HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000004 Review Comments Appeal to BOS 2020-09-21County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To: John C. Wright, P.E., (iwright@bohlereng.com and PT Hotel, LLC (neil@shaminhotels.com
and michael&shaminhotels.com)
From: Kevin McCollum - Planner
Division: Planning Services
Date: September 21, 2020
Subject: SDP202000004 — Hampton Inn — Site Plan Final
The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department Community
Development will recommend approval of the plan referred to above when the following items 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 to the Albemarle County Code.]
Applicable Comments from Initial Site Plan Action Letter (October 23, 2019)
1. [ZMA201800005 Application Plan and Proffer Statement, and Z.O.32.5.2.(a) and 32.5.2.(o)]:
The proposed development shown on the initial site plan appears to be in general accord with the Application
Plan for ZMA201800005, as is necessary per ZMA201800005 Proffer # L However, in order to clarify, confirm,
and otherwise ensure that the proposed development will be in general accord with the Application Plan for
ZMA201800005, the following comments must be addressed on the final site plan:
A. Sheet C-301 contains information about the approximately 2.0-acre area in the rear portions of the
subject property, which is labeled as "Proposed easement to County... " Please revise and supplement
this information as follows:
i. This approximately 2.0-acre area in the rear portions of the subject property must be
designated as a "Special Lot' that is "reserved for future dedication to the County for public
use upon demand." (Definition in Z.O. Section 3.1: Special lot. "Special lot' means a lot
created to be used exclusively for public or private streets, railroad rights -of -way and railroad
lines, public utilities, publicly owned or operated public facilities, publicly owned or operated
parks, publicly or privately owned sites for personal wireless service facilities, central water
supplies and central sewerage systems as those terms are defined in Chapter 16, stormwater
management facilities, cemeteries existing on June 8, 2011, conservation areas, preservation
areas, open space, and greenways.)
This comment has not been addressed. There needs to be a special lot subdivision plat
submitted, approved, and recorded prior to final site plan approval. Once the special
lot plat is recorded, please update the site plan where applicable so that all notes
and labels state the correct deed book and page number of the recorded plat.
A combination plat has been submitted and is under review. Once it has been approved
update the site plan accordingly to reflect any parcel changes and references.
ii. The location, configuration, size, and boundary locations and dimensions of the approximately
2.0-acre area in the rear portions of the subject property must be accurately defined by a
licensed surveyor using standard surveying methods, and must be depicted and described on
the final site plan.
This comment has been addressed, pending approval
iii. Because the pertinent proffer contains specific details about the process and timing of any such
future request for dedication, staff recommends (but does not require) the addition of language
such as "See ZMA201800005 Proffer 2" to the label for that area.
This comment has been addressed by the addition of Note 2.
B. Sheets C-301 and C-701 include information about the "proposed landscape wall" along (near) the
subject property's frontage on State Farm Boulevard. Please provide the following information:
i. Specify the proposed height of the proposed landscape wall.
This comment has been addressed.
ii. Include a landscape wall detail on Sheet C-901 or C-902 (or other detail sheet, as may be
applicable).
This comment has been addressed.
iii. (Advisory /Not Required): Depending on the height of the proposed landscape wall and the
height of proposed landscaping, please consider if the proposed design would be improved by
inverting the configuration of the wall and the landscaping along State Farm Boulevard (so
that the landscaping is located closer to the frontage, with the landscape wall behind the
landscaping as viewed from State Farm Boulevard). Such a rearrangement could also
potentially help to resolve the conflict between the proposed landscape wall and proposed
underground utilities (please reference ACSA review comments).
This comment has been addressed.
C. Please revise the "Zoning and Site Tabulations" information on Sheet C-103 to more clearly provide
information from ZMA201800005, please see Planner review comment #2 (below).
This comment has been addressed.
2. [Z.O.32.5.2(a)]: Please revise the "Zoning and Site Tabulations" information on the Sheet C-103 as follows:
A. In the "Associated Plans" information, the reference to ZMA201800005 (approved by the BOS on
6/19/2019) appears to have an incorrect date ("June "June 18, 2018"). Please revise. You may
reference the approval date (6/19/2019), or the date of the approved Application Plan (4/15/2019 with
hand-written notes dated 6/19/2019), or both.
This comment has been addressed.
B. In the "Stepbacks" information, please include additional language that states the following (or
similar): The proposed hotel will comply with the applicable minimum front stepback requirements
and with the applicable terms and details of ZMA201800005.
This comment has been addressed.
C. Please include the following additional language (or similar), which is derived from the approved
Application Plan (dated 4/15/2019) and hand-written notes on Application Plan Sheet 4 (dated
6/19/2019):
i. The proposed hotel will be in general accord with the building elevations shown on Sheets 4
and 5 of the approved Application Plan for ZM4,201800005.
ii. The fagade treatment of the proposed hotel will be in substantial conformance with "Exhibit 1"
for ZMA201800005.
iii. Membrane roof colors must be tan or brown, subject to approval by the Director of Planning.
This comment has been addressed.
D. Please insert a copy of ZMA201800005 "Exhibit 1" onto Sheet C-103 near the "Zoning and Site
Tabulations" information or onto Sheet C-104 with the Proffers.
This comment has been addressed.
3. [Z.O.32.5.2(a)]: Please revise the Sheet Index on the Cover Sheet (C-101) to identify the total number of sheets.
This comment has been addressed.
4. [Z.O.32.5.2.(b)]: Please provide additional information to clarify the proposed maximum amount of the subject
property (in acres) for each different type of proposed use, as well as the proposed maximum amount of
impervious cover on the site. Note: Staff acknowledges that the "Site Area" section of the "Zoning and Site
Tabulations" information on Sheet C-103 contains "Open Space" information, however, this information does
not specify the acreage(s) dedicated to other different uses or the maximum amount of impervious cover.
This comment has been addressed.
5. [Z.O.32.5.2(n)]: Please revise the lighting plan (Sheet C-801) as follows:
A. The Luminaire Schedule must be revised to use a Light Loss Factor (LLF) of 1.0. Currently, the LLF
is specified as 0.95. Please revise.
This comment has been addressed.
Additionally, please note that the Final Site Plan cannot be approved unless and until all the outdoor lighting
information required by Z.O. 32.6.2(k) is provided to demonstrate compliance with all applicable outdoor
lighting requirements as specified in Z.O. 4.17, and with all other applicable conditions of approval established
through previous legislative zoning approvals. However, this information is not required prior to County
approval of this Initial Site Plan (as may be applicable).
6. [Z.O. 32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.4, and 32.7.9.81: The following issues were identified during the initial Staff review of
the Landscape Plan, and must be addressed and resolved on the final site plan:
A. Conservation checklist: Because existing trees are being retained and used in the calculations within
the "Landscape Compliance Chart" on Sheet C-701 (in accordance with Z.O. 32.7.9.4.b) in order to
demonstrate compliance with the applicable landscaping and screening requirements (contained in
Z.O. Section 32.7.9), please address and resolve the following:
i. A Conservation Checklist will need to be completed, signed, and added to the Landscape Plan
to ensure that the specified trees will be protected during construction.
Comment addressed.
ii. The corresponding tree protection equipment and practices that are intended to protect the
existing tree canopy (including but not limited to the trees to be preserved, the limits of
clearing, the location and type of protective fencing, grade changes requiring tree wells or
walls, and trenching or tunneling proposed beyond the limits of clearing) must be shown on
Sheet C-701 (Landscape Plan). As applicable, these equipment and practices must also be
shown on Sheet C-401 (Grading Plan) as well as on the WPO Plan.
Comment addressed.
B. Verification of compliance: Please add a note to the landscape plan to verify that the landscape plan
satisfies the minimum landscaping and screening requirements of Zoning Ordinance Section 32.
This comment has been addressed.
C. Please include the following standard plant health note: "All site plantings of trees and shrubs shall be
allowed to reach, and be maintained at, mature height, the toping of trees is prohibited. Shrubs and
trees shall be pruned minimally and only to support the overall health of the plant."
This comment has been addressed.
Any additional detailed review comments pertaining to the Landscape Plan, if any are necessary, will be
provided with the SRC Action Letter, within 15 days or less of the SRC meeting.
[Z.O.32.7.2.1.b]: The "Minimum Standards" for "Vehicular Access to Site" require VDOT approval of all
proposed entrances onto State Farm Boulevard. Staff acknowledges that VDOT's review comments (dated
10/18/19, received after the SRC meeting on 10/10/19) identify deficiencies with the proposed southern entrance.
This issue (identified in VDOT review comment #6) will need to be resolved to VDOT's and the County's
Agent's satisfaction prior to final site plan approval.
• (Advisory / For Future Reference): Please note that the Final Site Plan cannot be approved unless and until a
complete application for a Water Protection Ordinance Plan / VSMP Plan is submitted, reviewed, and approved
by the Engineering Services Division of the Community Development Department as required per Z.O. 32.7.4.1
and County Code Chapter 17.
This has not been addressed.
It is anticipated that County Staff in the Engineering Services Division of the Community Development
Department will identify this requirement, as well as any other requirements relating to stormwater management
and drainage control, including the dedication of easements for facilities for stormwater management required
per Z.O. 32.7.42(a).
Engineering's review is still pending, comments or approval will be forwarded to the applicant upon
receipt.
(Advisory / For Future Reference): Please note that the Final Site Plan cannot be approved unless and until the
owner/developer dedicates to the Albemarle County Service Authority for public use all water and sewer
facilities required by this chapter that are designed, constructed and approved to be dedicated as public water
supply and public sewage systems, and to establish an easement on the land appurtenant thereto and extending
to any abutting property identified by the agent easements, as required per Z.O. 32.7.5.3.
ACSA's review is still pending, comments or approval will be forwarded to the applicant upon receipt.
(Advisory / For Future Reference): Per Z.O. Sections 32.6.2(a), 32.5.2(I), and 32.5.2(o), it will be necessary
prior to final site plan approval to obtain County approval of a plat showing all proposed easements as well as
all areas intended for reservation or dedication to the County for public use. The platting of proposed easements
and lands to be reserved for dedication to the County for public use can be processed all together in one plat
application, or separately, however the applicant prefers.
Comment addressed, pending approval.
New Comments Final Site Plan
8. [ZMA201800005 Application Plan and Proffer Statement, and Z.O. 32.3.21: Staff recommends (but does
not require) that sheets 4 and 5 from the Application Plan be pasted onto Sheet C104. The inclusion of these
Building Elevations along with Exhibit 1, which has already been included on Sheet C104, will help to clarify,
confirm, and otherwise ensure that the proposed development will be in general accord with the Application
Plan for ZMA201800005. Comment has been addressed.
9. [Z.O. 32.6.20) and 32.7.91 The following issues were identified during review of the Landscape Plan, and
must be addressed and resolved prior to final site plan approval.
A. Landscape Note 3 and the Landscape Plan on Sheet C701 indicates that there are seven (7) trees in
the VDOT right of way. Z.O. 32.7.9.9 states that If street trees are planted within the public street
right-of-way, the trees shall be maintained in accordance with the requirements of the Virginia
Department of Transportation. Pending VDOT comments, a maintenance agreement might be
needed for trees proposed in the right of way. Please refer to VDOT's comments below. "A
VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right of way."
B. Please include the following note on Sheet C701: All landscaping and screening shall be
maintained in a healthy condition by the current owner or a property owners' association, and
replaced when necessary. ;hall comply with the approved landscape plan
(Z.O. 32.7.99(c)). This comment has been addressed.
C. Please include a detail of .,
been addressed.
..lscape wall shown on Sheet C3( This comment has
10. [Z.O. 32.6.2(k) and 4.171 Please include the following standard lighting note on Sheet C801: 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 fro ` ' districts and away from adjacent
roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires or in residential or rural areas
zoning districts shall not exceed one-half footcandlL This comment has been addressed.
11. [Z.O. 32.7.9.7(b/e) and 4.12.191 Please provide a detailed prof' 1w of the trash enclosure. Please
indicate the materials used, height, color_ etc Each fence or wall t t as screening shall be a minimum
of six feet in height (Z.O. 32.7.9.7( This comment has been addressed.
12. [Cover Sheet C1011 Please clam., .. . ,, . amendment on the Contact
Information/References box on Sheet C101. There are currently two dates listed there, a "Dated" and
"Revised" date. I would recommend deleting these and simply putting the date of approval: June 19, 2019.
This comment has been addressed.
Please contact Kevin McCollum at the Department of Community Development at
kmccollum&albemarle.org or (434) 296-5832 ext. 3141 for further information.
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer):
Contact: John Anderson / 4anderson2&albemarle.org
Review Status: Comments are attached below (9/2/2020)
Albemarle County Department of Fire & Rescue (Fire -Rescue):
Contact: Shawn Maddox / smaddox&albemarle.org
Review Status: No Objection (1/31/2020)
Albemarle County Building Inspections (Inspections):
Contact: Michael Dellinger / mdellinger@albemarle.org
Review Status: No Objection (1/24/2020)
Albemarle County Information Services (E911):
Contact: Brian Becker /bbeeker@albemarle.org
Review Status: No Objection (1/16/2020)
Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA):
Contact: Richard Nelson / melson@serviceauthority.org
Review Status: Comments below (9/16/2020)
1. General: Follow up with ACSA to receive connection fees if they have not been provided.
2. Sheet C-502:
(i) Proposed fire hydrant relocation removes fire hydrant coverage from neighboring
building. Coordinate with ACSA and Fire/Rescue on hydrant location.
(ii.) Proposed special lot mentions to refer to note 2. Note 2 does not reference proposed special
lot.
(iii.) Relocate water meter away from existing electric utility.
(iv.) Callout fire line connection to water main as 6" tapping sleeve and valve.
(v.) Callout "proposed 6" tee and valve" as 6" tapping sleeve and valve.
(vi.) Refer to ACSA construction detail TD-12 for service line connection to fire hydrant
line. Show 4" valve.
3. Sheet C-701: Remove proposed plantings from proposed ACSA easement.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT):
Contact: Adam Moore / Adam.Moorekvdot.virginia.gov
Review Status: Comments are attached below (9/17/2020)
� AI
?"h
�IRGRTF
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 229024596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan review
Project:
Hampton Inn — Final Site Plan
Plan preparer:
John Wright, PE, Bolder Engineering / 28 Blackwell Park Lane, Suite 201
Warrenton, VA 20186 [ Iwri�htAbohlerengxom ]
Owner or rep.:
Michael Sweeney, PT Hotel, LLC, 2000 Ware Bottom Spring Road
Chester, VA 23836 [ michael(cshaminhotels.com ]
Plan received date:
8 Jan 2020
(Rev. 1)
26 Aug 2020
Date of comments:
14 Feb 2020
(Rev. 1)
2 Sep 2020
Reviewer:
John Anderson
Project Coordinator: Kevin McCollum / Zoning
SDP2020-00004
C-105
1. LS-seal obscures date; please ensure text is easily readable (April 19, 2018). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
2. Ex. 21" RCP to be removed appears in conflict with floor of sediment trap. —Elev. 501' is top of new 24"
RCP permanent (and bypass?) storm pipe =floor of ST. Revise sequence or sediment trap design on VSMP
/WP0201900047 to provide sufficient cover between floor of ST and crown of 24" RCP, and to preserve
integrity of pipe bedding for 24" RCP. Locating RCP directly beneath active sediment trap may
compromise pipe bedding unless ST is equipped with impermeable liner. If proposed 24" RCP is not a
bypass and will not be installed until the sediment trap is removed, please clarify via plan notes and
sequence /narrative. For the moment, proposed 24" RCP permanent storm line appears to be a `bypass' as
well that permits the 21" Ex. RCP to be removed. If review error /misunderstanding, please notify.
(Engineering intends to issue WP020100047 comments not later than Wed, 19-Feb.) (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Applicant response (8/20/20 letter): `The proposed sediment trap has been revised to remove the conflict
with the proposed 24" RCP bypass pipe.'
3. C-201: Note 11 requires slight text edit (references two bypass pipes, a possible error). (Rev. 1)
Addressed. Applicant response: `Note 8 describes that the proposed, re-routed 24" RCP bypass pipe must
be installed prior to removal of the existing 21" storm bypass pipe.'
C-301
4. Label curb types. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
5. Review STM A-30 label /leader line. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
6. Provide /label handrail at top of uppermost retaining wall. (Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Applicant
response: `A note referencing the handrail has been added to Sheet C-301 and handrail details are provided
in the wall plan.' Asfollow-ug: Detail is not provided in 8/11/20 Hillis Carnes 10-sheet retaining wall plan
(walls 1,2,3,4). Rather, fence detail schematic Anchor T Diamond Pro ®, (detail 134) includes a label
stating `Contractor to coordinate with fence contractor to ensure proper diameter depth, spacing, etc. (fence
design by others).' All retaining wall safety handrail details are requested as condition of building permit
application review for Walls 1, 2, 3, 4, and as condition of site plan approval. This is a design task (Bohler,
or Hillis -Carnes). It is not a field -coordinated or incidental construction task.
7. Label CG-12 pedestrian ramp at SW site entrance. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
8. C-303: Albemarle defers to VDOT review /approval of Maintenance of Traffic plan. (Rev. 1) Applicant
response: 'Acknowledged.'
9. C-304: Note 3. Recommend Bottler Engineering rely on Kimley-Horn Associates design plan elevations
(for State Farm Boulevard /South Pantops Drive Sidewalk project, 2016), which are likely more refined
and accurate than County GIS. County GIS data layer may not be used as a basis of site plan design. GIS
data layers are available to the public for informational purposes on/r (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant
response: `Acknowledged. Field surveyed elevations have been used for the design of the entrances along
State Farm Blvd.'
10. C-401: Proposed grading north of curb and gutter on the north side of site creates a channel, and
concentrates runoff. Provide ditch label, and design ditch at this location. (Rev. 1) Not addressed.
Applicant response: `Due to the small drainage area at the reference location, the flow is anticipated to
sheet flow without channelizing. The formation of a channel cannot be confirmed at this time due to lack
of field surveyed elevations in this location and a note has been added to Sheet C-401 for the contractor to
field verify grades.' This is nonresponsive. Engineering reviews proposed grade. Proposed grade forms a
channel, once tied to existing contours. A wait -and -see approach neither addresses comment, nor meets
design expectations. Verify grades, consider image below (channel created by proposed and existing
contours), provide ditch label, and design a ditch at this location.
11
iw t
ParJr
�.B 6el JJO
twos N/r
:mu Hrca sc�
(UGLY, lNC
P 9J6 PG IS]
VSr OIrKC
.'GWl' PO -.VC
"9LG-Gtl-LO-06.
—95,6 0,
�Il
Engineering recommends revise design to divert dumpster enclosure runoff through a curb -cut to exit
without detention /treatment to newly graded slopes south of development. Recommend discharging minor
runoff (-19' x I I' dumpster enclosure) to ground surface to bypass and protect the SWM system from
solids, refuse, debris, trash, grease, etc. that may, with current design, be conveyed into subgrade systems
and degrade or impede performance of the detention system. Any obstruction or short-circuiting may be
recurrent, persistent, and difficult to address later, yet avoidable at the design stage. (Rev. 1) Withdrawn,
recommendation not accepted. Applicant: `Grate Inlet A-60 is anticipated to prevent any debris large
enough to generate an obstruction in the SWM system from entering the storm pipes.'
C-502
12. Note: Storm lines proposed to convey State Farm Blvd. runoff (source: public RW) across the hotel site
require public deed of dedication of easement, and platted public drainage easement. Complete easement
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
plat application at earliest convenience. (Rev. 1) Comment persists. Applicant: `Easement plat shall be
submitted under separate cover.'
13. Recommend relocate STM A-20 and STM A-30 labels to more clearly identify structure location. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
14. C503 /Re. 10-yr HGL computations:
a. At STM A-59, compare outlet WSE 510.28 with 508.50' crown of pipe
b. At STM A-60, compare outlet WSE 510.45 with 509,50' crown of pipe
c. At STM A-79, compare outlet WSE 510.28 with 509,25' crown of pipe
d. At STM A-80, compare outlet WSE 510.46 with 509,55' crown of pipe
Design must ensure flow is open channel regime, not pressurized, unless design provides notes,
specifications, labels etc. to ensure watertight fit (fittings_ _askets_ seals_ etc) from pipe subgrade to
rim elevations. 10-yr HGL computations table appears 9 flow. (Rev. 1)
Addressed. Applicant response: `While the HGLs rise within the structures due to pipe angles
generating losses, the pipes are oversized to provide sufficient capacity and it is not anticipated that the
pipes would experience pressurized flow.'
15. Show STM A-59 and STM A-79 labels in plan view. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
16. C-902: Provide VDOT IS-1, ST-1, PB-1 details on plan. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
17. New (Rev. 1): Provide runoff capture to ensure HC parking spaces/CG-12 ramps in front of the hotel are
clear of ponding, icing, debris accumulation. See blue -circle possible locations for grates /conveyance that
would, without additional revision, enhance surface conditions during 10-year or less frequent events.
Pipes could connect with STM A-50, A-40. Image below is not a design directive, rather, this comment
serves notice that a grading /utility plan that provides inadequate storm conveyance or that presents risk of
localized ponding, icing, etc. will not be approved, especially in vicinity of HC-parking spaces /ramps /or
guest drop-off areas that are by design high -use entries for elderly, children, HC-challenged guests, etc.
Note especially design of guest drop-off loop proposes to concentrate runoff (CG-6) then spill concentrated
flow across the loop. This design, which presents persistent risk of icing, debris accumulation, etc. will not
be approved. Reliance on side and rear storm inlets or grates appears to overlook relative locations,
practical concerns, and pedestrian use typical of hotel lobbies.
[ Proposed DI located along southwest edge of site (also circled) may be sized for upgradient runoff, but additional
catchment is required. Revise C-401, C-502.1
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 -x3069
Thank you
SDP2020-00004 Hampton Hotel ESP 090220_revI
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street
Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219
September 17, 2020
Kevin McCollum
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Re: SDP-2020-00004- Hampton Inn — Final Site Plan
Dear Mr. McCollum:
(804) 7862701
Fax: (804) 7862940
The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use
Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as submitted by Bohler Engineering, dated
August 02, 2019, revised August 20, 2020, and find it to be generally acceptable.
If further information is desired, please contact Willis C. Bedsaul at 434-422-9866.
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.
Sincerely,
Adam J. Moore, P.E.
Area Land Use Engineer
VDOT - Charlottesville Residency
VirginiaDOT.org
WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING