Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400011 Review Comments Minor Amendment 2014-06-18County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Phone 434 - 296 -5832 Fax 434 - 972 -4126 Memorandum To: Michael Myers From: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: June 18, 2014 Subject: SDP201400011 Jim Price — Minor Amendment The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the following comments 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, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.] 1. [4.17, 32.6.2(k) 32.5.2(n)] Lighting. Upon thorough review of all previously approved site plans associated with this site including the most recently approved SDP97 -001, SDP94 -62 and LOR #1 12 -2 -11, SDP94 -41, SDP89 -97, SDP89 -70, SDP -416, SDP -288, it appears that the lighting physically existing onsite and depicted on the site plan currently under review has never been approved by the County in its current form. To include the type of lights, the number of lights, and the location of the lights for the majority of the site. The lighting that is onsite is lighting that appears to match that which was depicted on SDP2003 -26 (minor amendment from 4 -23 -2004) however this plan was never approved. Notably the subject of that minor amendment was not to alter or expand lighting rather it was to expand the rear portion of a garage building which was not visible from the EC and as such ARB never reviewed this plan. The current site plan under review cannot be approved until the ARB and Planning have reviewed and approved the lighting for the site. Provide a full lighting plan for the entire site for review. If the applicant can provide an approved /signed site plan which depicts the lighting as shown please do so for staff's review /consideration. The Zoning Department has been notified of the issue and should this plan not be resubmitted they shall decide how to handle the violation. Rev 1. Staff has found that twenty three (23) lights depicted on the plan were previously approved and twenty three (23) lights on the plan are not previously approved. All lights that do not show up as approved lighting on a site plan need to be brought into compliance with today's ordinance and with the Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines. The lighting plan should clearly show which fixtures were previously approved and which are proposed with this amendment. This may be done most efficiently by numbering each fixture and providing a table that lists the fixture number, approval status, and fixture type. Below staff has broken out which lights are not previously approved in more detail: It appears that there are seven (7) pole lights along the property's frontage of Route 29 which were not previously approved. These lights need to be brought into compliance with the ordinance, including ARB design guidelines. Four (4) additional pole lights along the front of the property which were previously approved have been modified from the previous approval by adding middle height lights These middle lights need to be removed. It appears that eleven (11) lights in the middle of the site were not previously approved. Of those, nine (9) are believed to be approvable as is; however, two (2) of these need to be brought into compliance with the ordinance, including ARE design guidelines. It appears that five (5) lights along the northern property line (the shared Wal -Mart property line) of the site were not previously approved. These lights need to be removed or brought into compliance with the ordinance, including ARE design guidelines. Staff is happy to meet with you to review our plan that distinguishes between previously approved and currently proposed fixtures, and to further discuss options for bringing the site into conformity. 2. 130.6.3(2)(2), 24.2.21 Display Area. As previously discussed this site does not have the required Special Use Permit to have Outdoor Display Area within the Entrance Corridor, the site has been permitted to continue operating without gaining this SP as long as they do not increase /modify their display area from what was previously approved by the County. The amount of outdoor display area depicted on the plan is not consistent with approved site plans for the site. The area of concern is located at the Rte 29 southbound entrance to the site where the display area wraps around the planting strip directly in front of the proposed 800 SF building addition. To my knowledge this display area has never been approved by the County and this plan attempts to increase the display area to the site. If you have a recent signed approved site plan which depicts it please provide it for staff's review /consideration. If increasing the display area is the applicant intent a Special Use Permit will be required prior to approval of the plan. Otherwise remove this display area from the site plan. Rev 1. Comment addressed. Also, during a recent site visit it was observed that the facility is currently utilizing this space as outdoor display area; however, this is not permitted and shall cease. The Zoning Department has been notified of the issue and they shall decide how to handle the violation. Rev 1. Comment acknowledged by applicant. 3. [3 0.6.3(2)(2), 21.7(a), 24.2.21 Display Area. Also, during the same site visit mentioned above it was observed that there are four (4) vehicles for sale on display within the front yard (grassed area fi-onting Rte 29) of the property. There are also two (2) vehicles for sale on display which are lined up along the landscape strip of the southernmost entrance to the site. This is not permitted in the front yard setback, nor the entrance to the site and shall cease. The Zoning Department has been notified of the issue and they shall decide how to handle the violation. Rev 1. Comment acknowledged by applicant. 4. [30.6.3(a)(2), 21.7(a), 24.2.21 Display Area. On the site plan label the Display Area Parking which is Existing ( previously approved on a site plan) and Proposed (existing onsite without being depicted on all approved site plan or proposed with this plan). As discussed any Proposed display area will require a Special Use Permit. Also, on the plan provide dimensions and square footages for all outdoor display areas. To avoid confusion please provide a chart on the plan which lists each outdoor display area's square footage and the total amount for the site. Currently page 3 has a total; however it is not broken out and hard to track/follow. Rev 1. Comment addressed. [32.6.20), 32.7.9, 32.5.21 Landscaping. As previously discussed at the pre application meeting, on the plan provide a complete landscape plan for review. On this plan clearly distinguish between proposed and previously approved landscaping. On the plan depict all previously approved landscaping. Currently the landscape plan provided does not depict all previously approved landscaping. If some of the previously - - - - approved - landscaping is- dead or- has - been - removed,- these- plantings - -ors comparable- alternatives will -be - -- - required to be replanted in their stead. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 5. [32.6.20), 32.7.9, 32.5.21 Landscaping. On sheet 3, under Landscape Requirements the project area for the site is listed as 49,337SF. How was this number calculated? Please provide a breakdown/chart of each item which is being utilized to calculate this number. Revise. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 6. [32.5.2(b), 32.6.2(i)] Parking. To assess the parking requirements of the site, for the existing dealership building provide the square footages of each of the uses in the building. Currently page 3 has a total; however it is not broken out for the building. Providing the use breakdown will help staff assess the parking required for the site. Rev 1. The majority of parking spaces on the plan were previously approved; however, the 17 spaces behind the car wash were never previously approved. As such these spaces need to be brought into compliance with today's ordinance. These spaces shall be a minimum of 18' long and 9' wide. Currently they are listed as 17.5' long. Revise. Also, it is recommended that the other spaces throughout the plan which are 13.5' long and 17.9' long each be revised to be 18' long. It appears there is adequate aisle width to do this. Also, the Parking Tabulations provided on sheet SP2 do not match that provided on sheet SP3. Either remove the table on SP3 (as it provides less information) or assure both charts match. Specifically service parking on sheet SP2 lists Service Parking with .a total of 51 existing and proposed employees; however, sheet SP3 only lists 30 employees. Revise. Per the Parking Tabulations provided on sheet SP2 it appears the site is double counting it's employees to gain 52 additional parking spaces listed as "employee parking "; however, service parking includes employee parking. The 52 spaces provided at the rear of the property can remain because they were previously approved on site plans but they shall be relabeled to "existing previously approved parking ". In the Parking Tabulations chart provided on sheet SP2, relabel the 52 spaces provided at the bottom of the chart to also be "existing previously approved parking ", 7. [32.5.2(b), 4.12.61 Parking. During a recent site visit it was observed along the rear of the property that there is substantially more parking than is currently shown on the plan for Employee Parking and Service Parking. Specifically on the southern boundary of the property near the grade changes fronting Berkmar Drive. If these spaces are to remain as parking they need to be depicted and labeled on the plan and reviewed by the County. Rev 1. Comment addressed. [4.12.6, 4.12.161 Parking. Spaces for customers shall be clearly delineated on the ground, signed and maintained for customers only. The nine (9) customer parking spaces at the entrance to the existing dealership building were previously approved with striping and must continue with said striping. During a recent site visit it was observed that the spaces are not striped or the striping has worn off,- regardless these customer spaces are required to be striped. Revise plan to provide striping and remove the note about these spaces being unlined. Also, the eight (8) customer parking spaces on the side of the existing dealership building are depicted as unstriped; however, these too were previously approved with striping and shall be striped. Revise. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 9. [32.5.2(b), 4.12.61 Parking. On the plan six (6) proposed spaces fronting the 800 SF addition are not labeled. Are they for customers? If they are intended for customers please label these spaces as such, if they are for display parking please label them as such. Revise. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 10. [30.7.5, 32.6.1(e6), 32.5.2(n)] Managed Slopes. On the plan 591 SF of pervious area is to be removed and - - -- regraded. -- This- area -is- made- up -of- Managed - Slopes -as defined -by the -March 5; 2014 -BOS changes to-the- critical slopes portion of the ordinance (Section 30.7.5 adopted on 3- 5 -14). Disturbance to these slopes is permitted by right provided that design standards listed in 30.7.5 are satisfied to mitigate the impacts caused by the disturbance of the slopes. Please consult with Engineering staff to assure design standards are being met with the proposal. Their approval of this item shall be required. Rev 1. On the plan shade and label all the managed slopes onsite. Also, on the plan label what is proposed to take place in this area? Is it to be paved? Is it to be used for vehicle access, or pedestrian access? Revise to clarify. Also, provide accurate dimensions for this area: how wide is it, how deep is it? Rev 1. Comment addressed. 11. [32.6.1(6),32.6.2(i), 32.5.2(n), 4.12, 4.12.16, 4.12.17] Existing and proposed improvements. On the plan provide dimensions for all Existing and Proposed improvements. To include dimensions for aisle widths and dimensions for customer parking spaces, and all other existing and proposed improvements onsite. Revise. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 12. Also, staff noted that at the rear of the property adjacent to the Bay Doors for the new facility the one way access aisle is not 19' throughout its entire length and in a couple places was measured at 16' wide. On the plan assure the dimensions for this aisle are provided. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 13. [Comment] The proposed 9,357 SF maintenance building appears to utilize bay door construction which allows trucks to be driven through the building. If that is the case please label the bay doors on the front of the building. Revise. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 14. [4.12.13(e)] Each site plan that depicts a commercial or industrial building offour thousand (4, 000) gross square feet or more shall provide a dumpster pad that does not impede any required parking or loading spaces, nor any pedestrian or vehicular circulation aisles. Is there already a dumpster pad onsite, if so, please locate and label it on the plan. If there is not one currently onsite, one shall be provided with this addition. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 15. [32.6.1(e6), 32.5.2(n)] Existing and proposed improvements. On the plan, at the rear of the property around the proposed building there is a proposed retaining wall depicted and listed as max height 6'. To avoid confusion assure each item's (fence and retaining wall) height is listed separately. Staff is unsure to what item this height is for: the fence or the retaining wall. Revise. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 16. [32.6.1(e6), 32.5.2(n)] Existing and proposed improvements. On the plan there is a proposed fence next to the New Pervious Area of 228 SF. On the plan include the heights and type (material) of this fence. Revise. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 17. [32.5.2(n)] Existing and proposed improvements. On the plan in the footprint of the new building there is a light pole. On the plan assure it is noted that this light pole will be removed. Revise. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 18. [32.5.20), 32.6.2(4)] Along the property's frontage of Seminole Trail is an existing water line. Is there an easement associated with this line, if so provide it on the plan. Also, on the plan provide all easements on the property, including all water and sewer line easements running throughout the property. Assure the dimensions are shown and whether they are to be publicly or privately maintained. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 19. [32.5.2(n)] Existing and proposed improvements. On the plan directly adjacent to the 1,780SF structure which is to be removed there appears to be an overhang /wooden deck which is remaining. Why is this remaining? If it is also to be removed, please label it as such on the plan. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 20. [Comment] On the cover sheet under the title the applicant has provided all the SDP #s which currently still apply to this site. Staff located one additional site plan which should be added to the title: SDP97 -001. Revise. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 4 21. [Comment]On page 2, under site data, proposed use the GSF Truck Maintenance Facility is listed as 9,537SF; however, on sheet 3 it is listed as 9,357. Assure that the square foot of the addition is consistent throughout the plan. Revise. Rev 1. Comment addressed. 22. [NEW COMMENT] On Sheet SP8, under Tree Schedule, the size of the American Planetree for the canopy being claimed shall be 3.511. Revise as currently it's only listed as a min of 311. 23. [NEW COMMENT] On Sheet SP8, under Tree Schedule, the size of the Red Maple for the canopy being claimed shall be 3.511. Revise as currently it's only listed as a min of 311. 24. [NEW COMMENT] On Sheet SP8, under Shrub Schedule, the size of the Japanese Holly shall be 24" minimum. Provide this information on the plan. Revise. 25. [NEW COMMENT] On the plan provide cutsheets for all site lighting. Enginering — Max Green 1. WPO plans are under review at this time. Site plan may be approved after the WPO plans have been approved. ARB - Margaret Maliszewski 1) See attached comments ACSA — Alex Morrison 1) See attached comments E911— Andrew Slack 1. The Road Naming and Property Numbering Ordinance states that when there are three (3) or more addressable structures using the same access. If the development plan is to have three separate structures remains the same then a private road name will have to be created. Please contact this office with a list of names for approval. Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer 1) no objection VDOT — Troy Austin 1) No objection Inspections — Jay Schlothauer 1) no objections Staff has provided references to provisions of Chapter 18 of the Code of the County of Albemarle. The Code is kept up to date by the County Attorney's office. The Code may found on the County Attorney's website which may be found under "Departments and Services" at Albemarle.org. In accord with the provisions of Section 32.4.3.5 of Chapter 18 of the Code if the developer fails to submit a revised final 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 developer. __ _Please contact Christopher P. Perez in the Planning Division by_using_cperez@albemarle. org or 434- 296 -5832 ext. 3443 for further information. tJ �:i' a CrJ �'IHGIN1°' COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE .Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596 . Phone (434) 296 -5832 June 13, 2014 Bob Anderson P.O. Box 2257 Charlottesville, VA 22902 RE: ARB- 2013 -181: Price Hyundai and Truck Maintenance; Tax Map 45, Parcel 68 Fax (434) 972 -4126 Dear Bob, I have reviewed the revised drawings recently submitted for the above- referenced project and I have the following comments: 1. On the landscape plan, indicate a minimum planting size of 24" for the "new" shrubs. 2. The standard planting note was added to the plan submitted for ARB review, but not on the plan submitted for Planning review. The note is required on the plan, and there should only be one version of the plan. 3. On the lighting plan, please check the count of the F fixtures. There appear to be 35 on the plan, but 36 in the schedule. 4. Add the fixture cut sheets to the plan. Include pole height, base height and fixture mounting height on the lighting plan. 5. Additional lighting comments may be provided following Zoning's determination on which fixtures are existing/non - conforming, and which are subject to previous or current regulations. Potential Entrance Corridor Design Guidelines issues include: tilted fixtures, extremely excessive illumination levels (200 fc compared to a recommended maximum of 30 fc for display lots), excessive spillover along the Rt. 29 frontage, and pole height. The addition of large shade trees (at EC standard size and spacing) along the Rt. 29 frontage and at the eastern ends of the north and south site perimeters might offset some of the impacts of the excessive illumination. 6. A note on the plan indicates that all fixtures are full cutoff; however, many of the existing fixtures are not full cutoff. Revise the note for accuracy, following Zoning's determination on existing /non - conforming fixtures. Also, the note was included on the plan submitted for ARB review, but not on the plan submitted for Planning review. There should not be two versions of the plan. For reference, here is the standard lighting note: "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 from adjoining residential districts and away from adjacent roads. The spillover of lighting from luminaires onto public roads and property in residential or rural areas zoning districts shall not exceed one half footcandle." Please provide: 1. One set of revised drawings addressing each of these conditions. Include updated revision dates on each drawing. 2. A memo with detailed responses indicating how each condition has been satisfied. If changes other than those requested have been made, identify those changes in the memo. Highlighting the changes with "clouding" or will facilitate review and approval. 3. The attached "Revised Application Submittal" form must be returned with the revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. When staffs review of this information indicates that all conditions of approval have been met, a Certificate of Appropriateness may be issued. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Margaret Maliszewski Principal Planner cc: Sandra P. Amato, 2150 Seminole Trail, Charlottesville VA 22902 Rosenthal, Robert H & Harrison Nesbit H, Trsts & Henry J Price, P O Box 7463, Charlottesville VA 22906 Mike Myers, Dominion Engineering & Design, LLC, 172 South Pantops Drive, Charlottesville, VA 22911 File COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development REVISED APPLICATION SUBMITTAL This form must be returned with your revisions to ensure proper tracking and distribution. County staff has indicated below what they think will be required as a resubmission of revisions. If you need to submit additional information please explain on this form for the benefit of the intake staff. All plans must be collated and folded to fit into legal size files, in order to be accepted for submittal. TO: Margaret Maliszewski DATE: PROJECT NAME: ARB- 2013 -181: Price Hyundai and Truck Maintenance Submittal Type Requiring Revisions () indicates submittal code County Project Number # Copies Erosion & Sediment Control Plan E &S # Copies Distribute To: Mitigation Plan MP 1 Margaret Maliszewski Waiver Request WR Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP Road Plan RP Private Road Request, with private/ public comparison (PRR Private Road Request — Development Area (PRR -DA Preliminary Site Plan PSP Final Site Plan (or amendment) (FSP) Final Plat (FP) Preliminary Plat P Easement Plat EP Boundary Adjustment Plat (BAP) Rezoning Plan REZ Special Use Permit Concept Plan SP -CP Reduced Concept Plan (R -CP) Proffers P Bond Estimate Request (BER) Draft Groundwater Management Plan (D -GWMP) Final Groundwater Management Plan -GWMP Aquifer Testing Work Plan (ATWP) Groundwater Assessment Report (GWAR Architectural Review Board ARB ARB2013 -181 1 Other: Please explain (For staff use only) Submittal Code # Copies Distribute To: Submittal Code # Copies Distribute To: ARB 1 Margaret Maliszewski d fount:` Service Aulfi*rity TO: Chris Perez FROM: Alexander J. Morrison, EIT, Civil Engineer DATE: June 17, 2014 RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: SDP201400011: Jim Price Minor Site Plan Amendment The below checked items apply to this site. ✓ 1. This site plan is within the Authority's jurisdictional area for: ✓ A. Water and sewer B. Water only C. Water only to existing structure D. Limited service ✓ 2. An 8 inch water line is located approximately on site distant. 3. Fire flow from, nearest public hydrant, located distant from this site plan, is Gpm + at 20 psi residual. ✓ 4. An 8 inch sewer line is located approximately 20' distant. 5. An Industrial Waste Ordinance survey form must be completed. ✓ 6. No improvements or obstructions shall be placed within existing or future easements. 7. and plans are currently under review. 8. and plans have been received and approved. 9. No plans are required. 10. Final and plans are required for our review and approval prior to granting tentative approval. 11. Final site plan may /may not be signed. 12. RWSA approval for water and /or sewer connections. 13. City of Charlottesville approval for sewer. ✓ Comments: • Show .2 existing gate valves that are in the vicinity of the water meter vault. Show or provide easement for existing fire hydrant on site. 40 The proposed canopy addition encroaches into an existing ACSA waterline easement. Remove all obstruction from the easement, including the canopy. Shove existing lateral's connection into the public wastewater system. 168 Spotnap Road • Charlottesville • VA 22911 • Tel (434) 977 -4511 - Fax (434) 979 -0698 www.serviceauthority.org