HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202000018 Correspondence 2021-02-08 (5)SHIMP ENGINEERING, P.C.
Design Focused Engineering
February 5, 2021
Andy Reitelbach
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902
RE: Response Letter #3 for SDP-2020-00018 (Brady Bushey Ford — Major Amendment)
Dear Andy,
Thank you for your review of the major site plan amendment for Brady Bushey Ford. This letter contains
responses to County comments dated December 9, 2020.Our responses are as follows:
1. [30.6.3(a)2(b); SP1994-000041 This proposed project requires an amendment to special use
permit SP1994-00004, for outdoor storage, display, and sales uses in the Entrance Corridor. The
changes proposed on TMP 78-6 are not in general accord with the concept plan approved as part
of SP1994-00004. An additional building is proposed for this parcel, along with new display
spaces that are not shown on the approved plan. These changes will require an amendment to the
special use permit. Because some of these proposed changes and display spaces cross onto TMP
78-7, it is recommended that a boundary line adjustment occur prior to the SP so that parcel 7 can
remain separate and not be considered as a part of the special use permit. An SP is not required,
per discussions with Zoning division. However, the 7 proposed new spaces labelled as
"employee/service" spaces in the center -front of the property, between the two entrances, need to
be removed, as they are not in compliance with the approved 1994 SP. Comment addressed.
2. [32.5.2(b); 32.5.2(n)] Revise the parking schedule on the cover sheet of the site plan and the
labels on the plan sheets.
a. The number of spaces added up between the two different uses listed in the parking
schedule is 242, however, the total number of spaces said to be provided is 243.
Comment has been addressed.
b. Counting the number of spaces on sheet C4, there are more than 243 spaces provided,
including the accessible spaces in front of the sales and service buildings on TMP 78-6,
which do not appear to be included in the total of 243 when counting the full number of
spaces. There are only 240 parking spaces labelled as being for
customers/employees/service spaces, even though the cover sheet identifies there being
242 spaces. The discrepancy appears to be the small parking lot to the east of Building B.
There are only 18 spaces depicted, even though the label says there are 20
employee/service spaces. Revise the cover sheet to state there are only 240 spaces, or add
an additional 2 spaces in somewhere else.
In addition, the row of "13" spaces north of Buildings B and C actually only has 12
spaces. 12 spaces would make sense with the overall label for that area identifying 34
spaces (12 + the 22 spaces directly south of the preserved steep slopes), so revise the
"13" to a "12." It appears that there continues to be miscalculations in the number of
parking spaces provided. On the cover sheet, it states that there are 225 spaces
provided. However, 181+46=227 spaces, based on the numbers provided. In
addition, counting the number of spaces depicted on sheet C4 that are not display
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
spaces, I can only find 224 spaces. Part of the issue may be in the existing parking
lot behind Building A2, there's a label for 56 spaces, but the individual numbers
only add up to 55 (unless the one van accessible space by itself on the northwest side
of the building is counted as a part of that 56, then then that subtotal works).
However, there are still only 224 spaces depicted.
RESPONSE: The parking schedule has changed, as only 28 service bays are being
proposed. The site plan now shows a total of 177 spaces-134 employee/service parking
(includes 5 HQ, 43 customer parking (includes 3 HQ, and 4 loading spaces.
c. This site cannot have more than 243 spaces, which is 20% more than the required
amount. See comment 1 le below. Comment addressed.
d. Clearly label which spaces are for display, which are for employee parking, and which
are for customer parking. Some areas are not clear. There are new areas of parking spaces
on TMP 78-6 that are doublestacked. These spaces are not labelled as display. However,
employee/customer parking spaces cannot be double -stacked. This comment has not been
addressed. Spaces for employee/service parking cannot be double-parked. Areas of
double -stacking that need to be revised include the two rows of 7 space each between the
two front entrances to the site, and the 16 spaces in the parking lot east of Building B.
Comment addressed.
e. Identify the types of spaces in the "existing paved parking area" at the rear of TMP 78-7.
Are these display, customer, storage, etc.? These spaces were not included in the overall
parking count and could possibly increase the number of spaces on the site even more
over the 243 maximum number permitted. This comment has not been addressed. What
kind of parking is proposed here? Customer, display, service, storage, something else?
Elaborate. Comment addressed.
3. [32.5.2(n); 4.12.13; 4.12.191 Provide the dimensions of the dumpster pads.
The dumpster pad on TMP 78-7 appears to interfere with vehicular circulation. Revise the
location.
Screening of dumpster pads is required. Provide the screening materials proposed to be used and
profile of the enclosure. Identity the height of the retaining wall around the dumpster pad.
Comment addressed.
4. [32.5.2(n)] Railings or guard rails are required on the retaining walls. Show these rails. Is a
handrail proposed for the retaining wall around the dumpster pad behind Building B? Comment
addressed.
5. [32.5.2(n)] Depict the obstruction -free two-ft. overhang required for parking spaces that are 16 ft.
in depth. Provide the 2-ft. overhang for the ten (10) spaces on the far eastern side of the property,
adjacent to TMP 78-9. Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(n)] Provide the footprint square footage of the new sales wings on the enlarged building
on TMP 78-7. The total proposed new square footage of the buildings as shown on the plan does
not match that which is identified on the cover sheet. There is a difference of about 3,000 square
feet. Clarify this discrepancy. Is the building in the back paved parking area of TMP 78-7
included within the square footage identified on the cover sheet? Comment addressed.
7. [32.7.2.31 Provide internal sidewalks or crosswalks on the site to connect the buildings and to
connect the sidewalk along Route 250 with the enlarged sales building. Provide an accessible
ramp for the sidewalk in front of the enlarged sales building. Accessible ramps need to be
provided at all spots where the ends of sidewalks meet travelways, including between Buildings
B and C, and in front of Building A. Also, the sidewalk referenced in the comment response letter
connecting Route 250 to Building A does not appear to be depicted on the site plan. Show this
connection. Accessible ramps need to be provided for the sidewalk leading from the front of
Building B to the front of Building C.
RESPONSE:
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
8. 14.17; 32.7.8] Include footcandle measurements for the existing lights to demonstrate that the
combination of the existing non -conforming lights with the proposed new lights does not increase
the footcandle measurements above the permitted range, where the light from the poles would
overlap. It appears that the existing lights are labelled as "El" on the lighting plan. Include this
identification in the key on sheet C8. None of the lights on the photometric plan have the
labels that are identified in the lighting schedule. The footnote indicates that the existing
lights are labelled as "A"; however, none of the existing lights appear to have an "A"
labelling them. Revise the labelling regimen.
RESPONSE: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The font size has been revised to be
legible.
9. [4.17; 32.7.81 There are several new light poles that appear to be placed on top of trees shown on
the landscaping plan. These lights include the following: B-1, B-2, and B-12. Shift either the light
poles or the trees. Light B-2 now appears to be located within the required 2-ft. overhang for the
parking spaces. Revise the location of this light. Comment addressed.
10. [32.7.91 Identify the location(s) of the 14,102 sq. ft. of the required interior/parking lot
landscaping, as well as the trees and shrubs used for this landscaping. The dotted hatch mentioned
in the comment response letter does not appear on the landscape plan. Clarify where the
interior/parking lot landscaping is proposed on the plan. If the `low maintenance ground cover" is
the dotted hatch, these areas are not sufficient for the required landscaping and are in the wrong
locations for this required landscaping. Comment addressed.
11. [32.7.91 Revise the "tree per 10 parking spaces" calculations, as the display spaces must be
included as well. Provide the additional trees required once these spaces are included in the
calculations. Revise this calculation to take into account the comments made in comment # 11
above, so that staff can accurately review the required number of parking lot trees. Comment
addressed.
12. [32.7.91 The required amount of tree canopy is proposing to use a significant amount of existing
tree canopy. Provide a conservation checklist in accordance with 32.7.9.4(b)2 in order to satisfy
this requirement. Also, identify those trees and landscaped areas proposed to be preserved in
order to meet this requirement. Comment has been partially addressed. Remove the plants that
will not be at least 5 feet in height within 10 years from the canopy calculations. Comment
addressed.
13. Identify what the battery area is and what is proposed there. Comment addressed.
14. Now that staff has a better understanding of where the proposed parking is and which parking
spaces are proposed for each use, it has been determined that there is not enough parking on each
of the two lots for them to be able to stand separately if the parcels were sold to different owners.
A shared parking agreement will be required to be reviewed, approved, and recorded at the
courthouse for these two properties before the site plan can be approved, ensuring that sufficient
parking is provided for each use on each parcel. Comment has not been addressed. A shared
parking agreement will be required prior to approval of the site plan. The shared parking
agreement will need to be reviewed by County staff and recorded at the courthouse prior to
approval. Please let me know if you would like an example of previously recorded shared
parking agreements for reference. With the proposed closure of the entrance directly into
TMP 78-6 from U.S. Route 250, a shared access easement will also need to be a part of this
agreement to ensure continued access onto 78-6. It is recommended that these items be
included with the easement plat required by Engineering for the stormwater management
facilities and access easements; however, the various agreements and easements can be done
with separate plats and deeds if so desired.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com
RESPONSE: Comment received. A shared parking agreement will be provided separately and
prior to final site plan approval.
If you have any questions or concerns about these revisions, please feel free to contact me at
Keane@shimp-en ine eering com or by phone at 434-227-5140.
Regards,
Keane Rucker
Shimp Engineering, P.C.
912 E. High St. Charlottesville, VA 22902 1434.227.5140 1 shimp-engineering.com