if the easement is recorded prior to approval of this plan.
6. [General Comment] The Existing Conditions sheet is unclear. It is also labelled as the demo sheet; however,
few items are labelled as being proposed to be demolished. Please indicate on this sheet which existing elements
are proposed to be demolished.
In addition, include the deed book and page number for the temporary construction easement.
Also, there is an I F permanent easement referenced. Identify the holder of that easement and what type of
easement it is. It is shown where construction is proposed to take place and may affect this construction,
depending on the terms of the easement.
7. [General Comment] Identify the "starred" area on sheet C5. It does not appear to be referenced in a legend.
8. [5.1.31; 5.1.321 The site plan must comply with the supplemental regulations as found in these sections of the
Zoning Ordinance. In addition to complying with all subsections, designate the locations on the site plan that are
proposed to be areas for vehicles awaiting repair. Such areas cannot be visible from the public streets.
9. [4.4] There is a tree shown within the sight distance triangle on the landscaping plan. Remove this tree to provide
for clear sight distance.
10. [General Comment] There is only one entrance shown on the plan, serving two separate parcels. If a second
entrance is not proposed to be installed, a shared access easement will need to be recorded prior to approval of
the site plan to ensure that there is adequate access to both subject parcels.
11. [4.11.4] The proposed structure on TMP 78-5C is located within a temporary construction easement. This
structure cannot interfere with the terms of this easement and may need to be relocated, depending on the duration
and other terms included within the recorded construction easement.
12. [4.12.3] Storage, sale, and repair, among other activities, of vehicles is not permitted within required parking
2
spaces or loading areas. Designate those spots that are to be display spaces on the site plan, as they cannot be
concurrently used as customer and employee parking. Those spaces already shown as display on the site plan do
not correspond with those areas designated for display on the SP concept plan. These two plans need to match.
13. [4.12.4] The number of parking spaces provided exceeds the number of required spaces by more than the 20%
permitted by 4.12.4. The number of spaces provided needs to be reduced.
14. [4.12.6] There are two separate parcels included on this site plan. The parking schedule needs to be broken out
into parking for each parcel, with the number of spaces required and provided designated for each of the two
parcels, to ensure that each parcel has the required number of parking spaces and can stand alone with its own
parking spaces. A shared parking agreement between the two parcels may be necessary to allow for cross -
parking.
In addition, the spaces designated for customers must be clearly delineated, signed, and maintained. Designate
these spots on the site plan.
15. [4.12.13] Loading areas are not shown on the site plan. They must be provided, complying with 4.12.13 and
4.12.18 of the Zoning Ordinance. Each of the two parcels must have its own loading area.
16. [4.12.13] Dumpster pad areas are not shown on the site plan. They must be provided, complying with 4.12.13
and 4.12.19 of the Zoning Ordinance. Each of the two parcels must have its own dumpster pad.
17. [4.12.19 and 32.7.9.7(a)(3)] Please provide a profile view detail with dimensions and materials of the dumpster
pad enclosure to verify compliance with the screening requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Please
note that fences or other constructed screening measures must be a minimum of six feet (6') in height, as specified
in 32.7.9.7 (e).
18. [4.12.16] The parking areas do not meet the minimum design requirements. Many of the parking aisles do not
meet the minimum required widths.
In addition, parking bumpers are required for those spaces adjacent to the sidewalks, as the sidewalks are not six
(6) feet in width.
19. [4.17 and 32.7.81 A lighting plan that complies with 4.17 of the Zoning Ordinance must be provided with the
final site plan (unless required earlier as a condition of the special use permit that is required for outdoor display
and storage).
20. [4.20] On the cover sheet, revise the setbacks note to include the maximum front setback requirement for lots
abutting a principal arterial highway. This section applies to TMP 78-5G, as Route 250 is such a highway. TMP
78-5C does not fall under this exception, however, and must meet the 30-foot maximum setback requirement.
21. [4.20] Revise the location of the proposed building on TMP 78-5C, as it does not currently meet the required
maximum front setback of 30' from the right-of-way. The building must be moved closer to the street frontage.
22. [21.4] Revise the maximum allowable building height on the cover sheet to 65 feet, as provided for in section
21.4, Commercial Districts — Generally, Height Regulations, of the zoning ordinance.
23. [32.5.1(c)] Please show all existing utility easements on the drawings. Include a label or call out for each
easement stating whether the easement is public or private, the owner of record and the recorded instrument
number, and easement width where existing easements are visible on the plans. There are a lot of easements that
appear to cross these two parcels.
24. [32.5.2(a)] Show and label all minimum and maximum setback lines on the final site plan site layout drawings.
The setbacks should be shown in accordance with Section 4.20 of the Zoning Ordinance. The building on TMP
78-5C currently does not meet the required 30-foot maximum setback. In addition, it does not appear that the
parking spaces meet the required 10-foot minimum setback line from public rights -of -way.
3
25. [32.5.2(a)] Where do the separate "Building Setbacks" on the cover sheet come from? Why are they included
separately from general setbacks under the zoning section?
26. [32.5.2(a)] There are retaining walls proposed to be constructed that cross over onto other adjacent parcels.
Include the information for these parcels on the cover sheet of the site plan. In addition, easements will be
required from the adjacent property owners for construction and maintenance activity regarding these retaining
walls.
27. [32.5.2(a)] Revise the zoning designation on the cover sheet to state that these parcels also lie within the Steep
Slopes — Managed overlay district. In addition, show the locations of these managed steep slopes on the site plan.
28. [32.5.2(a)] A special use permit is required for the proposed use. The special use permit description and
conditions must be included in the site plan before approval can be granted.
29. [32.5.2(a)] The parcel lines for the northern side of TMP 78-5C are not shown. These must be depicted. In
addition, label the rest of the parcel lines for the two parcels. It is unclear what the parcel lines, versus what are
easement lines, sidewalk lines, and retaining wall lines, along the various parcel boundaries.
30. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the TMP numbers and present uses of the abutting parcels.
31. [32.5.2(a)] Provide the acreage of each parcel included in this site plan.
32. [32.5.2(a)] Revise the site plan to show the temporary construction easement that is shown on the approved BLA
plat for SUB2019-00002, between revised parcels 5E and 5C, leading toward 5F. This easement may have an
effect on the construction of the building on TMP 78-5C.
33. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the distinct amounts of square footage of showroom, drop-off, and service areas for each
dealership, as well as the totals. Include these numbers in the schedule on the cover sheet, as well as on the site
plan.
34. [32.5.2(b)] The existing use indicates there is only one dealership on the properties; however, it appears there
are multiple other buildings on these parcels. Provide their uses as well.
35. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the proposed maximum height for each building separately.
36. [32.5.2(b)] The amount of parking shown on the site plan does not match what is indicated on the cover sheet.
Please revise.
In addition, provide on the cover sheet the number of display spaces that are provided on the site plan, under the
parking schedule.
There is a row of parking provided in the interior of TMP78-5C labelled as 13 spaces. However, only 8 are
shown.
There is a row of parking provided along Route 250 labelled as 22 spaces. However, only 21 are shown.
There are two oddly shaped display "parking spaces" in the row along Route 250. What are they? They need to
be more clearly identified as they cannot be used for parking.
37. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of impervious cover on the site.
38. [32.5.2(b)] Provide the maximum amount of paved parking and other vehicular circulation areas. (Or is this
requirement done with the "Pavement" line under the land use schedule?)
39. [32.5.2(c)] Is this project proposed to be phased? Or will both dealerships be developed at the same time? The
4
BLA plat will need to be recorded prior to approval of the site plan.
40. [32.5.2(h)] Provide the HE of the proposed buildings.
41. [32.5.2(i)] The shared access easement will need to be shown on the plan, as the two parcels are sharing an
entrance. In addition, if it is recorded first, the access easement that is being reviewed as SUB2019-00002, for
Pantops Corner, will need to be shown on this plan, as it crosses a small part of TMP 78-5C.
42. [32.5.2(i)] Provide the right-of-way width for Route 250.
43. [32.5.2 (k)] Please label all existing and proposed sewer and drainage easements by type and include a
size/width measurement. For existing easements, state the deed book and page of the recorded instrument.
44. [32.5.2 (1)] Please label all existing and proposed utility easements by type and include a size/width
measurement. For existing easements, state the deed book and page of the recorded instrument.
Where is the proposed revised location of the utility easement?
45. [32.5.2(m)] Show the distance to the nearest existing street intersection from the proposed ingress and egress.
46. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the width of the sidewalks on the parcels. In addition, clearly label the sidewalk along Routes
250 and 20. Sidewalk must be provided along the street frontage. As entrances are proposed to be closed,
sidewalk must be constructed in those areas as well.
47. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the maximum footprint of the proposed buildings.
48. [32.5.2(n)] What are the rectangles depicted near the entrances to the customer service drives? Are there garage
doors being included at the service drives?
49. [32.5.2(n)] Please state the height of all proposed fences and retaining walls in the labels used on the drawings.
Profile view details of all proposed fences, retaining walls, and constructed screening measures will be required
with the final site plan. Each will need to show the types of materials used and dimensions. In addition, safety
railings will be needed between pedestrian areas/parking lots and adjacent retaining walls.
50. [32.5.2(n)] Pedestrian crosswalks and accessible ramps must be provided at all locations within the site where
ramps connect sidewalks on opposite sides of vehicular travel ways and streets.
a. Please label the dimensions and surface materials in compliance with the County's design standards.
b. Ramps are not shown at the proposed new entrance to the site.
51. [32.5.2(o)] Any areas proposed to be dedicated or reserved for public use must be shown on the site plan.
52. [32.5.2(p) and 32.7.91 A full landscape plan in accordance with this section of the zoning ordinance must be
provided with the final site plan (unless required earlier as a condition of the required special use permit for
outdoor display and storage).
a. In addition to interior landscaping and street landscaping, tree canopy coverage will need to be met.
Landscaping will also need to be approved by the ARB.
b. In the landscape plans, include a note stating that "all landscaping shall be installed by the first planting
season following the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within the development."
c. Add a note to the landscape plans stating, "All landscaping and screening shall be maintained in a healthy
condition by the current owner or a property owners' association, and replaced when necessary.
Replacement material shall comply with the final site plan approved landscape plan."
d. A landscaping schedule will need to be provided.
e. Parking area landscaping must be provided in islands. Two -foot paved areas between parking spaces, as
shown in those areas along Routes 20 and 250, are not of a sufficient size to accommodate the parking
lot landscaping.
5
f. Why are trees not being provided at the corner of Routes 20 and 250 or along 250 adjacent to TMP 78-
5F? There do not appear to be any easements in those locations.
53. [32.5.2(r)] There are small, six -pointed stars in the middle of various parking spaces that do not appear to have
a corresponding description in the legend. Identify what these are.
54. [32.6.2(h)] Please provide a signature panel with a line for each member of the Site Review Committee.
55. [32.5.2(e)] Please provide more details about the existing landscape features as described in Section 18-
32.7.9.4(c).
a. The Albemarle County Conservation Plan Checklist and Chapter 3.38 of the Virginia Erosion and
Sediment Control handbook. The Conservation Plan Checklist will need to be signed by the owners and
provided as an exhibit on the final site plan.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB)
Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewskigalbemarle.org — Contact Ms. Maliszewski for more information; however, a
Certificate of Appropriateness from the Architectural Review Board must be issued prior to approval of the plan and a
special use permit for outdoor display and storage must be approved by the Board of Supervisors prior to approval of the
initial site plan.
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)
Emily Cox, ecox2&albemarle.org — Requested Changes (06/14/19); see attached comments.
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Andy Slack, aslack&albemarle.org — No Objection (06/04/19).
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Michael Dellinger, mdellingergalbemarle.org — Requested Changes (06/19/19); see attached comments.
Albemarle County Department of Fire -Rescue
Shawn Maddox, smaddox(c�r�,albemarle.org — Requested Changes (06/10/19); see attached comments.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
Richard Nelson, rnelson(a)serviceauthority.org — Requested Changes (05/17/19); see comments below:
1) Show additional vacant water meter boxes on the 1311 parcel.
2) Provide fixture counts for both buildings.
3) Show water and Sewer mains on site plan.
4) Before demolition permit is approved for existing buildings the water and sewer service lines shall be cut and capped
and inspected by ACSA.
Virginia Department of Health (VDH), Thomas Jefferson Health District
Alan Mazurowski, alan.mazurowski(kvdh.vir ig nia.gov — No Objection (06/14/19); see attached comments.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Adam Moore, Adam.Moore(kvdot.vir ig nia.gov — Requested Changes (06/14/19); see attached comments.
I
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
Andy Reitelbach
From:
Emily Cox
Date:
14 June 2019
Subject:
Flow Mazda/VW- ISP (SDP201900021)
The initial site plan for Flow Mazda / VW has been reviewed by Engineering. The following comments
will need to be addressed before approval:
1. WPO plan must be submitted and approved before final site plan can be approved.
2. Provide date of topographic survey.
3. Professional seal should be signed and dated.
4. Ensure all critical slopes are shown. Is the star hatch managed slopes? It is unclear. The
steeps slopes overlay district requirements must be met in this area.
5. Engineered retaining wall design must be submitted before final site plan approval.
6. Provide top and bottom elevations of the retaining walls.
7. There appears to be some work off -site on the northern end of the property. Provide
permission to work off site or clarify property lines.
8. There does not appear to be any loading or dumpster areas. Are these not needed?
9. Show the turn radius on all travelways. The radius on the NW side outside of the service
area seems tight.
10. Label curbing of edges of pavement (CG-6, etc.)
11. If parking space is 9x18, the travelway must be 24'.
Review Corrm nt for SDP201900021 I Initial Site Plan
Project Name: FLOW MAZDAJVW - INITIAL
Date Completed: Tuesday, June 04, 2019 DepartmentJDivision/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer Andrew Slack rnn Fg99 No Objection
No objection_
Review Corrm nt for SDP201900021 I Initial Site Plan
Project Name: FLOW MAZDAN - INITIAL
Date Completed: Wednesday, June 19, 2019 Department}Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer Michael Dellinger ILI rnn 1nfzn,-rfinnc Requested Changes
Add the following note to the general notes page:
Building or structures built before January 1, 1985 must have an asbestos survey performed in order to apply for a permit_
Asbestos removal permits are required if positive for such_ Contact VDOLI for additional requirements and permits for
demolition projects_
Add the following to the general notes page:
All roof drains shall discharge in a manner not to cause a public nuisance and not over sidewalks_
Coordinate required accessible entrances with architect of record as plan does not have proper information to determine if in
compliance_ The following requirement will be required: In addition to accessible entrances required by Sections 1105.1.1
through 1105.1.6, at least 60 percent of all public entrances shall be accessible_
Review Corrm nt for SDP201900021 I Initial Bite Plan
Project Name: FLOW MAZDAJW - INITIAL
Date Completed: Monday, June 10, 2019 Department}Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer. Shawn Maddox Li Firms r i IP Requested Changes
1 _ A hydrant should be added at the entrance_ If either building will be sprinklered then a hydrant must also be added within
100' of each FD _
_ A knox box will be required for each building. Please add a note stating this requirement and that the location can be
coordinated with the fire marshal's office.
3_ If either building height will exceed 30' then the travel ways must be increased to 6'_ Based on page one the building height
is proposed at 5' but can go higher_ This comment only needs to be addressed if the building height changes.
4_ Afire flow test will be required prior to final acceptance of the site_
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
In Cooperation with the Thomas Jefferson Health District ALBEMARLE - CHARLOTTESVILLE
State Department of Health FLUVANN COUNTY
(STAY IRALMVRA)
1138 Rose Hill Drive GREENE COUNTY ISTANTY(LO LLE)
LOVISA COVNTY)LOVISA)
Phone (434) 972-6219 P. O. Box 7546 NELSON COUNTY (LOVINGSTON)
Fax (434)972-4310
Charlottesville. Virginia 22906
June 14, 2019
Andrew Reitelbach, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Flow Mazda/VW
Initial Site Plan Review
SDP2019-21
Mr. Reitelbach:
As requested, I've reviewed the Initial Site Plan, dated 4/15/19, for the proposed use,
referenced above. Since the proposed facility will be served by public water & sewer, I
have no comments.
If there are any questions or concerns, please give me a call, 434-972-4306.
Sincerely,
Alan Mazurowski
Environmental Health Supervisor
Thomas Jefferson Health District
alan.mazurowski(c-r�,vdh.vir ig nia. og_v
+.ro
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper Virginia 22701
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
June 14, 2019
Andy Reitelbach
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP-2019-00019- Flow Mazda/VW — Initial Site Plan
Dear Mr. Reitelbach:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Shimp Engineering, P.C., dated
April 15, 2019 and offer the following comments.
Land Use
1. Please provide drainage calculations and show how the drainage runoff will be
adequately discharged.
2. The proposed entrance will need to have AM-E approval, it doesn't meet VDOT's
requirement on spacing distance. Please see VDOT's Road Design Manual appendix F-
pg., F-23., minimum spacing standards for commercial entrances, Intersections, and
median crossovers. Route 20 is a minor arterial road and the speed limit is 35 mph,
spacing distance required is 660'. (For entrances across or 440' if not aligned.)
3. Sight distance profile on route 20, SDR of 250'ft., doesn't meet VDOT's requirement of
440'ft., for the intersection stopping sight distance, please see VDOT's Road Design
Manual Appendix F-Pg., F-34., for specification criteria. SDR=440' and SDL=415
4. Relocating sight distance line may also impact adjacent parcel.
5. The County's Pantops master plan has called for a continuous right turn lane along Route
250 in this area. The County may require frontage improvements in this area.
6. Please note that the final site plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design
Manual Appendices B (1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations, or
other requirements.
Please provide two copies of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further
information is desired, please contact Willis C. Bedsaul at 434-422-9866.
A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right of way. The
owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency land Use Section at (434) 422-9399
for information pertaining to this process.
Sincerely,
U, v,,�v
Adam J. Moo , P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING