HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000018 Review Comments Major Amendment, Final Site Plan 2020-04-09COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
April 9, 2020
Justin Shimp
Shimp Engineering
912 E. High Street
Charlottesville, VA 22902
(434) 227-5140 / justinkshimp-en ing eering com
RE: Site Review Committee Comment Letter for SDP-2020-00018 (Brady Bushey Ford — Major
Amendment)
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)
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Albemarle County Department of Fire -Rescue
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Virginia Department of Health (VDH)
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.)
Please submit ten (10) copies of the revised plan to the Community Development Department when revisions have
been made.
Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have questions or require additional information or assistance.
Sincerely,
Andy Reitelbach
Senior Planner / areitelbachgalbemarle.org / (434)-296-5832 x 3261
1
Albemarle County Planning Services (Planner) — Andy Reitelbach, areitelbach(cialbemarle.org — Requested
Changes:
[32.4.2.1(f)] The mailing notification fee of $435.00 has not been paid. This fee must be paid prior to approval
of the major amendment being granted.
2. [30.6.3(a)2(b); SP1994-000041 This proposed project requires an amendment to special use permit SP1994-
00004, for outdoor storage, display, and sales uses in the Entrance Corridor. The changes proposed on TMP 78-
6 are not in general accord with the concept plan approved as part of SP1994-00004. An additional building is
proposed for this parcel, along with new display spaces that are not shown on the approved plan. These changes
will require an amendment to the special use permit.
Because some of these proposed changes and display spaces cross onto TMP 78-7, it is recommended that a
boundary line adjustment occur prior to the SP so that parcel 7 can remain separate and not be considered as a
part of the special use permit.
3. [General Comment] This property is potentially located within the Monticello viewshed. It is recommended
that you reach out to Liz Russell (lrussell(&monticello.org) at Monticello to discuss this project.
4. [32.5.2(a)] Include the application number for this project on the cover sheet, which is SDP2020-00018.
5. [32.5.2(a)] Include in the zoning note on the cover sheet that these properties are also located within the Flood
Hazard Overlay District, the Steep Slopes — Managed overlay district, and the Steep Slopes — Preserved overlay
district.
Depict the limits of these overlay districts on sheets C2, C3, C4, and C5 so that staff may determine the
relationship of the proposed improvements to the boundaries of each of these districts.
Any preserved slopes proposed to be disturbed must have a survey submitted to the County Engineer verifying
that those slopes are less than 25% grade. Otherwise, they cannot be disturbed.
6. [32.5.2(a)] Include on the cover sheet of the site plan that this site lies within a state dam break inundation zone
(DBIZ). Depict the limits of this state DBIZ on sheets C2, C3, C4, and C5 so that staff may determine the
relationship of the proposed improvements to the boundary of this DBIZ.
7. [32.5.2(a)] The source of title information for these two parcels is incorrect on the cover sheet. Revise with the
most recent source of title. (It appears that the title for both parcels was transferred to a new entity in January of
this year.)
[32.5.2(f)] On the cover sheet, indicate whether the Upper Rivanna River watershed is a water supply watershed
or not.
9. [32.5.2(a)] A copy of the special use permit and its conditions is required to be included in this site plan. Also,
refer to comment #2 above.
10. [32.5.2(a)] Include the zoning district(s) of the abutting parcels on the plan sheets, in addition to the TMP
numbers and property owner names.
11. [32.5.2(b); 32.5.2(n)] Revise the parking schedule on the cover sheet of the site plan and the labels on the plan
sheets.
a. The number of spaces added up between the two different uses listed in the parking schedule is 242;
however, the total number of spaces said to be provided is 243.
b. Counting the number of spaces on sheet C4, there are more than 243 spaces provided, including the
accessible spaces in front of the sales and service buildings on TMP 78-6, which do not appear to be
included in the total of 243 when counting the full number of spaces.
2
c. This site cannot have more than 243 spaces, which is 20% more than the required amount.
d. Clearly label which spaces are for display, which are for employee parking, and which are for customer
parking. Some areas are not clear. There are new areas of parking spaces on TMP 78-6 that are double -
stacked. These spaces are not labelled as display. However, employee/customer parking spaces cannot
be double -stacked.
e. Identify the types of spaces in the "existing paved parking area" at the rear of TMP 78-7. Are these
display, customer, storage, etc.? These spaces were not included in the overall parking count and could
possibly increase the number of spaces on the site even more over the 243 maximum number permitted.
12. [32.5.2(n); 4.12.13; 4.12.181 Add an additional loading space to the site. Four loading spaces total are required.
The loading space on the eastern boundary of the property, at the east side of TMP 78-7 needs to be moved. It is
not adjacent to the structure it serves and appears to be impeding vehicular circulation in that area.
Provide the dimensions of all loading spaces.
13. [32.5.2(n); 4.12.13; 4.12.191 Provide the dimensions of the dumpster pads.
The dumpster pad on TMP 78-7 appears to interfere with vehicular circulation. Revise the location.
Screening of dumpster pads is required. Provide the screening materials proposed to be used and profile of the
enclosure.
14. [32.5.2(m)] Show the distance to the centerline of the nearest existing street intersection from the proposed
ingress and egress.
15. [32.5.2(n)] It appears that a portion of the front structure on TMP 78-7 is to be demolished. However, it is not
included in the demolition plan on sheet C3. Label any portion of the building proposed to be demolished.
16. [32.5.2(m)] Is the travelway on the western side of the property proposed to connect with the travelway on the
Pantops Corner property? Provide more detail about the interparcel connection.
17. [32.5.2(n)] Railings or guard rails are required on the retaining walls. Show these rails.
18. [32.5.2(n)] Depict the obstruction -free two-ft. overhang required for parking spaces that are 16 ft. in depth.
19. [32.5.2(n)] What is the semi -circular "paint" depicting on the eastern -most travelway on the site, to the east of
the building proposed to be enlarged?
20. [32.5.2(b)] The sidewalk on the southeast side of the enlarged new sales building does not appear to be the
required width. In addition, the sidewalk and stairs on the east side of the existing sales and service building on
TMP 78-6 appears not to be a sufficient width either. Label the widths of all sidewalks on the property.
21. [32.5.2(n)] Accessible ramps are required for the sidewalk on either side of the entrance proposed to be enlarged
at the center of the property.
22. [32.5.2(n); 4.20] The new parking spaces shown along the front of TMP 78-7 must be at least 10 feet from the
public street right-of-way.
23. [32.5.2(n)] What is the service area on the west side of the enlarged service and sales building? Label this
element.
24. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the footprint square footage of the new sales wings on the enlarged building on TMP 78-7.
25. [32.5.2(n)] Identify the enclosed space between the two new sales wings of the enlarged building on TMP 78-7.
Is this space for sales/service/display, etc.?
3
26. [32.7.2.31 Provide internal sidewalks or crosswalks on the site to connect the buildings and to connect the
sidewalk along Route 250 with the enlarged sales building. Provide an accessible ramp for the sidewalk in front
of the enlarged sales building.
27. [32.5.1(c)] 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.
28. [32.5.2 (k)] 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.
29. [32.5.2 (1)] 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.
30. [4.17; 32.7.81 Include footcandle measurements for the existing lights to demonstrate that the combination of
the existing non -conforming lights with the proposed new lights does not increase the footcandle measurements
above the permitted range, where the light from the poles would overlap.
31. [4.17; 32.7.81 There are several new light poles that appear to be placed on top of trees shown on the landscaping
plan. These lights include the following: B-1, B-2, and B-12. Shift either the light poles or the trees.
32. [32.7.9] An eastern redbud along Route 250 appears to be on top of a water line. Shift this tree over slightly so
that it is not on the utility.
33. [32.7.91 Revise the number of street trees required to 12. Large street trees are required every 50 feet inclusively,
i.e., the first tree is planted at 0 feet, at the start of the street frontage, the next at 50 feet from the start of the
street frontage, the next at 100 feet, and so on, for the entirety of the street frontage. However, no additional trees
need to be provided as the required number of 12 is still less than the 14 that are provided on the landscape plan.
34. [32.7.91 Identify the location(s) of the 14,102 sq. ft. of the required interior/parking lot landscaping, as well as
the trees and shrubs used for this landscaping.
35. [32.7.91 Revise the "tree per 10 parking spaces" calculations, as the display spaces must be included as well.
Provide the additional trees required once these spaces are included in the calculations.
36. [32.7.9] The required amount of tree canopy is proposing to use a significant amount of existing tree canopy.
Provide a conservation checklist in accordance with 32.7.9.4(b)2 in order to satisfy this requirement. Also,
identify those trees and landscaped areas proposed to be preserved in order to meet this requirement.
Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB)
Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewskigalbemarle.org — Pending review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB); see
the comment below:
This item was originally scheduled for ARB review on April 20, but the meeting date may be delayed. Comments will
be provided after ARB review.
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)
John Anderson, janderson2(kalbemarle.org — Requested Changes; see the attached memo.
Albemarle County Information Services (E911)
Brian Becker, bbecker e,albemarle.org — Requested Changes; see the comments below:
Critical Issues: The two buildings labeled "Ex Sales & Service" and "New Sales & Service" may require addresses.
Ll
Comments: Per Albemarle County's Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance, Sec. 7-200, B. (...all dwelling
units and business structures within the shall be assigned property numbers.") Please specify the purpose of the two
buildings so this office can determine if address assignment is warranted.
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Michael Dellinger, mdellingergalbemarle.org — Requested Changes; see the comments below:
Add the following note to the general notes page:
Accessible parking and routes must comply with ICC ANSI A117.1-09.
Provide accessible parking detail and signage to plans.
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.
Albemarle County Department of Fire -Rescue
Shawn Maddox, smaddoxkalbemarle.org — Requested Changes; see the comments below:
1. It appears the new sales and service building, and some existing structures, are more than 250' from a hydrant. Either
add a hydrant on site or show an existing hydrant on Pantops Corner that could be used to service the buildings.
2. Provide the ISO Needed Fire Flow for the building with the highest fire flow on the site.
3. If any of the buildings are going to be sprinklered the FDC must be shown and located within 100' of a hydrant.
4. A knox box must be provided on all new structures. Please add a note to the plans indicating this requirement and that
the location can be coordinated with the fire marshal's office.
5. Provide a current fire flow test for the site prior to final acceptance of the site plan.
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA)
Richard Nelson, rnelson(cbserviceauthority.org — Requested Changes; see the comments below:
Provide fixture counts for new additions and building.
Show existing water meters.
Connection fees will apply to new building.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT)
Adam Moore, Adam.Moore@vdot.vir ig nia.gov — Requested Changes; see the attached memo.
Virginia Department of Health (VDH)
Alan Mazurowski, alan.mazurowski(c�r�,vdh.vir ig nia.goy — No objections at this time; see the attached memo.
61
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan Review
Project title:
Brady -Bushey Ford — Major Site Plan Amendment
Project file number:
SDP2020-00018
Plan preparer:
Shimp Engineering, 912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902
Justin Shimp, PE [ justin(a�shimp-en ing eerieg com ]
Owner or rep.:
Flow 1300 Richmond LLC / 500 West 5t' Street, Winston-Salem, NC 27101
[ bthomas(a)flowauto.com ]
Plan received date:
4 Mar 2020
Date of comments:
7 Apr 2020
Plan Coordinator:
Andy Reitelbach
Reviewer:
John Anderson
SDP2020-00018
1. Recommend revise title to include ref. to project file number: SDP202000018.
2. Provide deed bk.-pg. ref. to interparcel access easements (Final Site Plan checklist, Easements, 4t' item).
3. Major site plan amendment approval requires an Approved VSMP /WPO plan. Please submit VMSP
/WPO application at earliest convenience.
4. Include title sheet Note that preserved and managed steep slopes exist on parcels.
5. VMSP /WPO plan approval requires permanent SWM facility easement plat recordation (for any on -site
SWM facilities).
6. Provide brief narrative of Stormwater Management on C I. Consider stormwater quantity and quality in
context of increased impervious area /post -developed land cover, 100-year floodplain, stream buffer, etc.
7. Evaluate drainage feature at north property boundary for perennial stream features. Include note on plans
that perennial stream exists or does not exist on subject parcel. GIS stream buffer layer may be unreliable
at this location. Provide date of field evaluation, and any field data. Ref. code 17-600.A.
8. Show and label preserved and managed steep slopes on C3, C4, C5.
9. Resolve WP02018-00088, Amendment 1 as prerequisite to SDP202000018 approval (email, this date).
10. Revise C3 consistent with actual existing conditions (image, below). Shimp Engineering should have
access to designs for development on adjacent parcels to the west. Please rely on these, as well as satellite
imagery (for example: 3/13/20 —image, below) Also, please ref. Final Site Plan checklist for plan
reviewers, Existing conditions plan view information, II item: `accurate current existing topography at the
time of submittal, including all existing features, and any recent disturbances.'
C4
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
11. Show pipes as well as storm MH /inlet structures on C4, or turn storm utility MH /inlet layer off.
12. Revise loading zone east of existing service building, TMP 78-7, Lot 8, since not adjacent to the structure it
serves and since it impedes parking spaces to north, and circulation, generally. Ref. 18-4.12.13.a.b.
13. Provide autoturn figure for dumpster pad. Use single -unit (SU) truck design vehicle. Ref. Fig. 1, VDOT
Road Design Manual, Appendix B(l), 20-ft wheelbase. Include entering site, reverse maneuver, and
exiting site.
14. Provide field survey data that supports note that `portion of preserved slopes disturbed is less than 25%.'
Engineering Div. has received no information that would exclude a portion of the steep slopes overlay
district (preserved steep slopes) from limits against disturbance or development found at 18-30.3.
p2 NE.1 - - - - -
t71-3A O \ l
4 PORTION OF
RESERVED
03 Ok SLOPES DISTURBED
15 LESS THAN 25% -_
N _
06
Z b
rx- M
`b b
EX. MF{,�
V rc 7 13n.
15. Provide guardrail (VDOT GR-1 or GR-2) at top of 4', 13' and 6' proposed retaining walls along northern
edge of parking on TM 78-6, Lot 7. (Ref. Retaining Wall Plan checklist for plan reviewers, Plans, 2" d item).
16. Provide handrail (safety railing) labels for retaining walls over 4' high (see Retaining Wall checklist).
17. Engineering defers to VDOT on entrance requirements from Richmond Road, U.S. Rt. 250.
18. Engineering recommends provide distance from proposed revised entrance to adjacent entrances, east and
west (entrance 2, entrance 4, sheet C8).
C5
C9
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
19. Sidewalk at SE corner of new sales building (FFE 419.50) appears < 5' w. Ensure all sidewalks are 5'
minimum width.
20. Label all sidewalk widths.
21. Label drive aisle width between curbing from entrance 2 to buildings that are interior to TM 78-6, Lot 7.
22. Provide CG-12 pedestrian ramps at each entrance: 2, 3, 4.
23. Wherever curb (CG-2) concentrates runoff against curbing, specify CG-6. Engineering understands this is
a dealership and that parking will be primarily for stored vehicles (automobile sales, services, and display).
Nevertheless, storm conveyance is critical to pavement integrity, which may affect retaining wall stability.
24. Include notes that this development:
a. May not impact preserved steep slopes,
b. Is not authorized to impact preserved step slopes,
c. Is subject to steep slopes overlay district requirements (18-30.3), and
d. That preserved or managed steep slopes will be staked /flagged prior to land disturbance, and that
flags /stakes will be maintained for the duration of the project, to final completion.
25. Proposed 4', 6' and 13' high retaining walls support parking (infrastructure). Please submit geotechnical
retaining wall designs (PE -sealed) to Engineering as prerequisite to recommendation to approve major site
plan amendment. Note: detailed geotechnical design is also required with building permit applications for
retaining walls.
26. Add SL-1 labels to profiles for MH ht. >12'. MH Str. A3 and A3a, for example.
27. At Str. A2 and any MH Str. with vertical drops > 4', include note /label for''/z" steel plate in floor of
structure. Ref. VDOT Drainage Manual, 9.4.8.7. (p. 9-37, 9-38).
28. Provide VDOT SL-1, IS-1, PB-1, GR-1, CG-6, CG-9a details on the plans (safety slab, inlet shaping, pipe
bedding, guardrail, curb /gutter, commercial entrance).
29. Provide and label dimensions of existing outlet protection at Str. A1. Design relies on existing riprap ditch.
Provide dimensions of existing riprap ditch (typ).
30. Design relies on existing ditch downstream of Str. Al. Include notes on plans that existing riprap ditch
meets design requirements for channel and flood protection for manmade conveyance, if that is the case.
31. If existing riprap ditch does not provide adequate channel or flood protection, provide adequate design.
32. Revise storm Al -A6 design. Every pipe in this run has velocity that exceeds (VDOT Drainage Manual
9.4.8.7.) 10 fps standard.
9.4.8.7 Maximum Grades
Slopes that incur uniform flow velocities in excess of 10 fps should be avoided because
of the potential for abrasion. Slopes in excess of 16% are not preferred because of the
need for anchor blocks. When anchor blocks are used, they should be installed at
every other pipe joint, as a minimum. (See Special Design Drawing No. A-73 and MA-
73 for Anchor Details for Concrete Pipe)
33. Provide retaining wall safety railing detail.
34. Provide LD-204, inlet design.
Please feel free to call if any questions. Thank you
J. Anderson 434.296-5832 -x3069
Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E.
Commissioner
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1601 Orange Road
Culpeper. Virginia 22701
March 12, 2020
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Attn: Andy Reitelbach
Re: SDP-2020-00018- Brady Bushey Ford — Major Site Plan Amendment
Review #1
Dear Mr. Reitelbach:
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plans as submitted by Shimp Engineering, dated
February 21, 2020 and offer the following comment.
1. Current entrances do not meet spacing requirements. Route 250 is a principal arterial
road. Appendix F of the VDOT Road Design Manual requires that commercial entrances
be shared where feasible. If this is not possible the Department expects documentation
demonstrating this effort. Please refer to F-29 Virginia Code 24VAC30-73-120,
exceptions to the spacing standards and access management requirements. Please be
aware that an Access Management plan for this area is being pursued by Albemarle
County.
2. Please provide turn/taper warrants for both left and right turning movements into
proposed entrance.
3. Please provide a truck circulation plan for deliveries of new/used vehicles, etc..
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.
If further information is desired, please contact Max Greene at 434-422-9894.
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moo , P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING
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
April 9, 2020
Andy Reitelbach, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Brady Bushy Ford — Major Amendment
Site Plan Review
SDP2020-18
Mr. Reitelbach:
As requested, I have reviewed the Initial Site Plan, dated 2/21/20, for the proposed
development, referenced above. Since both water and sewer will be provided by ACSA,
and it does not appear any existing wells or onsite septic systems will be impacted, I have
no objection to the proposed development.
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(gvdh.vir ig'nia.gov