HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000051 Correspondence 2020-09-21 (4)CESO1;0
VALVOLINE INSTANT OIL CHANGE - CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA (GANDER DRIVE)
CIVIL REVIEW COMMENT RESPONSE #2
TO: Patricia Saternye, Senior Planner
FROM: Kelly Schwieterman, P.E.
RE: Final Site Plan Review - Valvoline (SDP202000020)
DATE: 9/21 /2020
The following is CESO's response to the civil final site plan review comments received on 08.21.2020 regarding the
proposed Valvoline Instant Oil Change at Gander Drive Charlottesville, VA 22901:
General Remarks
Please note that additional comments may be warranted after responses to these comments have been
submitted and reviewed.
Response: Noted
Department Review Comments
1. Please provide on the initial site plans, based on the Albemarle County Community Development Comments:
a. CDD Engineering Remarks:
i. The VSMP plan (WP0202000035) will need to be approved.
Response: Noted.
ii. Revise the topo to reflect the removal of the raingarden between the site and Rt. 29 and the
addition of the pipe. This does not effect landscaping requirements, but may change any
exhibits provided to the ARB.
Response: Proposed topo and plans have been revised to show rain garden removal and
additional pipe per comment
b. ACSA Remarks:
i. An irrigation application will need to be submitted to ACSA to review to confirm irrigation
meter size. The fee is $25 and can be found on our website.
Response: Irrigation meter size has been confirmed with ACSA via email correspondence.
Application will be submitted once contractor is selected. (Email attached with this
comment letter)
ii. Provide max flow rate for sprinkler heads.
Response: Max flow rate for irrigation sprinklers is 10gpm. Information was also provided
to ACSA via email correspondence. (Email attached with this comment letter)
Page 2 of 10
iii. Provide Fixture counts to determine domestic water meter size.
Response: Fixture count information was provided in previous response letter.
Information was also provided to ACSA via email correspondence. (Email attached with
this comment letter)
iv. ACSA will review meter connections to existing service stub out once meter sizes are
confirmed.
Response: Meter size has been confirmed with ACSA via email correspondence. (Email
attached with this comment letter)
v. Provide 10 feet of easement behind proposed fire hydrant.
Response: Easement revised per comment.
vi. Add note that backflow preventors will be required for irrigation and domestic water
systems.
Response: Backf low prevention requirement added to Sheet C6.0, coded notes 3 & 5.
vii. Minimum water main depth should be called out as 3.5'.
Response: Water main depth revised to 3.5'. See Water Notes on Sheet C6.0.
viii. Relocate portion of guard rail that is on top of existing sewer.
Response: Guard rail over sewer has been removed.
ix. 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.
Response: Tree relocated per comment.
x. Show water main profile of proposed hydrant.
Response: Water main profile provided for proposed fire hydrant. See Sheet C6.0
c. Architectural Review Board Remarks:
i. Revise the design to replace EIFS with brick, limiting EIFS to an accent material, as
proposed by the applicant at the meeting.
Response: Please refer to the attached updated Elevations to satisfy comments above
ii. Add a note to the architectural drawings indicating that the overhead doors have clear
glass panes.
Response: Notes have been added to the attached elevations to reflect description of
O.H. Doors
iii. Revise the north elevation to incorporate architectural changes rather than applique to
relieve "blankness'.
Response: Brick design has been added, please refer to attached elevations
iv. 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.
Response: Please refer to attached elevations to satisfy comment
Initial_
Page 3 of 10
v. Provide specifications on the proposed window glass confirming that VLT in not below 40%
and VLR does not exceed 30%.
Response: Please see attached division #88000 regarding Glazing being specified.
vi. Add standard mechanical equipment note to the site and architectural plans.
Response: Will comply. Noted provided on Site Plan Sheet C3.0. See Architectural Review
Board Notes.
vii. Revise the pole -mounted fixtures to a soft, warm white (3000K) color temperature.
Response: Photometric Plan revised per comment
viii. Revise the plans to clarify the locations of the emergency fixtures.
Response: Photometric Plan revised per comment. See coded note #1
ix. 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.
Response: Planting in the 2'wide planting island has been considered. The proposed
landscape in the area has been selected to best address the intent of the ordinance as
well survive in the limited space. Per discussion with the ARB planner, Khris Taggart, this
item is not a requirement to revise for ARB approval. (Email attached with this letter)
x. Revise the retaining wall material to one with a smaller scale block and a muted earth -tone
color.
Response: Retaining Wall has been revised to Anchor Diamond Pro Wall which has been
approved by ARB for other developments. Coded Note revised to specify use of small
scale block and muted earth tone colors. See Sheet C3.0 Site Plan.
A. Sign applications are required for all proposed signs. Revise the sign proposal to meet 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;
Response: Sign exhibit as has been updated per comment.
b. Revise the sign design to use three colors or fewer. Note that Pantone 485 is
not approvable as a primary sign color.
Response: Sign exhibit as has been updated per comment. Red remains in Valvoline V
for trademark purposes.
Department of Community Development Comments
2. A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
Response: Comment not fully yet fully addressed. Address comments below.
Response: See responses below
3. [32.5.1(c), 32.5.2(a), & 4.20] Revise the setback in to address the following: Revise the setback
Initial_
Page 4 of 10
description and linework to fully, consistently and correctly specify the setback requirements.
Address the following:
a. Revise the front setback to specify that the front setback applies to both Route 29 & Gander
Drive, since Gander Drive is a private street.
CESO Response 06/16/2020: Revised, per comment.
Community Response 08/21/2020: Comment not yet fully addressed. The "Proposed" front
setback only shows one value. Since this parcel has two fronts it will have two proposed
front setbacks.
Response: Proposed setback has been revised to show setbacks from Route 29 and Gander
Dr., per comment. See Property Data on Cover Sheet C1.0
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.
CESO Response 06/16/2020: Sidewalk is shown and within right of way. See coded note #6 on
sheet C2.0. Setback is measured from right of way/property line.
Community Response 08/21/2020: Comment not yet 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 along Rt. 29.
Response: Line breaks have been removed from the sidewalk. Sidewalk is called out with
coded note #6 on sheet C2.0. Labels have been provided on sidewalk as well.
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
CESO Response 06/16/2020: Pedestrian connection from Route 29 to Gander Drive
provided.
Community Response 08/21/2020: Comment not yet fully addressed. Although the
location of the proposed sidewalk through the site is generally appropriate, it does not
fully meet the requirements for pedestrian connection because it does not connect the
internal parcels and parking areas to each other. Therefore, in addition to the changes
already shown address the following:
i. The sidewalk should have a connection to the bank parcel parking area, which
is just about two feet away from the proposed sidewalk. Although there is a
grade change in this area, the filling in of the rain garden specified in the
engineering comments should allow this issue to be addressed.
Response: Sidewalk has been revised to provide connection to bank parcel
Initial:
Page 5 of 10
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 sire near
the HC parking space(s) hatched area in the parking lot.
Response: Grades in area between sidewalk and HC parking spots are
not ADA compliant. Instead accessible path provided from HC spots
to cross walk along Gander
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).
Response: Size, driveway radius, and grades of island would not allow
for ADA compliant ramps. Island has been shortened to allow for ADA
compliant crosswalk to be provided along Gander.
3. Provide a crosswalk across the 20' wide entrance to the access aisle
on the southside of the parcel.
Response: Provided per comment
4. Provide a crosswalk across the 89' wise of access area in the site from
Gander Drive.
Response: Provided per comment
5. Provide a HC ramp where the sidewalk turns into Gander Drive, so that
there is access to the crosswalk mentioned above.
Response: Provided per comment
6. Clarify if the 31/2' 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.
Response: For the island adjacent to the two parking spaces that are
within the parcel, but along Gander Drive, Engineering has required
the full island to remain. So, Planning changed their request to have
the first 5' (closest to Gander Drive) of the island be concrete and not
grass. - Provided per comment.
5. [32.5.2(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.
CESO Response 06/16/2020: Property Data revised, per comment.
Community Response 08/21/2020: Comment not yet 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 2"" 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
Initial:
Page 6 of 10
Response Letter.
Response: Building elevation has been provided to Planning dept for
clarification. Property Data has been revised to include information about
basement/lower level of building. Building area has been revised to reflect actual
building area and floor areas of the upper and lower levels have been provided.
See Cover Sheet C1.0
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.
CESO Response 06/16/2020: Parking calculation for automobile service station used
and equation is shown under "Parking Calculation" on cover sheet.
Community Response 08/21/2020: 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 space + 2 shared parking spaces on
adjoining parcels). Otherwise clarify where the other two spaces are located.
Response: Parking that is accounted for Valvoline all lie within property lines.
There are now 13 parking spots provided (11 added + 2 existing) all within the
parcel.
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.
CESO Response 06/16/2020: Phase I Overall Parking table provided on cover sheet
to show existing and revised parking calculations.
Community Response 08/21/2020: Comment not yet 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.
Response: HC space added, per comment
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 space
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.
Response: Summary revised, per comment
3) Either revised the "Required Parking Stalls Per 1000 S.F." for the "Revised
BLDG Summary" to be 4.75 as it was in the approved plan or clarify for the
Initial:
Page 7 of 10
plan reviewer why this change is required.
Response: Revised to 4.75 per the original site plan.
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.
CESO Response 06/16/2020: Revised leader to reference the Maintenance Use and Easement
Agreement attached with this submittal.
Community Response 08/21/2020: Comment not yet fully addressed. The label was added, but
deed book and page number are not yet 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.
Response: Revised per comment
8. [32.5.20)] Revise to show and label the existing stormwater management drainage easement(s) for the
whole parcel.
CESO Response 06/16/2020: Existing stormwater management drainage easement provided, per comment
Community Response 08/21/2020: Comment not yet 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.
Response: Drainage easement label with deedbook and pg numbers was/is shown on Existing Conditions
Sheet C2.0. Another label has been provided so that it can be seen on the smaller viewport used on Site
Plan Sheet C3.0 and Utility Sheet C6.0
9. [32.5.2(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.
CESO Response 06/16/2020: Proposed water easements provided. See Sheet C6.0.
Community Response 08/21/2020: Comment not yet 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 full
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.
Response: Easement has been revised per ACSA input. Easement layout has been reviewed
and confirmed by ACSA via email correspondence. Lineweight of easement has been
increased to make more visible on plan.
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.
CESO Response 06/16/2020: Noted for future action. Please provide information on any
other utilities the county would desire for utilities
Community Response 08/21/2020: Comment not yet full addressed. An easement plat must
be submitted (separate application, fee and submission), reviewed, approved and recorded
prior to the approval of the final site plan.
Response: Easements plat submittals will be submitted along with this submittal.
11. [32.5.2.(e), 32.5.2.(p) & 32.6.20)] Landscape plan. A landscape plan is required in the final site plan
Initial:
Page 8 of 10
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.
CESO Response 06/16/2020: Corrected, per comment
Community Response 08/21/2020: Comment not yet 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 areas 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 minimum are met.
Response: Revised as requested, and calculations adjusted
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.
CESO Response 06/16/2020: Bio-filter #1 added to plans
Community Response 08/21/2020: Comment not yet fully addressed. SDP2014-34 &
WPO2013-2, which show the same plantings for the biofilter area, show the required
plantings to be different that 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 included what is
shown in SDP2014-34 and WPO2013-2 or work with engineering to amend the
WPO plan to allow other plantings.
Response: Planting revised to reflect SDP2014-34 and WPO2013-2
(amended for rain garden removal)
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 just apply to the
area enclosed by at thick dashed line and labeled as the Biofilter Landscape
Plan.
Response: Planting revised per comment
3) Only plantings within the parcel are required. Proposing planting 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.
Response: Only planting within parcel is provided/shown
h. Revise the existing conditions sheet to include the required information on the existing trees.
Initial
Page 9 of 10
CESO Response 06/16/2020: Existing trees labeled, per comment.
Community Response 08/21/2020: Comment not yet fully addressed. Address the following:
i. Revise the symbology for the existing trees on the existing conditions sheets so that they
are more visible. They are shown at a fraction of the size that are shown on the landscape
plan and are therefore hard to locate.
Response: Tree symbol size increased for visibility.
ii. Ensure labels are provided for all existing tree that include all the required information.
"Multi -Trunk Tree" does not meet the minimum requirements.
Response: Label revised
iii. In the Existing Conditions sheet, if there is a tree that is to be removed that label the tree at
"TBR" or some other equivalent designation to acknowledge that fact.
Response: Revised per comment
iv. 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" planting on the sheet L1.1.
Response: Revised per comment. Per email correspondence with planning, all Biofilter
plantings are shown as proposed.
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.
CESO Response 06/16/2020: Completed as shown on drawing.
Community Response 08/21/2020: Comment not yet fully addressed. What appears to be
the limits of clearing and grading on the existing condition 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.
Response: Revised per comment
k. Provided a detail of the screening wall around the dumpster location.
CESO Response 06/16/2020: Dumpster Enclosure plan attached to this submittal.
Community Response 08/21/2020: 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.
Response: Sheet C7.2 added for dumpster enclosure
n. 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 and revise the landscaping
to be something that can fir and survive in the area provided.
Response: Width cannot be increased due to site size constraints. Crape Myrtles and
irrigation were selected for use and survival in this small area. Landscaping in this area
was also coordinated with ARB committee. See response to ARB action letter.
o. In reference to the Plant Materials List:
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 plants
at time of planting. All three of these items should be included in all landscaping
charts.
Initial_
Page 10 of 10
Response: Added to all landscaping charts
ii. A total of the canopy provided must be included at the bottom of any plant
material chart. This is important of 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.
Response: Totals added to Coverage Calculations
iii. Revise the Fosters Holly to have a canopy of 16.
Response: Switched to Nellie Steven's Holly with larger canopy
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.
CESO Response 06/16/2020: Addressed ARB comments. See attached ARB Comment Response
Letter
Community Response 08/21/2020: Comment not yet fully addressed. ARB comments, and the ARB
Action letter from the 8/172020 meeting, are attached. The final site plan approval will not be
granted until ARB has approved the site plan.
Response: ARB Action letter responses provided
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
CESO Response 06/16/2020: Comments addressed
Community Response 08/21/2020: Comment not yet fully addressed. See attached comments from other
reviewers. All reviewer comments must be sufficiently address prior to final site plan approval.
Response: Comments addressed
Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions as to how the comments have been addressed.
Kelly Schwieterman, P.E.
Project Manager
Office: 937.401.3413
schwieterman@cesoinc.com
Attachments:
1. ACSA Email Correspondence
2. ARB Email Correspondence
Initial: