Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP202100022 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2021-06-300 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development Memorandum To: Keane Rucker (keane@shimp-en ing eerieg com) From: Andy Reitelbach, Senior Planner Division: Planning Services Date: June 30, 2021 Subject: SDP2021-00022 — Albemarle Business Campus Block 5 — Final Site Plan; 2"d Submittal The Planner for the Planning Services Division of the Albemarle County Department of 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.] Comments from SDP2020-00066 — Albemarle Business Campus Initial Site Plan Action Letter: The original comments from the review and action letter for SDP2020-00066 are in gray font. Follow-up comments from the review of the final site plan, SDP2021-00022, are in bolded black font. Please address these follow-up comments as well. 1. [32.5.2(b)] Information regarding the proposed use. New Comment: Clarify the additional proposed uses on the site. The cover sheet identifies the proposed uses as self -storage and restaurant. However, the site and utility plan identifies the additional tenant spaces as general retail, not specifying restaurant. ii. Provide the square footage of non-residential space in each of blocks 2-5 so that staff can ensure the ranges identified in the Code of Development are met. Provide the total square footage of the structure on Block 5. It appears the building footprint square footage is provided but not the building's overall square footage, which must be between 45,000 and 125,000 square feet. Clarify the square footage: the cover sheet states that the "restaurant" portion of the development is 3,500 square feet. However, the two retail tenant spaces on sheet C6 total 4,337 square feet. iii. Provide more information on the amount of proposed greenspace and amenities. Also identify all the amenities that are being provided. 20% of the site must be greenspace, and 20% of the site must be amenities; however, these two elements can overlap in many, though not all, circumstances. It is not clear what is being counted as greenspace, what is being counted as amenity area, and what is counting toward both calculations. Provide more detailed calculations of these elements. Recreational facilities in accordance with 18-4.16 of the Zoning Ordinance are not provided in block 1, as required by note 1 on sheet 5 of the COD. Provide these required amenities and recreational facilities in block 1. If substitution of these facilities is desired, provide a substitution request with justification to Planning staff for review. In addition, the dog park on block 5 is not shown as a part of the site plan at all. Who will be maintaining the private greenspace and amenity areas? Some sort of agreement will be required. A Private Improvement Maintenance Declaration (PIMD) or another type of legal agreement must be provided for review and recorded, to assign ownership and maintenance responsibilities for the green space and amenities, such as the stone dust path. As a separate parcel, TMP 76-46AB will need a legal document to ensure continued access and maintenance of the shared elements and amenities with the overall development, in the event that the parcel is sold to a separate owner in the future. This document has to be completed with the site planning stage since there would likely be no further subdivision of 76-46AB. As there is already a proposed plat and deed of easement for other shared features of the development, it is recommended that the stone dust path be added to the plat (SUB2021-00100) and to the deed of easement associated with that plat. It appears there is already language referencing maintenance in the draft deed of easement. Please be aware that the deed will require review by the County Attorney's Office prior to final approval, so additional information may be needed depending on the outcome of that review. iv. The parking schedule needs to be revised. Sufficient parking must be provided for the development. There is not currently enough parking, and the Zoning division has not approved the requested reduction in parking. 1. As the parking spaces are proposed to be shared among blocks 2-5, a shared parking agreement will be required prior to site plan approval. A parking agreement may be required with this site plan depending on the location of the revised property lines. Shared parking agreement has been received and is under review along with the easement plat and deed. 2. The parking schedule must be revised. There are more than 45 spaces depicted on the site plan. In addition, there is greater than the 20% permitted increase over the required amount of parking. Remove some of the parking spaces so that the number of spaces is not above the 20% permitted. See comments Li and Lii above for more clarification on the proposed uses of the non -self -storage areas of the development. 3. New Comment: Why is the handicapped parking space blocking the ramp onto the sidewalk to the southwest of Retail Tenant Space 1? The ramp could not be used if a vehicle were parked in the space. 2. [32.5.2(i)] Streets, easements, and travelways. a. At the time of subdivision, a request, with justification, for a private street will be required for the proposed new street through blocks 2-5. Requests for private streets in non-residential areas are reviewed administratively. If the request for a private street is granted, a private improvement maintenance agreement will also be required. A request for a private street must be submitted for this block if right-of-way is proposed for the travelway located between Wahoo Way and Old Lynchburg Road. Otherwise, the frontage and setback requirements cannot be met with the currently proposed layout. If a private street is not proposed (and approved dependent on staff review) for this travelway, then the building on this block must be pushed back 5 feet in order to meet the requirements of the COD for a setback of five feet from the sidewalk if the sidewalk is not in right-of-way. See footnote 3 on page 8 of the COD. It is acknowledged that a private street request is not currently required for the interior travelway, as the subject parcel has frontage on Old Lynchburg Road. However, please be aware that the self -storage building must meet the setback requirements established in the COD when a private street authorization is requested. These requirements include the building being setback five feet minimum from the right-of- way line, or sidewalk if it is outside of the right-of-way. The sidewalk along the northwest corner of the building, adjacent to the storage office, would not meet this requirement, as it is directly adjacent to the building. The comment response letter referenced a waiver that would be emailed. To my knowledge, this waiver request has not been received by CDD at this time. Although setback requirements along this internal travelway are met at this time, they may not be met with future site plan proposals and private street requests. Please be aware that ensuring setback requirements are met with those future submissions will be an important part of the review and could delay approval of such applications, depending on the design(s) and any waivers or modifications that are requested. It is recommended that these issues be addressed at this time. b. A separate submission of road plans will be required for the proposed new street through blocks 2-5. Road plans will be required if the travelway between Wahoo Way and Old Lynchburg Road is proposed to become a private or public street. c. Identify on the site plan the proffered right-of-way dedication depicted in the "Single -Lane Roundabout Exhibit." With the vehicle trips per day generated by the proposed uses, as provided on the cover sheet of the site plan, proffer number 1 will need to be fulfilled with this block. In addition to the cash contribution, a plat will need to be prepared to dedicate the right-of-way at the intersection of 51 Street and Old Lynchburg Road. Show this round -about construction and dedication on this site plan as well. As mentioned in previous comments, clarify the proposed use of the other tenant spaces in this building, whether they are for restaurant or general retail or both. d. Identify all proposed access easements. Access easements will require an approved plat. An access easement plat is required to be submitted and reviewed prior to final site plan approval. A MM will be required with the easement plat. Receipt of easement plat is acknowledged. Plat is under review. 3. [32.5.26); 32.5.2 (k)] Label all existing and proposed water, sewer, and storm drainage easements by type and include a size/width measurement. For existing easements, state the deed book and page of the recorded instrument. For proposed easements, an easement plat will need to be submitted, reviewed, approved, and recorded at the courthouse prior to approval of the final site plan being granted. Submit easement plats for review and approval prior to approval of the site plan. Receipt of easement plat is acknowledged. Plat is under review. 4. [32.5.2 0)] Label all existing and proposed utility easements by type and include a size/width measurement. For existing easements, state the deed book and page of the recorded instrument. For proposed easements, an easement plat will need to be submitted, reviewed, approved, and recorded at the courthouse prior to approval of the final site plan being granted. Submit easement plats for review and approval prior to approval of the site plan. Receipt of easement plat is acknowledged. Plat is under review. 5. [32.5.2(p); 32.7.91 A landscape plan that complies with section 32.7.9 of the Zoning Ordinance must be submitted with the final site plan. When submitting final site plans, keep in mind that the landscaping requirements need to be met individually for each phase of the development, as the phases must be able to stand independently. See comments below: a. Street trees need to be planted along the entirety of the proposed internal road since that improvement is being proposed with this site plan. Although not needed at this time, since it is not a street, please be aware that street trees meeting the requirements of the ZMA and Zoning Ordinance will need to be provided along this travelway at the time it is approved as a private street. b. Identify where the new property lines are so that staff can accurately determine whether the proposed landscaping is actually on the subject property. The landscaping, such as the tree canopy, required by this development must be located on the subject parcel. The revised property lines for TMP 76-46AB do not appear to be depicted on the landscape plan. c. New Comment: Provide additional information on the proposed tree wells for those trees along the interior travelway. Identify the square footage of the tree wells, as they must be at least 50 square feet. Please contact Andy Reitelbach in the Department of Community Development at areitelbach@albemarle.org or 434- 296-5832 ext. 3261 for further information. Comments from Other Reviewers: Albemarle County Engineering Services (Engineer) — John Anderson, janderson2@albemarle.org_— See recommendations below: Engineering does not object to SDP2021-00022 approval, but notes that easement plat, SUB202100100, which shows multiple easements, may need to be recorded prior to ESP approval. Engineering accepts that public drainage easement may be recorded prior to departmental issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the first structure in Block 5, which departs from typical approval sequencing. Engineering used this approach during WPO plan review /approval (public drainage easement recordation prior to issuance of first CO). Engineering defers to Planning whether option exists to allow ESP approval prior to easement plat recordation. Albemarle County Information Services (E911) — Elise Kiewra, ekiewra@albemarle.org — Requested changes; please see the attached memo. Albemarle County Architectural Review Board (ARB) — Margaret Maliszewski, mmaliszewski@albemarle.org — Requested Changes; please see the comments below: 32.7.9.9b requires planting islands to have a minimum of 50 sf per tree, with a minimum dimension of five feet, and barriers to prevent damage by vehicles. The islands at the angled parking spaces do not appear to meet the 50-sf requirement. Please revise the design to meet the requirements. Provide a detail of the planting island showing dimensions and total area, and tree placement that avoids damage by vehicles. Ensure that the mature size of the tree species chosen for the planting islands is suited to the close proximity to the building. Albemarle County Fire -Rescue (ACFR) — Howard Lagomarsino, hlaQomarsino@albemarle.org — No objections at this time; please see the comments below: Based on changes on revised plan dated 5/19/21, statement of additional hydrants in future phases, reported appropriate fire flow availability, no objections Albemarle County Parks and Recreation Department— Tim Padalino, tpadalino@albemarle.org — No objections at this time; see the comments below: Thank you for addressing and resolving previous review comments. Regarding the number of bicycle racks (Block 5 = 2 "Staple" bicycle racks; total capacity for 4 bicycles) - please note that future phases/blocks should include numerous additional bicycle racks. Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA) — Richard Nelson, melson@serviceauthority.org — No objections at this time. Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) — Adam Moore, Adam.Moore@vdot.vir ig nia.gov — Requested changes; please see the attached memo. County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS - E911 APPLICATION#: SDP202100022 TMP: 07600-00-00-046A0,07600-00-00-046FO DATE: 5/27/21 FROM: Elise Kiewra ekiewra(a)albemarle.org Geographic Data Services (GDS) www.albemarle.org/gds (434) 296-5832 ext. 3030 The road that will connect Wahoo Way and Old Lynchburg will require a road due to future buildings to be constructed. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. This site will require a one (1) new private road name. Per Sec. 7-200-B of the County's Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance (Page 2 of PDF). "It is intended by this article that all roads within the County which serve or are designed to serve three or more addressable structures will be named; and that all addressable structures within the County will be assigned property numbers. We recommend providing three (3) candidate names for each road to our office for review, in case your first choices are not acceptable. A PDF version of the Ordinance and Manual can be found here: https://gisweb.albemarle.org/gisdata/Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance and Manu al.ndf Please consult the County's Road Name Index to check your road names prior to submittal. The Index can be found here: https://Ifweb.albemarle.org/Forms/RoadNamelndex Parcel and mapping information can be found here: https:/https://gisweb.albemarle.org/gpv 51/Viewer.aspx51/Viewer.aspx COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Stephen C. Brich, P.E. 1401 East Broad Street (804) 7862701 Commissioner Richmond, Virginia 23219 Fax: (804) 7862940 June 4, 2021 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: Andy Reitelbach Re: Albemarle Business Park Block 5 — Final Site Plan SDP-2021-00022 Review #2 Dear Mr. Reitelbach: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced plan as prepared by Shimp Engineering, dated 19 May 2021, and offers the following comments: 1. Appendix F of the Road Design Manual allows the downward adjustment of the number of right turns only when the speed limit is below 45, the number of right turns is over 40, and the total volume is less than 300. Because the total volume shown in the turn -lane warrant analysis dated 14 May 2021 is 310 (327 after adjustments for Block 1), the adjustment to the number of right turns is not appropriate. Please remove the adjustment to the number of right turns and reanalyze Figure 3-26. 2. The Department is still reviewing the Access Management Exception Request dated 7 May 2021. 3. Future submissions for further development on this site, or the site caddy -comer across the intersection of Routes 780 and 875, must fully address all comments made by Max Greene on SDP-2020-00066 dated 2 December 2020. Please provide a digital copy in PDF format of the revised plan along with a comment response letter. If further information is desired, please contact Doug McAvoy Jr. at (540) 718-6113. VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING June 4, 2021 Attn: Andy Reitelbach 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 Transportation and Land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. Sincerely, Adam J. Moore, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency