HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800040 Review Comments Major Amendment, Final Site Plan 2021-02-0100UNTY 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 (iustin a&shimp-en ing eering com)
Kelsey Schlein, Shimp Engineering (kelsa shimp-en ing eering com)
From: Mariah Gleason
Division: Community Development — Planning
Date: May 8, 2020
Rev. 4: August 20, 2020
Rev. 5: February 1, 2021
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). Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
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. Rev. 4: Comment not fully satisfied. There
appear to be minor clerical errors within the Special Exception Conditions. Review and revise accordingly.
Rev. 5: Comment addressed.
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: 1Oft from the public street right-of-way
Front Max: None, since this is a comer lot abutting a principal arterial highway (Rte 250)
Side/Rear: Buildings separated per building code (minimum), no maximum
Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(b)] Proposed use. Revise the statement in the proposed use notes on the Cover Sheet from "Drive -thin has single
lane, window faces away from Public Streets" to "Drive-thru has a single lane, window faces Hunters Way."
Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
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 S,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 buildin
(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.)
Rev. 4: Comment not fully satisfied. Change the Drive-Thru Coffee Shop ratio to state "... Per 200 SF of Gross Floor
Area" to align with the over-the-counter sales parking schedule use.
Rev. 5: Thank you for revising the parking ratio note per the comment above. However, it looks as though the
parking schedule was amended in this revision. The plan currently notes two (2) required parking spaces for
the Drive-Thru Coffee Shop, however, it is Albemarle County's practice to round up to the nearest whole
number when calculating required parking spaces. Therefore, please adjust the required parking calculation
for the Coffee Shop back to three (3) parking spaces. Also, the plan maps identify four (4) marked, dedicated
parking spaces for the proposed coffee shop. The parking schedule on the Cover Sheet should reflect the same
number of dedicated parking spaces provided. Please review and revise accordingly.
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.
Rev. 4 and 5: Comments remain. Please submit the easement application when ready.
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). Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
8. [32.7.9] Landscape plans
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. Rev. 4:
Comment addressed.
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. Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
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. Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
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. Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
e. Revise the plan depictions for the Pin Oak (A) so that the "A" is included and matches the legend. Rev. 4:
Comment addressed.
f. [New] On Sheet C5, the quantities of the Rhododendron and Compact Glossy Abelia plantings listed in the
Landscape Schedule table did not align with the plan map. Revise and adjust required calculations as
necessary. Rev. 5: Comment addressed.
g. [New] On Sheet C5, there appear to be four (4) trees between the drive-thru lane and proposed building and
one (1) tree across from the drive-thm window that are not identified in the Landscaping Schedule. Incorporate
these planting into the Landscaping Schedule and adjust required calculations as necessary. Rev. 5: Comment
addressed.
h. [New] On Sheet C6, the quantities of the male Pin Oak, Eastern Redbud, Rhododendron, and Compact Glossy
Abelia plantings listed in the Landscape Schedule table did not align with the plan map. Revise and adjust
required calculations as necessary. Rev. 5: Comment addressed.
i. [New] Minor note adjustment. Staff acknowledges the adjustments to the Landscaping Plan. On Sheet
C6, please further revise the Landscaping Notes to indicate that the number of trees provided within the
parking lot is six (6). Also, the resulting internal landscaped area provided should be around 2,580sf.
9. [32.5.1(c)] Building dimensions. Provide dimensions for the coffee shop structure and the western, offset portion of the
hardware store structure. Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
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 x18ft. 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? Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
11. [32.5.2(n), 4.12.19] Dumpsterpad. Rev. 4: Comments addressed.
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.
Rev. 4: Comment not fully satisfied. Thank you for providing the paving material, however, it appears there is no entry to
the coffee shop's walk-up window based on where the concrete sidewalk ends and the illustrated design of the outdoor
seating. The current design seems to force patrons of the walk-up window to go through the planted, mulched area. Review
and revise accordingly. Also, identify a paving material for the walk-up window and outdoor seating area. Rev. 4:
Comment addressed.
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. Rev. 4: Comment not fully satisfied. Include "Advertisement Signs" in the Sign Note on Sheet C3. Rev. 5:
Comment addressed.
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. Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
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. Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
c. On Sheet C3, revise the labels in the drive-thru lane so they do not overlap. Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
d. On Sheet C3, label the bumper blocks. Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
e. On Sheet C4, connect the arrow for the "New SWM Facility Easement" label with the depicted improvement.
Rev. 4: Please also connect the leader line for the "New SWM Facility Easement" label located near the Rt
250/Hunter's Way intersection. This label is currently pointing to patterned critical slope areas. Rev. 5:
Comment addressed.
15. [Comment] What do the bubbled areas along the northern edges of the property represent? Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
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. Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
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. Rev. 4: Comment addressed
with applicant's comment response letter.
18. [32.6.2(h)] Signature panel. Replace the ACSA signature line with a signature line for the Virginia Department of Health.
Rev. 4: Comment addressed.
Additional comments based on revised plan dated 07/10/2020
19. [Comment] On the Cover Sheet, revise the note under the Lighting heading to refer to Sheet C7 for the Lighting Schedule,
instead of Sheet C6. Rev. 5: Comment addressed.
OTHER SRC REVIEWERS
Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer)
David James, diames2 e albemarle.org - Requests Changes
1. WPO plan/amendment must be approved before site plan amendment is approved.
Acknowledged - WP02016-52 amendment.
(Rev.2/3/4) Comment still valid.
(Rev.S) Comment still valid. SWM easement deed & plat will need to be recorded prior to SDP approval,
as well.
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 ug tter in parking areas and along travelways [18-4.12.151.
(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 A
(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. Atypical 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
(Rev.4/5) This remains an issue and should be addressed with the VSMP plan review.
22. (Rev.1) The retainiiie .._.. _.._. _.., ment. 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.
(Rev.4) Addressed.
24. (Rev.2) Sheet C1- 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. (18-4.2}
(Rev.3) TBD. Frank P.is reviewing critical slope waiver. If a retaining wall is required than wall
comments might still apply.
(Rev.4)Addressed.
b. Callout grate inlet structure type.
(Rev.3) DI-7 not recommended, recommend side inlet. [DSM, pg.181
(Rev.4) The details indicate 18-30" dia. riser, but 36" access is called for in the profiles for the
60" pipe. 2'x2' grate access would seem too narrow an access in either case. Please use
appropriate size for 30" or 36" dia. MH. -Need to confirm minimum MH access size.
(Rev.S) Acknowledged.
26. (Rev.2) Sheet C7 - Correct the storm profile & detail.
(Rev.3) Addressed.
27. (Rev.3) Sheet CS - Show the low -maintenance ground cover plantings for proposed areas where grading
over3:1 proposed.
(Rev.4) Addressed.
28. (Rev.3) Show SWM design table/worksheet.
(Rev.4/5) Acknowledged. The drainage design will need to be reviewed/approved with the VSMP prior
to FSP approval.
29. (Rev.3) Show roof drains and where they outlet.
(Rev.4) Addressed.
30. (Rev.4) Cover - Correct the sheet number for Lighting locations.
(Rev.S) Addressed.
31. (Rev.4) Sheet C6 -An Ornamental Tree is shown within the SWM easement and will need to be removed.
(Rev.S) It's this one actually, to be moved.
32. (Rev.4) Provide reverse slope bench and/or surface water diversion for 2:1 graded slope at front of
property. (18-30.7.5 C.)
Response: The above section refers to managed and preserved slopes, howerer, the slopes on the
property are designated as critical.
(Rev.S) Correct, I apologize the proper citation is found at 18-4.3.3 C.
Albemarle County Building Inspections
Michael Dellinger, mdellinger(dWbemarle.org — No Objection
Albemarle County Department of Fire Rescue
Shawn Maddox, smaddox(aWbemarle.org — No Objection
Virginia Department of Transportation
Adam Moore, adam.moore(d),vdot.virginia.gov — No Objection
Virginia Department of Health
Alan Mazurowski, alan.mazurowski(i�vdh.virginia.gov — Requested Changes
As the applicant has indicated, my previous comments on this plan still stand, but it appears they are working on solutions.
Until our office has received septic plans, reviewed and approved them, and received confirmation that the Office of Drinking
Water is on track to approve the existing well as a waterworks, I'll be in position to recommend approval of the site plan.
Albemarle County Architecture Review Board
Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewski&albemarle.org — No Objection
Albemarle County Zoning Division
Rebecca Ragsdale, rragsdale"bemarle.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 mgleasonAalbemarle.org or 434-296-5832 ext. 3097 for
further information.