HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000051 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2020-08-21Phone 434-296-5832
� OF
J� o
0
�GI1JlN4i
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Memorandum
To: Kelly Schwieterman
From: Paty Satemye, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: August 21, 2020
Subiect: SDP202000051 Valvoline — Final Site Plan
Fax 434-972-4126
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the following
comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time.
Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.): [Each comment is preceded by
the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
Comments to be addressed with the Final Site Plan submission:
2. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
FINAL: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address comments below.
3. 132.5.1(c), 32.5.2(a), & 4.201 Revise the setback in to address the following: Revise the setback description and
linework to fully, consistently and correctly specify the setback requirements. Address the following:
c. Revise the front setback to specify that the front setback applies to both Route 29 & Gander Drive, since Gander
Drive is a private street.
FINAL: Comment not vet fully addressed. The "Proposed" front setback only shows one value. Since this Parcel
has two fronts it will have two Proposed front setbacks.
e. Show the location of the existing sidewalk along Route 29. Whether the sidewalk is within or outside of the right-
of-way impacts where the setback is measured from.
FINAL: Comment not vet fully addressed. There are two parallel lines that may represent the sidewalk along Rt.
29. However, there are breaks in them, Possibly at storm structures, which make it appear that they are not the
sidewalks. There also does not appear to be any labels or hatching to designate them as the sidewalk. Ensure the
sidewalks are labeled and clearly represented alongRt29.
g. Provide a pedestrian connection from the parcel to the sidewalk along Route 29. In the approved site plan
SDP2006-61 this sidewalk was shown between the subject parcel and the bank parcel, in order to provide
pedestrian access from both parcels.
Rev. 1: This comment is being revised to the following: Provide a pedestrian connection from the parcel to the
sidewalk along Route 29 and across the parcel to the existing sidewalk along Gander drive. In the approved site
plan SDP2006-61 this sidewalk was shown between the subject parcel and the bank parcel and along the Gander
Drive frontage, in order to provide pedestrian access from both parcels and to the rest of the development. This is
the only pedestrian connection between the Northtown development and Route 29, was approved on previous site
plans, and was mentioned in the staff report for the approval of the Special Use Permit for the bank. Depending on
the location of the pedestrian path a crosswalk may be required for a portion of it.
the following:
i. The s
ii. Provide a pedestrian connection across the Gander Drive side of the parcel. This should be met by the
following measures:
1) Provide a handicapped (HC) ramp from the sidewalk into the site near the HC parking space(s)
hatched area in the parking lot.
2) Provide a sidewalk across the 24' wide island to the east side of the 4 parking spaces. This should
include Handicapped access (it will connect the two crosswalks mentioned below).
3) Provide a crosswalk across the 20' wide entrance to the access aisle on the southside of the parcel.
4) Provide a crosswalk across the 89' wide of access area into the site from Gander Drive.
5) Provide a HC ramp where the sidewalk turns into Gander Drive, so that there is access to the
crosswalk mentioned above.
6) Clarify if the 3 %:' island between the last of the Gander Drive parking spaces, (just north of the
entrance into the site) and the entrance into the parcel, is to be concrete. Concrete, or painted
hatching (for HC accessibility), in this area would complete the pedestrian connection to the shared
parking spaces along Gander Drive.
132.5.2(b) &32.5.2(n)] Information regarding the proposed use; Existing and proposed improvements. Revise the
following information on the proposed use on the site plan:
a) In reference to parking:
i. Revise the Property Data to specify the total area of the building, including any other floors. A basement
was specified on the application and a total building area of 3,776 sq ft.
FINAL: Comment not vet fully addressed. The building square footage has been updated on the cover sheet
and a proposed building height of 28.0' is specified. However, it is not clear where the additional 1,696 SF
of building area is. Is it a partial 2nd floor, partial basement, or the combination of the two? Add next to the
proposed building height, the number of stories and/or specify any basement. If this information is included
anywhere else in the plan, please ensure it is obvious and specify the sheet it is provided on in the Comment
Response letter.
iii. Provide a required parking calculation on the cover sheet in the Parking Calculation area. This should show
the specific category of parking calculation being used and show the calculation itself and not just the
outcome of the calculation. It appears that the shopping center calculation, used on the approved SDP2006-
61 final site plan, is being utilized but not the full size of the building is additional floors are proposed.
Rev. 1: Comment still valid. Address the comment. However, note that either the previously approved
shopping center parking calculation or the automobile service station calculation would be acceptable in
these circumstances.
FINAL: Comment not yet fully addressed. The parking calculation for this parcel has been revised.
However, it shows that 12 Parking spaces have been Provided when only 10 spaces are proposed. If the
shared parking on the adjoining parcels are making uP for the 2 missing spaces, then ensure that is clearly
listed (ex. Provided: 10 on -site Parking spaces + 2 shared Parking spaces on adjoining Parcels). Otherwise
Clarify where the other two spaces are located.
iv. Include a separate calculation, updating the Phase I overall parking, and ensure that the removal of the
parking along Gander Drive will not put the provided parking for all of Phase I below what will be required
when factoring in this site plan.
FINAL: Comment not vet fully addressed. Address the following:
1) In the Phase I parking summary there has been a reduction in the number of Provided handicapped
spaces. For over 300 spaces 7 HC spaces were and are required. Therefore, one more HC space needs
to be provided. Add a HC space.
2) In the Phase I parking summary, there is a reduction of one loading space. Since the currently
proposed use does not require a loading space (and the previous one did) this can be allowed.
However, the number of loading spaces previously proposed in Phase I and now proposed in Phase I
needs to be documented in this site plan. Include this information in the Phase I overall Parking
summary area.
3) Either revised the "Required Parking Stalls Per 1000 S.F." for the "Revised BLDG Summary" to be
4.75 as wit was in the approved plan or clarify for the Plan reviewer why this changes is required.
7. [32.5.2(i)] Revise the following in reference to streets, easements and travelways:
a) An access easement is specified on sheet C3.0. Include the deed book and page number of this recorded document
and easement.
FINAL: Comment not vet fully addressed. The label was added, but deed book and page number are not vet
included in that label. Add the deed book and Page number of the recorded Maintenance Use and Easement
Agreement to the label on the site Plan.
8. [32.5.2(j)] Revise to show and label the existing stormwater management drainage easement(s) for the whole parcel.
FINAL: Comment not vet fully addressed. Specify in the comment response letter which sheet the existing
stormwater managements easements are shown on and ensure that labels are included in the site plan clearly specifying
what linework represents the easements.
9. 132.5.2(k) & 32.5.2(1)]] Private & public easements; Existing and proposed utilities. Address the following:
a) If any offsite easements will be required, provide their location and dimension.
FINAL: Comment not vet fully addressed. The comment response letter specifies that a proposed water easement
is shown on sheet C6.0. The proposed easement appears to be labeled as "11". However, where this easement is
located is not easily discernable and does not appear to fully extend from the existing water line easement or fully
enclose the existing water line and water line easement. Ensure this easement is able to be seen and fully encloses
the water line and water meter.
c) If any easements are required an easement plat must be submitted (separate application, fee and submission) and
approved prior to the approval of the final site plan.
FINAL: Comment not yet fully addressed. An easement plat must be submitted se arate application, fee and
submission), reviewed, approved and recorded prior to the approval of the final site plan.
11. 132.5.2.(e), 32.5.2.(p) & 32.6.2(j)] Landscape plan. A landscape plan is required in the final site plan that complies
with section 32.7.9. A landscape plan was submitted but requires additional information for the final site plan. Such
information should include, but is not limited to, the following:
e) Revise the landscape plan to include a calculation for the maximum amount of paved parking and other vehicular
circulation area for use in the calculation mentioned below.
FINAL: Comment not vet fully addressed. Revise the "vehicular circulation area" to be "Parking and Vehicular
Circulation Area". The parking areas are supposed to be included in the calculation. 22, 696 is the area of
impervious, not including the building, shown on the coversheet. With the exception of the sidewalks and
dumpster area the rest of the "impervious area" is very likely part of the "Parking and vehicular circulation area".
Once this calculation is updated revise the landscaping area Provided to ensure the minimums are met.
g) Ensure that all previously approved planting within the parcel are shown as either existing or proposed (if missing)
or specify alternative plantings that would need approval of planning and engineering.
iii. On the previously approved site plan (SDP2014-34) there are stormwater management/biofilter plantings
on the south side of the parcel (labeled as Biofilter # 1 in SDP2006-61 when originally approved). This
Biofilter is not planted according to the previously approved plans. Revise the landscape plan to show this
required landscaping. The Water Resource department has stated that they have requested that the owner
plant the required vegetation.
FINAL: Comment not vet fully addressed. SDP2014-34 & WPO2013-2, which show the same Plantings
for the biofilter area, show the required Plantings to be different than those shown in this site Plan. If
another source of information has been provided that matches what has been proposed, Please discuss this
with the reviewers so that it can be clarified. Otherwise address the following:
1) Revise the planting of the biofilter area to at a minimum include what is shown in SDP2014-34 and
WPO2013-2 or work with engineering to amend the WPO plan to allow other plantings.
2) This also applies to the plantings between the area designated as `Biofilter Filter #1" and the
southern edge of the lease area. It does not lust apply to the area enclosed by at thick dashed line and
labeled as the Biofilter Landscape Plan.
3) Only Plantings within the parcel are required. Proposing plantings in the portion of the biofilter on
the adjoining parcel is not required for this site plan review, but it can be included as long as a
temporary construction easement is proposed, approved and recorded prior to the final site plan
approval.
h) Revise the existing conditions sheet to include the required information on the existing trees.
FINAL: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following
i. Revise the symbology for the existing trees on the existing conditions sheet so that they are more visible.
They are shown at a fraction of the size they are shown on the landscape plan and are therefore hard to
locate.
ii. Ensure labels are provided for all existing trees that include all the required information.
iii. "Multi -Trunk Tree" does not meet the minimum requirements.
iv. In the Existing Conditions sheet, if there is a tree that is to be removed then label the tree at "TBR" or some
other equivalent designation to acknowledge that fact.
V. There are a significant number of plantings that are shown in the Landscape Plan sheet as "existing" that are
not shown on the Existing Conditions sheet at all. They are in the area adjacent to the biofilter and include
(according to the Landscape Plan sheet) at least 9 birch, 1 zelkova, 1 red maple, a sycamore, and a
significant number of smaller circles that have no labels are may be marking the location of existing shrubs.
Also, either show them as existing on the existing conditions sheet or show them as being proposed on the
landscape sheet. These are not included in the `Biofilter" plantings on the sheet L1.1.
j) Include in the existing conditions, grading and landscape sheets tree protection fencing around all existing trees
and required landscaping that is to remain and include tree protection fencing details in the site plan.
FINAL: Comment not vet fully addressed. What appears to be the limits of clearing and grading on the existing
conditions sheet impacts areas where tree protection is specified. Ensure limits of clearing and grading to not go
into tree protection areas and are clearly labeled.
k) Provided a detail of the screening wall around the dumpster location.
FINAL: Comment not yet fully addressed. The dumpster enclosure detail was provided. However, it must be
included in the site plan. Submittal of a separate document is not sufficient to meet this requirement.
n) FINAL: [New Comment] Insufficient width of planting bed appears to be provided for the crape myrtles along
the northern boundary of the parcel. Increase the width of this bed or revise the landscaping to be something that
can fit and survive in the area provided.
o) FINAL: [New Commentl In reference to the Plant Material Lists.
i. Ensure that all plant material charts include all of the required information. One of the charts includes the
canopy, and total canopy. Another includes the size of plants at time of planting. All three of these items
should be included in all landscaping charts.
E A total of the canopy provided must be included at the bottom of any plant material chart. This is important
for utilization in the calculations. In the case of the 3,432 SF of canopy listed as provided in the Tree
Coverage calculation, no chart shows that square footage as being provided without having to manually add
up the individual rows manually.
iii. Revise the Fosters Holly to have a canopy of 16.
14. [Comment] ARB comments are not available at this time. Because of COVIDI9's impact on public meetings the
ARB comments will be provided when they become available. The final site plan approval will not be granted until
ARB has approved the site plan.
FINAL: Comment not vet fully addressed. ARB comments. and the ARB Action letter from the 8/17/2020 meetime
are attached. The final site plan approval will not be granted until ARB has approved the site plan.
15. [Comment] See the SRC comments from most of the reviewers attached. All SRC reviewer comments must be
sufficiently address prior to final site plan approval.
FINAL: Comment not vet fully addressed. See attached comments from other reviewers. All reviewer comments
must be sufficiently address prior to final site plan approval.
Please contact Paty Saternye in the Planning Division by using psatemye(aWbemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3250 for
further information.
Review Comments for SDP202000051 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name: VALVOLINE -FINIAL
Date Completed: Tuesday, August 18, 2020 Department/DivisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Richard Nelson
ACSA
Requested Changes
2020-08-18: Below are my comments for SDP2020-51 Valvoline - Final Site Plan:
An irrigation application will need to be submitted to ACSA for review to confirm irrigation meter size. The fee is $25 and can
be found on our website.
• Provide max flow rate for sprinkler heads.
• Provide Fixture counts to determine domestic water meter size.
'ACSA will review meter connections to existing service stub out once meter sizes are confirmed.
• Provide 10 feet of easement behind proposed fire hydrant.
Add note that backflow preventors will be required for irrigation and domestic water systems.
• Minimum water main depth should be called out as 3.5'.
• Relocate portion of guard rail that is on top of the existing sewer.
` Ensure trees have at least 10 feet of separation from water and sewer utilities. There is a crape myrtle next to the existing
manhole before the road crossing.
Show water main profile for proposed hydrant.
Page: 1� County of Albemarle Printed On: 08/19/ 0020
Review Comments for SDP202000051 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name VALVOLINE - FINIAL
Date Completed: Monday, August 17, 2020 Department/DivisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Matthew Wentland I CDD Engineering Requested Changes
Page: 1� County of Albemarle Printed On: 08/19/ 0020
Review Comments for SDP202000051
Project Name I VALVOLINE - FINIAL
Final Site Development Plan
Date Completed:) Monday, August 17, 2020 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: KhristopherTaggart CDDARB Requested Changes
Page: 1� County of Albemarle Printed On: 08/19/ 0020
OF ALg�
U �I�
COUNTY OFALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
Phone (434) 296-5832
August 18, 2020
Garland Watkins
Valvoline
100 Valvoline Way
Lexington, KY 40509
RE: ARB-2020-82: Valvoline Final Site Development Plan (TMP 04500-00-00-111C0)
Dear Applicant,
Fax (434) 972-4126
The Albemarle County Architectural Review Board reviewed the above noted item at its meeting on Monday, August 17, 2020.
The Board unanimously approved the request, pending staff administrative approval of the following conditions:
I. Revise the design to replace EIFS with brick, limiting EIFS to an accent material, as proposed by the applicant at
the meeting.
2. Add a note to the architectural drawings indicating that the overhead doors have clear glass panes.
3. Revise the north elevation to incorporate architectural changes rather than applique to relieve "blankness".
4. Revise the south elevation to replace the EIFS under the awning with brick or revise the EIFS accent to mimic the
window size, configuration, and placement create a more uniform appearance.
5. Provide specifications on the proposed window glass confirming that VLT is not below 40% and VLR does not
exceed 30%.
6. Add the standard mechanical equipment note to the site and architectural plans.
7. Revise the pole -mounted fixtures to a soft, warm white (3000K) color temperature.
8. Revise the plans to clarify the locations of the emergency fixtures.
9. Consider alternate landscaping for the 2'-wide planting island on the northern perimeter of the lease area that will
have a chance to thrive in the narrow planting area.
10. Revise the retaining wall material to one with a smaller scale block and a muted earth -tone color.
11. Sign applications are required for all proposed signs. Revise the sign proposal to meet the EC Sign Guidelines,
including (but not limited to) the following changes:
a. Revise cabinet style signs to channel letter signs, Secondary tagline cabinets, if internally illuminated, must
have opaque backgrounds,
b. Revise the sign design to use three colors or fewer. Note that Pantone 485 is not approvable as a primary sign
color.
Please provide:
1. One full set of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated revision dates on each drawing.
2. A memo including detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes other than those
requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo also. Highlighting the changes in the drawing with
"clouding" or by other means will facilitate review and approval.
3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form. This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper
tracking and distribution.
When staffs review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of Appropriateness
may be issued.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Siinnc�erelly,
i
Khris Taggart, Planner
ktaggart@albemarle.org
cc: First Gold Leaf Land Trust
P.O. Box 5548
Charlottesville, VA 22905
File
Review Comments for SDP202000051 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name VALVOLINE - FINIAL
Date Completed: Thursday. July 02. 2020 DepartmenVDivision/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Brian Becker CDD E911 i- No Objection
Page: 1� County of Albemarle Printed On: 08/19/2020
Review Comments for SDP202000051 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name I VALVOLINE -FINIAL
Date Completed: Tuesday, July 07, 2020 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Michael Dellinger �] CDD Inspections No Objection
Page: 1� County of Albemarle Printed On: 08/19/ 0020
Review Comments for SDP202000051 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name_ VALVOLINE -FINIAL
Date Completed: Friday, July 10, 2020 DepartmentlDivisionlAgency: Review Status:
Reviewer: I RWSA No Objection
Pape: 1� Countyof Albemarle Printed On: 08/19/ 0020
Review Comments for SDP202000051 Final Site Development Plan
Project Name VALVOLINE - FINIAL
Date Completed: Saturday, July 04. 2020 Department/Division/Agency: Review Status:
Reviewer: Shaven Maddox " I Fire Rescue i1 No Objection
Page: 1� County of Albemarle Printed On: 08/19/ 0020
Stephen C. Brich, P.E.
Commissioner
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
July 7, 2020
Patricia Satemye
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP-2020-00051 — Valvoline —Site Plan
Dear Ms. Saternye:
(804)78&2701
Fax: (804) 78&2940
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced Valvoline, as submitted by CESO, Inc., dated June 16,
2020 and find it to be generally acceptable.
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.
If you have further questions please contact Max Greene at (434) 422-9894.
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING