HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400050 Review Comments Final Site Plan and Comps. 2014-08-01§1 re,
x
s:
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, North Wing
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296 -5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Memorandum
To: Scott Collins
From: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: August 1, 2014
Subject: SDP - 2014 -50 Acme Stove and Fireplace Center Site Plan- Final
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.]
Conditions of Initial Plan Approval (from approval letter dated May 5,2014:
1. [32.6] A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code.
Final: See Final Plan comments below. Comment still valid.
2. [32.5.2.1(c)] Boundary Lines. Property boundary lines do not appear to match the County GIS.
Specifically with regard to the front property line. Please address this inconsistency. Revise if
appropriate.
Notably, a boundary line adjustment plat, SUB2007 -215, was approved by the County on 7 -23 -2007.
This Boundary Line Adjustment plat appears to modify the frontage of the lot and vacates the 18'
easement at the front of the property and dedicated a portion of right of way to public use. Was this
plat . recorded? If so, assure the existing conditions sheet and the rest of the plan is modified
appropriately. Notably depending on where the true front boundary line is located, this may affect the
building setbacks as depicted on the plan. Revise if appropriate.
Final: Comment still relevant. The applicant has submitted SUB2014 -102 Iwe,llc /Acme Stove,
which attempts to plat the frontage as depicted on the site plan. This plat is pending VDOT
review, also see attached July 14, 2014 comment letter to applicant about the frontage. As
depicted on sheet 2 of the site plan, if the frontage is revised per -an approved plat and recorded,
revise site plan to provide the DB Page reference information of the recorded plat.
3. [32.5.2.1(c),32.5.2(i), 32.5.2(o)] Per County Records Seminole Lane is proposed to be a Public
Road; however, at this time it is not accepted into the State's Secondary System. The road portion of
Seminole Lane which is on this lot will need to be dedicated for public right of way prior to final site
plan approval. This shall be accomplished via a subdivision plat.
Also, throughout the plan the road is listed as a Private Road; however, this is not the case as it was
never approved by the County as a private road. Revise appropriately.
Final: Comment still relevant. The applicant has submitted SUB2014 -102 Iwe,llc /Acme Stove
which attempts to plat the frontage as depicted on the site plan. This plat is pending VDOT
review, also see attached July 14, 2014 comment letter to applicant about the frontage. As
depicted on sheet 2 of the site plan, if the frontage is revised per an approved plat and recorded,
provide the DB Page reference information on site plan.
4. [32.5.2 (m) & (n), 4.12.17(b)] Entrances. "Entrances to parking areas from public streets or private
roads shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Virginia Department of Transportation
standards... " With Seminole Lane being a Public Road, VDOT's approval of the entrance is required.
If VDOT requires modifications to the proposed entrance to the site, this may be a solution to address
ARB concerns with regard to landscaping along the frontage of the lot.
Final: Comment still relevant, pending VDOT and ARB review.
[32.5.2.1(c), 32.5.2.2(a). 21.7(€°)] B'?ffjz$° ::one at#acer$l to residential rand rur al areas districls. "No
construction aCti1 its° tXtr.:luclin r ,pt °ctd r$ r or clearing c >f vegetaticarr shall oc -,-e tr closer than ta,i enty° (20)
fter to ana% residential or rural areas distrk.:I . " On the plan assure. the 241' buffer is depicted and
labeled, Fiwd. Comment addressed.
6. [32.5.2(n), 4.12.1.7(c)l.] 7w way access, The entrance t €? tie site is 20' wide, based. on this staff
assume: th.e; site propose; t0 utilize two -,v ay accesses. Regardless, on the plan. provide tra% is
directional arrows for traffic. moverne m... Finah Cognnent addressed.
[32.5-1(n), 4.12.18(a)] Loading- ,S�)aue be £.r mirtr$num of ts•i else (12) ixt in
tia %idth,, burt£:en and once- hal/'(14 1/2) feet ill clearance height and a length sgfficient to accorrrtrar?date
the largest delivery lrucky serving the esu- iblishmeni, but in no wse will.sttc•h lcwgth be less than
tivenw -five (25) l`i?et. On the site plan assure the load.ia. g space is correctly- c1b e nsi €?a1.ed to .raa.eet the
above regUIMMerrts, gas €airreTatly it appears the length of thy. loading spaceis ` {t' and :lW wide. Revise
appropriately. Final. Comment addressed.
[32.5.2(n), 4..12.1.8(1)] Delineation ofI loading spaces. Loading, spaces shall be delil?e. ,-rled i$$ a
manner that iden4Pies and preserved the required dimensions 6i ith paint siriping, signe-ko'.. ol, by other
meaus approved by, the zoning tulmini4tralo . he zoom C.ishnini trato r may auil$ori e.' That bumper
bl£x:lc:s' tn, pos'is be used to delineate loading spaces f.-)n syld faces that are not cond1$C;h e to paint
s riping. On the site plan assure the loading space is appropriately delineated as required by the
ordimance. Revise appyopriately. Final: Co invent addressed.
9. 132.5.2(n), 4.12.16(c)(1)] Perpendicular arking:Rze. Spaces along <a 2W aisle shall be 1.41' wide by
18' 10111'. Curreiit:ly there are: i >etween 4. wid 6 spaces on the plaia which are along a 2W aisle, whic h
are depicted as 9' wide, revise these space.; to meet the required :10' width. Final. Comment
addressed.
10. [32.5.2(n), 4.12.1.9(c)] Screening. Dunipsters, shall be ,screened as required b %:section ate'. 9 caned,
4yyVicable, ,s•ee ion'.30.6 Aware the £hrmpster is <approlar ately creclle €i. (.)n the final site plan
provide the. rra.cate?rial rased in the enclosure and the beight of the enclosure. Comment
addressed.
11. [32.5.2(a)] Being this site is located in the Entrance Corridor (EC), approval from the Architectural
Review Board (ARB) is required prior to final site plan approval.
Final: Comment still relevant. ARB will meet Aug 18.
12. [32.5.2(n) & (p)] The following will be required for final site plan approval:
- Outdoor lighting information including a photometric plan and location, description, and
photograph or diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire [Sec. 32.7.8 & Sec. 4.17]
Final: Comment not addressed. On sheet 1, under general notes `Lighting' makes claim that
wall pack locations are depicted on the plan, also the sheet list provides for sheet 7;
however, there is no light information provided with the final site plan, sheet 7 is not
provided in the plan set. Planning staff has consulted with two (2) other reviewers and
looked at their plan sets, and they do not have lighting plans either. Revise appropriately.
2
and, an.niecting tile requirenient""i of section 3117.9 of Chapter 1.8 of the Code, including
.A ]a and plan
a tree conservation checklist. Final. ("oniment addressed.
13. The current proposal preserves the required 20' undisturbed bufrer
between the commercial lot and the residential district, as is required by tfie ordinance. The proposal
goes even further to reserve existing vegetative screenini, by preserving upward.-.. of 50' of existing
P C, -1 1� —
vegetation an the managed slope, Thus the sereelung rec uirementat the.rear of the property a, pear,,;.,
p
to be rnet.
Regardless, theIbUtfinu property owner (l*AAP 045131- a5 -0.A- 00800'} has contacted staff about the
proposal nand has requested the ap p licaut install a 6-8 foot tall. wooden :]brace along the property line at
the top ofthe ridge along the property Jbie flor screeninn, purposes due cc) the anticipated Io,'-,s of
screening proposed with the development. It should also be noted that the Wilco I-less developtilent
find the Floors .Are Lis development. each provided a 6 — 8 foot tall wooden fence atop the ridge on
the propert, fine to mitigate Tile loss of existing vegetative screening at th.e bottom of tile slope as part
of their Critical Slopes waivers. While the current proposal does not propose to distufb the slopes
onsite, nor are these slopes defined as critical slopes any longer, -rather they ar defined as
managed slopes. thus.no waiver is required to disturb these slopes, The current proposal cuts trees
froill the existing tree line at the rear ofthe property -it the bottorn of the aianaaed slopes. Upon a
recent site visit it appears -that the -trees which are proposed to be cut currently provide the InaJority of
the veyetative screening at level �-Niitli the homes on the btuff, Witil tile loss of these trees the existing
4-
screening for these horne,May be significantly reduced due to the steep upwards slope firoa l. the site
to tberesidential. lots at the rear of the property.
Per discussions �Adth the abutting owner they would grant this development an easement on their
property, which would. allow: for the relocation of the measures, If SU-ch an. easement or
letter of intent. for such an easeynent was granted by tile abUlting Miler file fencing provision of the
Z1.) fencing
f'or screening could be relocated to a distance at the top of the slope that would. not disturb
the 20' undisturbed btiffe-r, the e and would enable the presere,atio.-n of trees that provide
C, P
screening and/or provide stabilization. In order to achieve the desired effect, the area offhe f6lce
would have to be determined in the field at -the tirne of the development or installation of fencim on
the parcelfto.m the residential lot. If tile aPplica.-Ilt chooses to provide a fen ce Th.-_ casement an(] the
fence shoLildbe depicted and labeled oil the final site plan.
Final. It does not appear the applicant is interested in working with adjacent neighbor as note(]
above
14. [NEW COMMENT] On sheet 1 under general notes, the calculations for 'Impervious Areas', and
the information for 'Parking and Circulation Area' contradicts the information on the same sheet
adjacent to the Trip Generation data for those exact items. Revise to assure only one set of
information is provided. During my landscaping review planning staff assumed the most recent
numbers adjacent to the Trip Generation Data are the most accurate: Impervious Area 19,767 SF
and Parking& Circulation Area = 9,813.
15. [NEW COMMENT] On sheet 3, the end handicapped parking space adjacent to the main entrance
should be redesigned or omitted, as currently if a car or van pulled into the space they would not be
able to back out without backing out to the entrance to the site or hitting the building. Revise.
16. [NEW COMMENT] On sheet 1, under the title of the plan provide the SDP# for the project:
SDP2014-50.
17. [NEW COMMENT] Approved WPO plans are needed prior to final site plan approval. Contact
Engineering for farther details.
18. [NEW COMMENT] Provide north arrows on each sheet of the plan set.
Engineering Comments —Max Greene
See attached comments
ACSA —A le-x Morrison
See attached comments
ARB — Margaret Malinewski
The final site plan will be reviewed by the ARB on August 18, 2014. Comments will be provided after
that meeting.
E911 — Andrew Slack
Approved
Building Inspections — Tay Schlothauer
- No objections
Fire and Rescue — Robbie Gilmer
- No objections
VD OT— Troy Austin
Comments pending.
Please contact Christopher P. Perez in the Planning Division by using cperez@albemarle.org or 434-
.296 -5832 ext. 3443 for further information.
4
�E AI,�
��RG[N1P
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 -4596
Phone (434) 296.5832 Fax (434) 972 -4126
Project: Acme Stove and Fireplace Center SDP201400050
Plan preparer: Collins Engineering [scott @collins- engineering.com]
Owner or rep.: IWE LLC
Plan received date: 07 July 2014
Date of comments: 24 July 2014
Reviewer: Max Greene
The Site Plans (SDP201400050) submitted 07 July 2014 have received Engineering Review and do not appear to meet
Albemarle County minimum checklist items for approval.
Site plan comments:
1. The 9 space parking row in the front needs to be moved (northerly) away from the proposed building to allow
for vehicles to safely back out of the handicapped parking space without potentially hitting the building.
2. North arrow is missing from plan sheets.
Water Protection Plan Comments:
Water Protection plan approvals are required prior to final site plan approval. The following link is for the Process:
http://www.albemarle.or g /unload /images /forms center /departments /Community Devel_pment/forms/En 'neering and
WPO Forms /WPO Application Process.pdf
The following link is for the application forms and fees:
httn•//www albemarle orL,/gnload /images /forms center /departments /Community Development/forms/En 'ntg eering and
WPO Forms/WPO VSMP Virzinia Stormwater Management Program Applicadon.pdf
Once the Stormwater Protection plans are approved a stormwater maintenance agreement will be required. This is the
link to the form:
http:/ /www albemarle ori�,/unload /images /forms center /dej2artments /Community Development/forms/En 'neering and
WPO Forms/Plan Review - Stormwater Management BMP Facilities Maintenance Agreement.pdf
This is the link to the SWM Agreement process:
htlp•//www albemarle.org/ul2load/l*mages/forms center /departments /Community Development/forms/En 'neering and
WPO Forms/Plan Review - Stormwater Management BMP Facilities Maintenance Agreement Procedures.pdf
Once these comments have been addressed, please submit 3 copies of the revised plans, calculations, and narratives to Current
Development Engineering along with the required review fee and transmittal/application forms.
Current Development Engineering is available from 2:30 -4 PM on Thursdays to discuss these review comments. Please contact
Max Greene at 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3283 or email Beene @albemarle.org to schedule an appointment.
A.rn;,: &ov;: erid i il>phtco C::nt;.`ra:m
County
Service Auth4rety
TO: Christopher Perez
FROM: Alexander J. Morrison, E.I.T., Civil Engineer
DATE: July 23, 2014 -
RE: Site Plan Technical Review for: SDP201400050: Acme Stove Final Site Plan
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. A 12 inch water line is located approximately 60' 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 on site 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:
Call out PVC sleeve on water service line under the road.
• Call out back flow preventer on the building.
• Ensure ACSA details are legible.
168 Spotnap Road o Charlottesville e VA 22911 e Tel (434) 977 -4511 • Fax (434) 979 -0698
www.serviceauthority.org
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
Memorandum
To:
Thomas Lincoln
From:
Christopher P. Perez- Senior Planner
Division:
Planning Services
Date:
July 14, 2014
Subject:
SUB- 2014 -102- Iwo LLC/ Acme Stove — Vacation Plat
The Planner for the Zoning & Current Development Division of the Albemarle County
Department Community Development will recommend approve 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.]
1. [14- 314,14- 206(4),14 -302 (A)(3)] Identification of all interests of the County in
Property. On the plat label the current owner of the 1,919.57 SF piece of property. Also,
provide the deed book and page number for 1,919.57 SF piece of property (public right of
way)
It appears the applicant contends that the County owns the land as an owner.signature
line has been provided on sheet 1 for County signature; however, a letter from VDOT
dated Dec 3, 2007 (see attached) states VDOT owns the land (per DB307 -131 & DB321-
27) and that they are not interested in selling the 1,919.57 SF portion of public right of
way. VDOT may have changed their stance since 2007; the plat has been forwarded to
VDOT for review.
The letter Dec 3, 2007 also discusses the 742.74 SF portion of land, which is proposed to
be dedicated to public use by this plat; however, VDOT does not feel this is required
because that portion of land has already been dedicated to public right of way (DB515-
406). The plat has been forwarded to VDOT for review.
Based on the above findings, it may be appropriate to only vacate the remainder of the
18' strip of land with this plat.
Please contact Christopher?. Perez at the Department of Community Development 296;-5832 ext.
3443 for further information.
COMMONW13ALTH OF VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
16o1 ORANGE ROAD
CULPFPgR, VIRGINIA 22701
DAVID S eKERN, RE, MrolnJuDOTorg
COMMISSIONER December 3, 2007
Re - Property, Exchange Request
F6rmerProper1y of Wendell W. Wood
Requeator: Stonehaus, Inc.
Weslayt. M8,01n., E:
�
418 East Water atiso
Cha6tteivIlle, VA 22802
Dear Mr. Martin:
Thank you for your email to Spencer Dejamette, regarding the availability for sale of the property
referenced above.
After receiving your email I did some court house resemth and subsequently consulted with our attorney,.
W. R6berf L.*walkbr about the 18 foot strip dedicated•for future 1pkssabeway.thr6ugh lots. It•is his opinion
that• the 18 foot strip was a dadicitlon for road purposes and VDOT recognized that when the Service
-Road was constructed as part of Highway Project 6029-002-F79, RW-202.
Therefore it Is VD071s position that we would, not need to hdv&-Phrcell a' 742.74 square feet re-
dedicated to the commonwealth since It was previously dedicated per the plat of record In Deed Book
515, Page 405. -
We also concur with Use Grazleno In that VDOT does have fee ownership of the 190.67 square feet
area which was acquired from Norman.Kelsoyand Lucile Kelay In Dead Book307, Page 131 and In Deed
Book 321, Page 27. Since this area Is fee rIghl of way and If VDOT decided to -dispose of this area It
would have to be conveyed by dead and not vacated as shown on the proposed plat by Thomas B.
Lincoln,
We do appreciate your Interest In the fee property but after speaking with my supervisor and 'others within
the departmeni we feel It would not be In the beat Interest to dispose of the 1919.57 square foot area.
Therefore It Is not tbr sWp at this Ume. However, we feel Albemarle County could vacate the remainder of
thi18 foot strip area an Parcel '011 that Is nofneeded for the Service Road.
Sincerely,,
Roger-OlatterbuoR -
Assistani Right of Way Monagpr
kc
Ob: Mr. dvole
WE KEEP MIRGINIAMOVING