Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900035 Review Comments Major Amendment, Final Site Plan 2019-10-07 (2):z v� �IRGSNIP County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Herb White From: Tori Kanellopoulos- Planner Division: Planning Services Date: October 7, 2019 Subject: SDP201900035 — Major Amendment — Stonefield Block G REV 2 The County of Albemarle Planning Division will grant or recommend approval of the Major Site Plan Amendment referenced above once the following comments have been addressed: [Each comment is preceded by the applicable reference, which is to the Zoning Ordinance otherwise specified.] Planning (Tori Kanellopoulos) . Fees: It appears the $215 mailing fee has not been paid. Payment is required prior to site plan anoroval. a. REV 1: Addressed. 2. To note: the most important design comment is that the drive-thru needs to be moved in order to address both Planning and Engineering comments. a. REV 1: Addressed. Staff determined that the distance of the drive-thru is measured from the middle of the intersection, not the edge of the intersection. Therefore, the drive-thru can remain in its originally proposed location. 3. [18-5.1.ouj urive-rnru requirements: a. [18-5.1.60(e)]: "Each drive-thruuyu mie shall bt �ep.u, edestrian travelway, except where a pedestrian travelway crosses the drive -through lane as provided in subsection (f), and any vehicular travel areas, by a planting strip at least five (5) feet in width." Provide a 5-foot or greater planting strip between the d, through lane and travelway. i. REV 1: Landscaping/plantings have not been provided in the planting strip. Please show the plantings provided on at least the landscape plan (SP14). ii. REV 2: Addressed per landscape plan. b. [18-5.1.60(i)] "Each entrance to a dr. through lane shall be more than fifty (50) feet from any intersection with a public or private street or travelway without parking." Design changes are needed to meet this requirement. It is recommended to move the drive-thru lane to the other side, so that it is farther from thr - -ection and queuing cr -rr -e reduced. i. REV 1: Addressed. Staff has determined that the measurement is taken from the middle of the intersection, not the edge. c. [18-5.1.60(j)] "Each drive -through lane shall be a minimum of one hundred (100) feet in length measured from the center of the first window or service point. This length may be reduced if a study is submitted and approved by the director of community development or his designee demonstrating that a shorter length will be sufficient for a particular use." Either increase the length of the drive-thru lane, or provide justification for a shorter drive-thru lane. For example, use other comnarahlP Pxisting usPs to shrnni that niiPuing Will not rrPatP an issiiP i. REV 1: Not addressed: This measurement is taken from the center of the first window or service point and measured to the end of the drive- thru lane. Please provide justification as to why this drive-thru lane should be less than 100 feet. ii. REV 2: Addressed per correspondence dated 09/03/2019. d. [18-5.1.60(k)j "Each drive -through lane shall extend at least twenty (20) feet beyond the drive -through window." Extend the drive-thru lane at least 20 feet beyond the window. i. REV 1: Addressed. 4. [18-4.12] ana L%-uuc u, �cvelopment] Parking requirements: a. [18-4.12.6] and [COD] Number of spaces: The previously approved site plan for this Block (SDP2014-65) shows 157 required spaces and 226 provided spaces. This site plan amendment shows 172 required spaces and 224 provided spaces. Please indicate if spaces are being removed, or were not completed i. REV 1: Addressed: 224 spaces are being provided with this submittal. Include the note (if still applicable) that "Includes 48 spaces from Block F+G Site Plan)". ii. REV 2: Addressed. Note added. b. [18-4.12 _ _ ,] Number of spaces: The addition of the Bank adds a requirement of an additional 16 spaces. Since the parking for Block G was previously calculated using all of the buildings in the Block, it appears that there is a shared parking agreement. Please indicate how the Bank required parking is being rr,Pt as tharP irP not 1F; cnnrPc chn%vn on this cite Alan amendment. i. REV 1: The parking calculations for the new use need to be shown separately. These spaces can be counted with the total spaces, if there is a shared parking agreement between the uses in Block G. ii. REV 2: Addressed. There is no subdivision for a new lot with this proposal, and the parking for new building G5 is included in the total parking for Block G. c. [18-4.i1.1UJ Shared parking: It shared parKung is being provicieu, please include the shared parking agreement. This may need to be updated to include the Bank and site plan amendment, depending on how it is worded and where it currently cove, REV 1: Include the shared parking agreement for Block G of Stonefield. Include Deed Book/Page Number as applicable. Staff needs to review a copy of the shared parking agreement. The agreement should be updated to include C+F Bank. REV 2: Addressed. There is no shared parking with this proposal. 5. [18-4.12.17(c)] Travel lanes: Defer to. -ineering comments: Travelway width needs to be increased to 16 feet. This requirement may change depending on how the drive-thru is renrrnnaorl +n mc— ' 9-5.1.60 standards. a. REV 1: Addressed. 6. [18-4.12.13] and [18-4.12.18] Loading spaces: It appears there are four existing loading spaces on the approved site plan SDP2015-65, one for each of the buildings. It is unclear where the loading space approved with building G4 is now located or if it remains. Please lahel the Inadinp space and clarify if it is for both buildings. a. REV 1: Addressed. 7. [18-4.1Z.19] Dumpster pads: It is unclear where the existing dumpster pad for G4 is now located. Please label and indicate if building G4 and the proposed building will be sharing a dumpster. Ensure dumpster pad meets design standards. a. REV 1: Addressed. 8. [18-.s/-.SJ ana L10-J/-.bJ: Notes required: a. Include the height of the proposed building (bank). b. Add the approved rezonings to Sheet 1, which are listed on the approved site plan SDP2014-65. These include ZMA2001-7 and the rezoning amendments that followed. c. Add a note that the site is subject to proffers per ZMA2001-7. d. There are various waivers and modifications that have been approved for the Stonefield development, which are printed on sheets on site plan SDP2014-65. Either include these waivers/modifications, or reference that there are waivers/modifications approved for this development. e. There was a special exception request on the Board's consent agenda for July 17, 2019, which was approved. This is to allow for the drive-thru use for this particular site only in Stonefield. Please reference on the site plan as a note. Such as: "Drive-thru use permitted through special exception request, approved by the Board of Supervisors on July 17, 2019". You may also include a sheet showing the approved/signed resolution. Staff will provide this signed resolution. f. Include an updated uses table for Stonefield. This was shown on Sheet 3 on SDP2014-65. Please note that while there are pending applications for Blocks C and D of Stonefield, those site plans have not yet been approved. g. Add the Airport Impact Area to the "Overlays". h. Add a note that the utilities are ACSA. i. REV 1: Addressed. All notes have been provided. 9. [18-4.17] Lighting: Please indicate if any lights have been added, removed, or modified since the approved site plan SDP2014-65. If so, please submit a new lighting plan showing the changes. a. REV 1: Planning comments addressed. Please see ARB comments below. 10. [18-32.5.2(i)] Streets: Include the ROW and Deed Book/Page Number (if applicable) for all existing streets. a. REV 1: Not addressed: Comment persists. b. REV 2: Addressed. DB/PG provided on C-4. 11. [18-32.5.2(1,_ _ies: Thy : do not appear . any new easements shown on the site plan. Please confirm. If there are any new non-ACSA easements, an easement plat will be rp---;"^,4 nrinrtn city rl^- P -m/nI a. REV 1: Addressed. Applicant will coordinate with ACSA and the City of Charlottesville on adjusted easements. 12. [18-32.7.2.3] Sidewalks: Please show the sidewalks/materials more clearly. It is difficult to see where sidewalks are proposed. Sidewalks should provide safe access and connectivity to this building and to existing buildings in this Block. Crosswalks should also be provided, as indicated in Engineering comments. a. REV 1: Addressed. 13. [18-32.7.9.4] Lanascape plan: Include the conservation checklist. a. REV 1: Addressed. 14. Lonascape pion: Please indicate which requirement (e.g. landscaping parking areas) the two new trees are meeting. a. REV 1: Addressed. 15. [18-32.7.9.6] Lai. �N,:�g within parking areas: Include the area of the proposed parking lot. For parking areas of 5 or more spaces, at least 5 percent must be landscaped. a. REV 1: Addressed. 16. [18-32.7.9.8] Tree canopy: Show how this requirement is being met (10% for commercial uses). It appears to have already been more than met on the SDP2014-65 site plan, however that needs to be shown on this site plan. a. REV 1: Addressed. 17. [18-32.7.9] Landscape plan: Please include full updated landscape tables on this site plan (Sheet 23 on SDP2014-65). This is to ensure that canopy and parking landscaping regt-ir-m-nts are being met, as they were previously calculated for the entire Block G. a. REV 1: Addressed. Engineering (John Anderson) 1. See attached review comments dated July 14, 2019. 2. REV 1: See attached review comments dated August 22, 2019 3. REV 2: No objection. See attached letter dated October 7, 2019. VDOT (Adam Moore) 1. No objection. See attached letter dated July 16, 2019 ACSA (Richard Nelson) 1. Submit 3 hard copies and 1 PDF copy to ACSA for review, ATTN: Alex Morrison. 2. Submit water and sewer data sheets. 3. REV 1: PENDING as of 08/28/2019. 4. REV 2: No Objection. Fire/Rescue (Shawn Maddox) . Travel way must be 20' of unobstructed travel width. This must be increased to 26' if the height of the building will exceed 30'. 2. Move the hydrant closer to the FDC on the site, or relocate the FDC to the area of the hydrant. The current configuration will require emergency apparatus to drive past the building to connect to a water supply then the FDC. 3. A knox box will be required. A note on the plans indicating this requirement and that location can be coordinate with the fire marshal's office will suffice. 4. A fire flow test will he renuired prior to final acceptance. a. REV 1: All previous comments have been addressed. REV 1: No objection. Inspections (Michael Dellinger) 1. Due to distance proximity between buildings, fire rated construction may be required. Coordinate with architect of record. 2. Add the following note to the general notes page: Accessible parking spaces and access isles shall not have a surface slope greater than 1:48. Access isles shall be at the same level as the parking space they serve. 3. Add the following note to the general notes page: ALL water lines, sewer lines, and fire lines from the main to the structure MUST have a visual inspection performed by the building department. 4. 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 a. REV 1: All previous comments have been addressed. REV 1: No objection. ARB (Heather McMahon) Note that a Certificate of Appropriateness is required prior to approval of this Major Amendment. The ARB reviewed the Final Site Plan/Major Amendment at its meeting on June 17, 2019 and made the following comments: 1. Note that the approved landscape plan for Block G (as shown on SDP2014-65) is in violation until the approved landscaping is planted. 2. Revise the "exterior finishes" sheet to name the color of the Hardie Panel. 3. Provide window -glass specifications for review. 4. Note that a full site plan (for ARB review) will be required with a Major Amendment to a Site Plan application. 5. Provide the standard mechanical equipment note to future site plans: Visibility of all mechanical equipment from the Entrance Corridor shall be eliminated. 6. Rectify discrepancies between the luminaire schedule and manufacturer's cut sheets for each model in terms of lumens output and color temperatures. 7. Provide the standard light note on a revised lighting plan: Each outdoor luminaire equipped with a lamp that emits 3,000 or more initial lumens shall be a full cutoff luminaire and shall be arranged or shielded to reflect light away from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one half footcandle. 8. Revise the landscape schedule to accurately reflect the total number of trees proposed in Block G. 9. Note that a separate sign application will be required and sign design is subject to the approved criteria in the Stonefield Block G Comprehensive Sign Plan. In addition, staff provides the following comments to this submission: 1. Include the revised lighting plan with this civil site plan set. REV 1: Previous ARB comments addressed. See new comment below: A Certificate of Appropriateness for this project was issued on July 29, 2019 (please see Laserfiche under ARB-2019-57). Staff has only one requested change to this site plan: 1. REV 1: Add a sheet(s) to the civil site plan set that includes the manufacturer's specifications for all of the lighting fixtures proposed for the building and the site and which were approved by the ARB with the issuance of a CoA. 2. REV 2: No Objection. E911 (Andrew Slack) 1. No objection. Health Department (Alan Mazurowski) 1. No objection. See attached letter dated July 16, 2019.