Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201400011 Review Comments No Submittal Type Selected 2014-09-22County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, VA, 22902 Phone 434 - 296 -5832 Memorandum To: Michael Myers From: Christopher P. Perez, Senior Planner Division: Planning Date: September 22, 2014 Subject: SDP201400011 Jim Price —Minor Amendment Fax 434 - 972 -4126 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. ff 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. ►cev i. gaff 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 ARB 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 ARB 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. Rev 2. Zoning has worked with the applicant to determine that the lights we were concerned with had been on the property prior to either the full cutoff regs or were lights that did not need to meet the requirement since they were not considered parking lot lights. The area for display could not be considered parking lot even though they are parking vehicles. It is display area that happens to park vehicles. Thus the comment is addressed. 2. [30.6.3(a)(2), 24.2.2] 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. ff you have a recent signed approved site plan which depicts it please provide itfor staff's review /consideration. ff 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. [30.6.3(a)(2), 21.7(a), 24.2.2] 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 fronting 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), 24.2.2] 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 an 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. [32.6.2(j), 32.7.9, 32.5.2] 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 2 landscape plan provided does not depict all previously approved la approved landscaping is dead or has been removed, these planting required to be replanted in their stead. Rev 1. Comment address( 5. [32.6.2(j), 32.7.9, 32.5.2] 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 fo assess the parking requirements of the site, for the existing dealership building c ovide t, 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. 7 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. Rev 2. Comment partially addressed, staff has provided clarifying comments below. 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. Rev 2. Comment addressed. 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 ". Rev 2. Comment partially addressed by adding the note: "...existing previously approved parking "; however, these spaces are still labeled on sheet SP3 as "Employee Spaces" and on SP2 as "Parking Provided for Employees ". To avoid confusion please discontinue labeling these spaces `Employee parking' and label them as `Service parking'. 3 10 1? 14 1 16 17 1g 19 20 21 PA 23 24. 25 [NEW COMMENTS] 26. [Comment] On sheet SP3 the three proposed additions provide square footages that do not match the dimensions of the buildings. The first is listed as 800SF; however, the dimensions are 50 x 19, which comes out to 950 SF. Please address this. The second is listed as 460SF; however the dimensions are 30 x 15, which comes out to 450 SF. Please address this. The third is listed as 9,357 SF; however the dimensions are 133.7 x 70, which comes out to 9,359 SF. Please address this. Revise appropriately. 27. [32.5.2(b), 32.6.2(i)] Parking. Two parallel parking spaces are depicted on sheet SP3 that are adjacent to the proposed 800 SF addition. These spaces are dimensioned as 8x20; however they are not listed as a specific type of parking. Based on Parking Tabulations provided on sheet SP2 these two spaces are believed to be `Customer Parking'. If this is the case label them as such. Also, these spaces are required to be a minimum of 9' wide. Revise appropriately. 28. [32.5.2(b), 32.6.2(i)] Parking. There are a couple rows of existing parking spaces labeled as 17.9' long. After reviewing the previously approved plans, it is clear that these spaces were never approved at that specific length. On the plan revised to assure these spaces are 18' long. It appears there is adequate aisle width to do this. The location of these exact spaces is: 25 service parking spaces, 10 service parking spaces. Revise appropriately. 29. [32.5.2(b), 32.6.2(i)] Parking. On sheet SP3, the 4 customer parking spaces at the rear, should not be labeled "customer parking ". Rather according to the ordinance, `Automobile Service station/truck repair' requires these spaces be labeled as "Service Parking ". Assure these are correctly labeled on sheet SP3. The table on 5 sheet SP2 does not appear to need modifications to address this. 30. [32.5.2(b), 32.6.2(i)] Parking. Sheet SP2, Parking Tabulations, please provide the total number required and total number provided for the entire site at the bottom of the parking tabulations chart. 31. [32.5.2(b), 32.6.2(i)] Parking. Sheet SP2, Parking Tabulations, to avoid confusion please revise the table to provide a row with all the mathematics already completed for the parking. Example for Proposed Truck Maintenance Facility: Requirement: 2 spaces per stall plus I space per employee Proposed Service Stalls 6 12 spaces Proposed Employees 16 16 spaces Parking Required 28 spaces Parking Provided 33 Spaces ARB - Margaret Maliszewski 1) Add the cut sheet for the light fixture labeled "I" to the plan. Enginering — Max Green 1. No objections E911— Andrew Slack 1. Approved VDOT — Troy Austin Comments pending ACSA — Alex Morrison Comments pending 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 cperezkalbemarle.org or 434 - 296 -5832 ext. 3443 for further information. 0