HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201900072 Correspondence 2020-04-22TIMMONS GROUP
YOUR VISION ACHIEVED THROUGH OURS.
April 21, 2020
Mariah Gleason
County of Albemarle
401 McIntire Rd, North Wing
Charlottesville, VA 22902-4596
608 Preston Avenue P 434.295.5624
Suite 200 F 434.295.8317
Charlottesville, VA 22903 www.timmons.com
RE: Beaver Creek Medical Office Building — Final Site Plan Review (digital submittal) —
SDP201900072 — Rev. 1: Comment Response Letter
Dear Ms. Gleason:
We have reviewed your comments dated March 24, 2020 and made the necessary revisions.
Please find our responses to the comments below in bold lettering.
Albemarle County Planning Services — Planner — Mariah Gleason:
1. [32.5.2(s)] Coordination of plans. See attached comments from Jack Kelsey regarding
the alignment of County -planned improvements into the site design and plan. The final
site plan for this development will need to align/coordinate with the planned road
improvements.
We have reviewed Mr. Kelsey's comments and incorporated them into the submitted plans.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Comparing the revised plan against previous comments, it
appears that changes to the site design have made some comments irrelevant. However, show
construction/reconstruction of an ADA ramp on the western site entrance between this
property and TMP 60-39 from Ivy Rd/Rt 250.
The proposed curb will tie into the County sidewalk project at the ADA ramp, so
construction/reconstruction will not be necessary. Additional notes have been added to
Sheets C4.0 and C5.0 to clarify.
2. [32.5.2(i)] Easement area. It was difficult to identify on the plans maps where current
easements are located on the property. This was particularly true for the access
easement between this property and TMP 60-39. In reviewing the planned
improvements associated with this development, it appears that instead of vacating and
realigning the current access easement and having an additional easement to allow the
off -site parking, the necessary easement area — for access, construction, maintenance,
and use — between this parcel and the owner of TMP 60-39 should actually be drawn to
the extent of the paving improvements shown on that property. Also, please clarify
what the Dominion Energy easement on Sheet C2.1 is being adjusted from and to.
CIVIL ENGINEERING I ENVIRONMENTAL I SURVEYING I GIs I LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE I CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
Easements have been clarified on Sheet C8.0. The off -site easement with TMP 60-39
has been revised to include all areas required for access, construction, maintenance,
and use. No changes to the Dominion Energy easement are proposed; see Sheet C8.0.
Rev. 1: Follow up comment. Thank you for providing clarity in the plan maps and in the
comment response letter. Please submit an easement plat, and related maintenance
agreements, to the County for review/approval. See Comment 12(a) below, regarding
process.
An easement plat and maintenance agreements have been submitted to the County.
3. [32.5.1(c), 32.5.2(a)] Setbacks. Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
a. In the Setback notes on Sheet C0.0, reference both special exceptions that are
currently in review by the County that need to be approved to allow this
development:
i. Rear parking setback, pursuant to 4.20(a)
ii. Use buffer, pursuant to 21.7(c)
Both Special Exceptions have been referenced on Sheet C0.0.
b. The setback shown along the western property boundary is incorrect. As the
zoning ordinance states, the 10ft front minimum setback is only from public
street ROWS. Review and revise as necessary.
The western setback has been revised based on Twin Sycamores Lane being a private
street.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
4. [32.6.3] Parking structure. Please submit materials pursuant to Sec. 32.6.3. In the
comment response letter from the applicant, it was indicated that architectural
drawings would accompany the submission of the final site plan, but our office has not
received this information digitally or physically.
Architectural drawings have been included in this submission. See Sheet L3.0.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
5. [32.5.2(b), 4.12] Parking schedule. Rev. 1: Comments addressed.
a. The parking requirement for this use, based on the proposed square footage of
the development, is 107 parking spaces [(26,600sf x 0.8) x (1/200) = 106.4, which
rounds up to 107]. It is a standard practice of the County to round up to the
nearest whole number if the minimum number of required parking spaces is
found to be more than [x] whole number.
The parking requirement has been revised on Sheet C0.0.
b. In the underground garage, provide auto -turn analysis to demonstrate that a
reverse maneuver, from a parking space furthest from the entrance, can be
performed without a 3-point turn. If this maneuver cannot be demonstrated, the
parking spaces in the underground garage will need to be reconfigured.
Auto -turn analysis has been provided on Sheet C5.2.
Rev. 1: Comments addressed.
6. [4.12.18] Loading areas. Loading spaces must be delineated in a manner that identifies
and preserves the required dimensions with paint striping, signage, or by other means
approved by the zoning administrator. Indicate on the plans, if not already done, how
the loading space will be delineated.
Signage has been added to denote the loading space on Sheet C4.0.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Please provide a detail for the associated signage.
A detail for the sign (MUTCD 117-6) has been provided on Sheet C1.1.
7. [32.5.2(e)] Existing landscaping.
a. Provide a label for the tree along the rear property boundary.
A label has been added on Sheet C2.0.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
b. Show all of the trees that exist on the site currently. In looking at the County's
aerial imagery, there appear to be more trees located on the site than what is
currently shown on the Existing Conditions sheet.
Additional shrubs have been shown on Sheet C2.0.
Rev. 1: Please provide at least one label for the vegetation surrounding the 2-story block
and stucco building.
Two labels have been provided on Sheet C2.0.
8. [32.6.2(k), 4.17] Outdoor lighting:
a. The plan needs to demonstrate anticipated footcandle measurements up to the
boundaries of the property. Please revise to extend the analysis beyond the
confines of the parking area.
Calculation areas have been revised to show measurements up to and beyond the
property lines. See Sheet SE1.0.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
b. Provide the manufacturer cut sheets for each of the fixtures proposed on the
lighting plan. It is preferred that the cut sheets be inset onto the appropriate
plan sheet. The cut sheets need to include the total lumens emitted by the
fixture and, if the total lumens is 3,000 or more, that the fixture is a full cutoff
luminaire.
Manufacturer cut sheets have been added to Sheets SE5.0 and SE5.1. All fixtures are
full cutoff.
Rev. 1: Comment not fully addressed. Thank you for providing these cut sheets. The
luminaire identified as S3 appears to exceed 3,000 lumens. As such, this fixture will need
to be a full cutoff. Review and revise accordingly.
Fixtures have been revised to a fixture that emits less than 3,000 lumens. See Sheets
SE1.0, SE5.0 — SE5.1.
c. Albemarle County assesses photometric plans based on a maintenance factor, or
"LLF", of 1.0. Please revise the table of Sheet SE1.0 to include this information.
(Note: Before the C/O is issued, site inspectors will use the lighting plan and this
information to evaluate whether the as -built lighting aligns with the site plan.)
Sheet SE1.0 now includes the maintenance/light loss factor used to calculate the
photometrics.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
[New — Rev. 1] Spillover of lighting from fixtures cannot exceed 0.5 footcandles
at the property line. Review and revise accordingly.
Spillover has been mitigated through re -selecting the fixtures facing Ivy Road. See
Sheets SE1.0, SE5.0 — SE5.1.
9. [Albemarle County Engineering Policy] Sight distance. Indicate the sight distance lines
for entrances and left turn lanes. This information did not appear to be included, or at
the very least, labeled on Sheet C5.1, as noted in the applicant's comment response
letter.
Sight distance has been labeled on Sheet C5.2.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
10. [Albemarle County Engineering Policy] Benchmarks. It was difficult to locate benchmark
locations on the plan maps. Provide a label to clearly identify these elements.
Benchmarks have been identified on Sheet C2.0.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
11. [32.5.2(a)] Neighboring lots.
a. Update the use on TMP 60-37 to reflect "funeral home" uses as this is the use
defined by the ordinance.
The use for TMP 60-37 has been revised on all sheets.
Rev. 1: Comment addressed.
b. Update the zoning on 60-36 to reflect "C-1 Commercial" in accordance with the
County zoning map.
Per e-mail with Mariah Gleason on 1/29/2020, this comment has been redacted. TMP
60-36 is zoned Commercial Office.
Rev. 1: Comment withdrawn.
12. [Comment] Process.
a. If easements are proposed/needed, they will need to be submitted to the
County for review/approval, recorded, and noted on the final site plan prior to
the plan's approval.
Acknowledged.
Rev. 1: Comment remains. Please submit any easement plats and related
agreements to the County for review/approval. The easement plat will require
an application and fee. Once approved, the easement will need to be noted on
the appropriate plan maps with a deed book and page reference.
An easement plat has been submitted to the County for review/approval.
b. The special exceptions associated with this development are in review and will
need to be approved by the Board of Supervisors prior to approval of the final
site plan.
Acknowledged.
Rev. 1: Comment remains. The two special exceptions associated with this site
plan will be considered by the Board of Supervisors on April 15, 2020. If the
special exceptions are approved, the notes in the Setback and Zoning section will
need to be updated to reference the approved resolution action. Apologies that
more accurate direction regarding the aforementioned notation was not
provided previously.
Setback notes and labels have been revised on Sheets C0.0 and C4.0 per Special
Exception.
13. [Comment] Proposed sign location. In accordance with recent County guidance, please
remove proposed sign location depictions and labels from all plan sheets.
The proposed sign has been removed from all plan sheets.
Albemarle Countv EnaineerinR Services — Engineer — Matthew Wentland:
The VSMP plans will need to be approved before Final Site Plan approval.
Acknowledged.
2. Off -site easements and SWM easements will need to be recorded prior to FSP approval.
A Deed of Dedication will need to be signed and recorded for the SWM facility
easements. This will be filled out by the County and forwarded to the applicant when
the plat is nearing approval.
An easement plat has been submitted to the County for review.
3. Provide additional spot elevations/detail in the area of the dumpster pad and inlets 202
and 602. There appears to be a high point in the gutter between inlet 202 and the
dumpster pad and it needs to be shown where the stormwater from the dumpster pad
and the parking close to inlet 102 will enter the stormwater system.
Additional spot grades have been shown on Sheet C5.1 to clarify grading scheme.
Albemarle County Information Services — E911— Andrew Slack:
No objection.
Albemarle County Building Inspections — Michael Dellinger:
No objection.
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue — Shawn Maddox:
1. No objections, thank you for addressing previous comments.
Albemarle County Service Authority —Richard Nelson:
1. Requests Changes: comments were provided directly to the applicant on 3/10/2020.
Comments have been addressed and sent directly to Richard Nelson at ACSA.
Virginia Department of Transportation — Adam Moore:
Land Use:
1. An approved Access Management Exception is required prior to approval of the Final
Site Plan. Preliminary information regarding the AM-E has been discussed with Steve
Schmidt of Timmons Group.
Access Management Exception applications and documentation were submitted to Adam
Moore with VDOT on March 20, 2020. Per email from Adam Moore dated 4/20/2020, the AM-
E request has been approved by the District Engineer.
Albemarle Countv Architectural Review Board — Patricia Satern
1. Requests Changes: comment letter attached.
Comments have been addressed and sent directly to Paty Saternye.
Albemarle County Facilities Planning & Construction —Jack Kelsey:
1. Comments will be forwarded upon receipt.
Comments have not yet been received.
We have included PDF copies of the plans and calculations for your review. If you have any
questions or comments, please feel free to give me a call at 434.295.5624.
Sincerely,
Kim Mellon
Project Engineer