HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800040 Review Comments Major Amendment, Final Site Plan 2020-05-08COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832
Memorandum
To: Justin Shimp, Shimp Engineering (justinkshimp-en ing eering com)
Kelsey Schlein, Shimp Engineering (kelseygshimp-en ing eering com)
From: Mariah Gleason
Division: Community Development — Planning
Date: May 8, 2020
Subject: SDP201800040 Hunters Way — Major Site Plan Amendment
The site plan amendment referenced above has been reviewed by the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County
Department of Community Development (CDD) and by other members of the Site Review Committee (SRC).
The Planner will approve the plan when the following items (from the Planner and from other SRC plan reviewers) have been
satisfactorily addressed and when all SRC plan reviewers have indicated in writing their tentative approvals. [Each comment is
preceded by the applicable reference to the Albemarle County Code.]
1. [32.5.2(a)] Application ID. Include the application ID on the Cover Sheet (SDP201800040).
2. [32.5.2(a)] Zoning notes. List the special exceptions and conditions associated with this site plan that were approved on May
6, 2020 by the Board of Supervisors. Please see the signed resolution attached.
3. [32.5.2(a)] Setbacks. Revise the setback notes to more clearly reflect the following:
Front Building: 30' (DB 688 PG 636)
Front Min: 1 Oft from the public street right-of-way
Front Max: None, since this is a corner lot abutting a principal arterial highway (Rte 250)
Side/Rear: Buildings separated per building code (minimum); no maximum
4. [32.5.2(b)] Proposed use. Revise the statement in the proposed use notes on the Cover Sheet from "Drive-thru has single
lane, window faces away from Public Streets" to "Drive-thru has a single lane, window faces Hunter's Way."
5. [32.5.2(b), 4.12.6] Parking schedule. The site plan currently shows 46 parking spaces provided, not 45. More importantly,
the parking schedule calculation for the retail building space was not found to align with the County Zoning Ordinance.
Under the parking regulations, retail uses not otherwise identified are required to provide the following:
Retail use not otherwise identified: one space per each 100 square feet of retail sales area for the first 5,000
square feet and one space per each 200 square feet of retail sales area above 5,000 square feet. For purposes
of this paragraph, "retail sales area" shall be deemed to be: (1) 80 percent of the gross floor area; or (2) at
the request of the applicant, the actual retail sales floor area as shown on floor plans submitted by the
applicant delineating the actual retail sales area, which plans shall be binding as to the maximum retail
sales area used. (Added 2-5-03)
Based on this code section, the retail sales area — being less than 5,OOOsf — would need to provide parking spaces at a
ratio of one space per 100sf of retail sales area. This would result in a total of 42 spaces for the retail building
(5,200sf * 80%= 4,160 retail sales area; 4,160sf / 100sf = 42 spaces).
I've follow up with Zoning staff and based on the intended use of this retail building as a hardware store, staff have
indicated that the proposal could instead calculate parking for this use based on the parking ratio requirement for
Furniture store and other large sized retail items such as appliances, carpeting, office equipment or specific
building materials. This scheduled use has been used previously by the County to evaluate parking for hardware
stores. Under this requirement, the hardware store would need to provide parking at a ratio of one space per 400
square feet of retail sales area, or 11 spaces (4,200sf / 400sf). Unfortunately, this lower parking requirement means
that the current development proposal is overparked by around 64% (18 spaces). Revise the site design so the
number of parking spaces does not exceed 20% of the required parking, in accordance with Sec. 4.12.4(a). (Note:
One option to recapture parking, if desired, may be to include the sixth bay of the automobile service station in the
parking calculation for that use.)
6. [32.5.2(k)] Proposed sewer and drainage facilities.
a. A WPO plan/amendment must be approved before site plan amendment is approved.
b. Proposed easements shown on the site plan will need to reference a recorded deed book and page number for
these easements.
7. [24.2.2(13)] Water consumption. Zoning staff have indicated that water consumption should be evaluated by site, thus, the
combination of all intended uses on that site. As such, please revise the Water Use Calculation table on Sheet C4 to itemize
each intended use on the parcel, their associated water consumption (gpd), and then calculate the total estimated water
consumption for the parcel. Per the zoning ordinance, water consumption on this site cannot exceed 584gpd (1.46ac x 400
gallons per site acre per day) without a special use permit under Sec. 24.2.2(13).
8. [32.7.9] Landscape plan.
a. Per Sec. 32.7.9.8(b), the tree canopy requirement must be meet by trees and other plant materials that will
exceed 5ft in height at a maturity of 10 years. Based on the planting schedule, it looks like the shrubs will only
reach a height of 2ft in 10 years. As such, these plantings cannot be used to meet this requirement. That said,
based on the plantings that do meet this criteria, this requirement being met. Please update the Landscaping
Notes and Schedule on Sheet C6 to make it clear that the proposed trees meet the requirement.
b. The Land Use Schedule on the Cover Sheet notes a proposed pavement area of 22,093sf, however, the Parking
Lot Landscaping requirement in the Landscaping Notes on Sheet C6 appears to be based off of 20,592sf.
Please clarify or review and revise this discrepancy.
c. In the Planting Schedule on Sheet C5, adjust the quantity and canopy of the Mountain Pieris species to 18 and
14, respectively, to match the plan and Sheet C6.
d. Provide a label for the tree that is being obscured by the conservation checklist. Is that tree part of this
property? If so, the planting schedule may need to be updated.
e. Revise the plan depictions for the Pin Oak (A) so that the "A" is included and matches the legend.
9. [32.5.1(c)] Building dimensions. Provide dimensions for the coffee shop structure and the western, offset portion of the
hardware store structure.
10. [32.5.2(n), 4.12.16(c)] Handicapped parking spaces. The handicapped parking spaces for perpendicular parking are noted
has being 9ft x 18ft, however both spaces measure 8ft xl8ft. The measured 8ft x 18ft meets the requirements of the zoning
ordinance. Please update the label to reflect the measured plan width. Also, does this width qualify for van -accessible
spaces?
11. [32.5.2(n), 4.12.19] Dumpster pad.
a. Indicate the distance the dumpster pad extends beyond the front of each dumpster. (Note: The ordinance
requires a minimum distance of 8ft. See Sec. 4.12.19 for more information.)
b. Label the paving material for the dumpster pad.
c. The detail for the dumpster pad on Sheet C8 references a detail on Sheet C7 that did not appear to be included
in the plan. Please revise this detail/label accordingly.
12. [32.5.2(n)] Paving material. Indicate the surfacing material for areas around the proposed building and parking islands.
13. [32.5.2(n)] Signs. Remove all depictions and notes regarding signs (except stop signs and parking signs) or include a note
that makes it clear that these signs are not approved by this site plan amendment and will require a separate application and
approval.
14. [32.5.1(c), 32.5.2(n), 4.12.16(e), 32.5.2(s)] Labels.
a. The boundary line bearing and distance labels are difficult to read in their current placement within the hatched
area used to denote critical slope areas (see Sheet C2). Please relocate these labels outside the hatched area for
greater legibility.
b. On Sheet C3, what does the dark box attached to but north of the 520sf building represent? If this is intended
to be an overhang for the walk-up order window, please label it accordingly.
c. On Sheet C3, revise the labels in the drive-thru lane so they do not overlap.
d. On Sheet C3, label the bumper blocks.
e. On Sheet C4, connect the arrow for the "New SWM Facility Easement" label with the depicted improvement.
15. [Comment] What do the bubbled areas along the northern edges of the property represent?
16. [Comment] Is there outdoor seating associated with the coffee shop use? It was not clear what the light linework on the
northern side of the intended coffee shop building represented.
17. [32.6.2(k)] Outdoor lighting. Is it intended that the area around the proposed hardware store and coffee shop (including the
drive-thru lane) remain unlit? If light fixtures exceeding 3,000 lumens were to be added in this area in the future, a Letter of
Revision (LOR) to this amendment would likely be needed to review/approve the change.
18. [32.6.2(h)] Signature panel. Replace the ACSA signature line with a signature line for the Virginia Department of Health.
OTHER SRC REVIEWERS
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)
David James, diames2(iDalbemarle.org - Requests Changes
1. WPO plan/amendment must be approved before site plan amendment is approved.
Acknowledged - WPO2016-52 amendment.
(Rev.2/3) Comment still valid.
2. VDOT entrance permit required.
(Rev.1) Addressed; N/A.
3. VDH permitting required.
(Rev.1) Acknowledged.
4. Provide date of boundary and topo survey.
(Rev.1) Addressed.
5. Provide curb and gutter in parking areas and along travelways [18-4.12.15].
(Rev.1) TBD. Chris P.
(Rev.2) No objection.
6. Show sight distance lines.
(Rev.1) Addressed; N/A.
7. Adjust the drive aisle from 24' to 12' before the parking spaces, and relocate curbing & "DO NOT
ENTER" sign accordingly.
(Rev.1) TBD. Frank P.
(Rev.2) Addressed; Design changed.
8. Provide stormwater profiles & details.
(Rev.1) Addressed.
9. Provide engineered plans and computations for the retaining wall design for all the walls that are next to
parking or travelways. Specify all structural components and dimensions of wall.
The following items will be required [DSM]:
a. A typical detail. (VDOT standard walls are acceptable)
b. Specific details as required for unusual or possibly conflicting areas. An example is where utilities
are expected to go through walls or footings.
c. Certified computations to support the design (for wall over 5' high). All soil and bearing
assumptions, as well as reinforcement materials and assumed loadings must be included.
(Rev.1) Acknowledged; Wall design will be provided.
(Rev.2/3) Wall was removed.
10. (Rev.1) Provide safety provision(s) for vehicles and pedestrians for walls over 30" high. This is typically a
guardrail, wall, or fencing [DSM].
(Rev.2/3) Wall was removed.
11. (Rev.1) Provide guardrail around curve of drivethru travelway and extend a little beyond end of retaining
wall.
(Rev.2) Guardrail warranted before >3:1 slopes.
(Rev.3) Addressed.
12. Label location of wall maximum height and TW/BW elevations.
(Rev.1) Addressed.
13. A vehicle stopped at `MENU SIGN' will cue onto the drive aisle and my warrant further review.
(Rev.1) Addressed.
14. The vehicle parking spots near the drive through my warrant further review.
(Rev.1) Addressed.
15. Private well & septic system may warrant further review and inspection (DSM, Sect.2).
(Rev.1/2) TBD. Frank P.
(Rev.3) VDH will review.
16. Three (3) sanitary line connections to buildings may be required.
(Rev.1) TBD. Chris P.
(Rev.2) Addressed.
17. Sheet 2 -
a. Show existing easements, DB/PG.
b. Show demo area for parking island extensions.
(Rev.1) Addressed.
18. (Rev.1) Concrete inlet shaping (IS-1) shall be provided in any drainage structure with a 4' or greater drop
(i.e. Ex MH connection).
(Rev.2) Not addressed.
(Rev.3) Addressed.
19. (Rev.1) Label proposed SWF easement over the UD system and size width dimensions according to
the pg. 15, DSM calculation.
(Rev.2) Addressed.
20. (Rev.1) Locate MH access next to the weir plate location of the UD system.
(Rev.2) Provide access ladder, show detail.
(Rev.3) Addressed.
21. (Rev.1) Provide minimum 3" orifice.
(Rev.2) Not addressed.
(Rev.3) Acknowledged. Engineering recommends a larger orifice because this will become a
maintenance issue.
22. (Rev.1) The retaining wall and any utilities shall be located outside of the SWF easement. Provide a
new design for UD system that shows this.
(Rev.2/3) Wall design was eliminated.
23. (Rev.2) Critical slope areas shown do not quite match those on the County's GIS overlay.
(Rev.3) TBD. Frank P. is reviewing critical slope waiver.
24. (Rev.2) Sheet CI - Change text to reflex that Critical Slopes are proposed to be disturbed.
(Rev.3) Addressed.
25. (Rev.2) Sheet C4 -
a. Disturbance to critical slopes is not allowed. { 18-4.21
(Rev.3) TBD. Frank P.is reviewing critical slope waiver. If a retaining wall is required than
wall comments might still apply.
b. Callout grate inlet structure type.
(Rev.3) DI-7 not recommended, recommend side inlet. [DSM, pg.18]
26. (Rev.2) Sheet C7 - Correct the storm profile & detail.
(Rev.3) Addressed.
27. (Rev.3) Sheet C5 - Show the low -maintenance ground cover plantings for proposed areas where
grading over 3:1 proposed.
28. (Rev.3) Show SWM design table/worksheet.
29. (Rev.3) Show roof drains and where they outlet.
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Michael Dellinger, mdellinger&albemarle.org - No Objection
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue
Shawn Maddox, smaddox(c)albemarle.org - No Objection
Virginia Department of Transportation
Adam Moore, adam.moorekvdot.vir ig nia.gov - No Objection
Virginia Department of Health
Alan Mazurowski, alan.mazurowski(c-r�,vdh.vir ig nia.gov - Requests Changes, see comment letter attached
Albemarle County Architecture Review Board
Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewski(a-)albemarle.org — Requests Changes
A submittal addressing all items (site and architectural) listed in the September 18, 2019 ARB action letter is required.
However, a cursory review of the site plan resubmittal has been completed and the following items have been noted:
1. The ARB action required landscaping on the EC side of the building. This is not shown on the revised plan.
2. The ARB action required trees and shrubs on the EC side of the drive-thru lane. It appears that only shrubs have been
added.
3. The guard rail detail still shown a very utilitarian design. A revised design is required. Consider the design used at the
Pantops Chick-fil-a.
4. The location and appearance of drive-thru equipment may generate additional comments.
Albemarle County Zoning Division
Rebecca Ragsdale, rra sg dalegalbemarle.org — No Objection
In accordance with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code, if the applicant fails to submit a revised
site plan to address all of the requirements within six (6) months after the date of this letter, the application shall be
deemed to have been voluntarily withdrawn by the applicant.
Please contact Mariah Gleason in the Planning Division by using mgleasongalbemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3097 for
further information.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS
FOR SDP 201800040 HUNTERS WAY COFFEE SHOP
BE IT RESOLVED that, upon consideration of the Memorandum prepared in conjunction with the
application and the attachments thereto, including staffs supporting analysis, and all of the factors relevant
to the special exceptions in Albemarle County Code §§ 18-5.l(a), 18-5.1.60, 18-4.2, 18-4.2.5(a)(3), and 18-
33.49, the Albemarle County Board of Supervisors hereby approves the special exceptions for SDP
201800040 Hunters Way Coffee Shop, subject to the conditions attached hereto.
I, Claudette K. Borgersen, do hereby certify that the foregoing writing is a true, correct copy of a
Resolution duly adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Albemarle County, Virginia, by a vote of six to zero,
as recorded below, at a meeting held on May 6, 2020.
Clerk, Board of County Supervi s
A Nay
Mr. Gallaway
Y
Ms. LaPisto-Kirtley
Y
Ms. Mallek
Y
Ms. McKeel
Y i
Ms. Palmer
Y
Ms. Price
Y
SDI? 201800040 Hunters Way Coffee Shop Special Exception Conditions
1. The drive -through window shall be located within the general area shown on the exhibit entitled
"2300 Hunter's Way: For Illustrative Purposes Only" prepared by Shimp Engineering and dated
December 20, 2019,
2. The area of land disturbance on critical slopes may not exceed 2,488 square feet as described in the
request entitled "Major Site Plan Amendment (SDP201800040 All Amendment to SDP201 G00012)
Critical Slopes Waiver Request" and as shown on the plan exhibit entitled "Critical Slope Waiver
Exhibit," both of which were prepared by Shimp Engineering and are dated October 22, 2019.
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
December 3, 2019
Mariah Gleason, Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: 2300 Hunters Way
Major Site Plan Amendment
SDP2018-40; SP2019-3
Ms. Gleason:
As requested, I've reviewed the subject Site Plan for the proposed construction to the
property referenced above, and offer the following comments:
Septic: Septic components serving the new facility appear to meet minimum
separation distances, however this office has not received an engineered design for
permitting.
Well: It appears the existing well has yet to be approved by the VDH Office of
Drinking Water to serve the proposed coffee shop.
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.mazurowskikvdh.vir ig nia.gov